Chalk up another one for the ACLU in its unrelenting crusade to drive religion out of public view. This time it got a federal judge to rule that Washington Community High school in Peoria, Illinois, had to cease its 80-year-old student-led prayer at graduation.
Last year it was an order forbidding students to lead a voluntary prayer for the football players just before the kickoff of a high school game.
The rationale for these cases and others is that such prayer in public "discriminates" against students of other faiths (or of none at all). But does it? These were student-proposed-and led prayers. The school did not mandate or promote them. If opinion polls are accurate, 90 percent or so of Americans say they believe in God. Of these, a huge majority consists of Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Their paths to God are different, but all believe in a single God. This leaves a few followers of other religions -- and the atheists.
In the case of the student-led prayers, a student who does not believe in one God (or believes in none) need not bow his or her head for the moment of prayer. So how does such a prayer discriminate or impinge upon the liberty of the student who does not participate? Compare it with what happened to the girl who was the plaintiff in the ACLU case in Peoria. She was also the class valedictorian and was booed on stage by her classmates.
Minority rights are deeply embedded in the American psyche. Unpopular views are protected by the U.S. Constitution -- but so is the free exercise of religion -- and there is nothing in the Constitution which says said exercise must take place only in a church, synagogue, or mosque. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Protecting the rights of those with a minority view is one thing; having those views always prevail over the those of the majority is another. In the matters of religion and politics, the ACLU may contend it is not anti-religious and is non-political, but its track record says otherwise. For example, in a feverish direct mail money pitch sent recently to members, it wrote, "With George W. Bush in the White House and religious conservative John Ashcroft in charge of the Justice Department, the outlook for personal rights and civil liberties could not be more troubling."
Meanwhile, its anti-religious crusade continues. A favorite tactic these days is to threaten to sue small cities and towns (there are about 4,000 of them) that four decades ago put up monuments containing the Ten Commandments. Some cave in, lacking the money to defend such law suits. Some fight back. A case in point is Elkhart, Indiana. Recently a federal court ruled that its Ten Commandments monument amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. It is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, with the help of the American Center for Law & Justice, a public interest law firm created as an antidote to the ACLU.
Erected in 1958, Elkhart's tablet had been covered by shrubbery until 1998, when city workers re-landscaped the park. A man riding by on a bicycle saw the tablet and filed an affidavit through the ACLU's Indiana affiliate, noting that he was "extremely upset and bothered" to see the Ten Commandments. While he did not fall off his bicycle, he and another fellow sued the city. His fellow-plaintiff says the monument should be sent to a museum or matched by another which commemorates "the deep and rich history of atheism."
Deep and rich history? Perhaps he has in mind Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the grand doyenne of atheism who was murdered for her cache of gold coins. Speaking of money, isn't it discriminatory for atheists to have to handle currency that bears the line "In God We Trust"? How about "In Mammon We Trust," in memory of Ms. O'Hair?