Prayer in School and Coercive Establishments:

I've been flirting with the notion that the Establishment Clause, as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids only "coercive Establishments," that the Clause does indeed mandate government neutrality between all religions and between religious and irreligious citizens, but only when some tangible right, some "Privilege or Immunity" is on the line. In other words, if a government action does nothing more than "offend," if it doesn't "pick the pocket" or "break the leg" of a citizen, maybe it's constitutional, even if not good public policy. After all, as a libertarian, even a "secularist" one, I think I need to offer more than, "this government act offends me" before it becomes a Federal Constitutional issue.

Let's turn to the issue of school prayer. Obviously, if the prayer is a mandatory exercise, in which the students are expected to participate, this is a tangible harm and shouldn't be allowed. You can't force a Jewish person to say a Christian prayer, or even a non-religious person to say any kind of prayer, even if non-denominational.

But what if it's a prayer, written by the school and recited over the loudspeaker where the students are expected only to sit back and listen. How is that any different than sitting back and listening to the administrative nonsense that public schools broadcast over their loudspeakers every morning.

I'm still inclined to believe this to be inherently coercive and thus unconstitutional...how do/did school prayers operate in the real world? Aren't the students supposed to participate in some manner at least by bowing their heads. And those who don't want to participate have to get up and leave (making them stand out like those Jehovah's Witnesses who sit down when everyone else is standing up during the Pledge of Allegiance)?

But let's say, for sake of argument, that prayers are non-coercive, that it does no harm to a Jew or a Muslim to have to sit and listen to an explicitly Christian prayer over the loudspeaker every morning. Let's further say that the Supreme Court allows this to go on in public schools, by overruling Engel v. Vitale and like rulings. How might the outcomes look in present day America?

Sure some school districts dominated by fundamentalists in a few states like Alabama would adopt explicitly Christian prayers and Jews, Muslims, and everyone else in the minority would have to listen to such Christian prayers, every morning.

But federalism and the institution of public education work in strange ways.

For instance, even though Mormons are a minority in this nation, in Utah, they comprise a majority, at least they do in certain parts, if not in the entire state. So what if a school board in Utah voted to adopt Mormon prayers, reading right from the Book of Mormon with Protestants and Catholics having to sit through readings of what they regard as a false religion. Now, one could say it would be more palatable to search for a Lowest Common Denominator between Mormons, Protestants and Catholics. That might be a good political principle. But I don't see how it holds any water as a constitutional principle. What sound constitutional principle could tell us that the reading of a Mormon prayer is unconstitutional but a more general Christian or Judeo-Christian prayer to be constitutional. If we are arguing for a Lowest Common Denominator standard, then the presence of one atheist or one polytheist will reduce the LCD to zero. And if government's "mere words" are not coercive and cause no harm, how is a Protestant fundamentalist harmed by having to listen to a Mormon or a Muslim prayer, in a way that an Atheist is not harmed by having to listen to any prayer or a polytheist harmed by having to listen to any Monotheistic prayer.

Thus, even though Christian prayers might dominate demographically, there will be plenty of individual instances of overtly Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim and Pagan prayers where through federalism, politics, and changing demographics, different factions manage to get their agendas passed in various states or through various local school boards.

Also keep in mind the politics of Public Education and Teachers Unions. They've embraced the diversity and multicultural ideal -- especially in places like the North-East and parts of California. Some of these places, no doubt, wouldn't have any prayer at all in school because they embrace secularism.

But I could also see some fuzzy-headed multiculturalist "re-thinking" the prayer issue, especially in response to some of the "horror stories" of fundamentalist prayers in Alabama. Some school administrator would construct a "multicultural" prayer to be read over the loudspeaker every morning where Jesus is mentioned along with Buddha, Allah, and Hindu Gods like Ganesh and Pagan Gods of the Earth.

Now the fundamentalists who go to such schools would have to listen to such prayers that I think they would regard as blasphemous and worse than having no prayer at all. But if the Constitution outlaws only government actions that cause tangible harms or deny actual privileges or rights, I don't see any difference between a fundamentalist being offended by what he regards as a blasphemous prayer and a Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Polytheist or Freethinker being offend by the reading of a Christian prayer.

So to the orthodox Christians who may read my blog: Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it. And "it" means having Jesus's name invoked in a government prayer with false demon Gods like Ganesh and Allah.