Dagsboro, DE – Vince Rodkey was elated when he learned a federal judge deemed it constitutional that the Indian River School Board open its meetings with a Christian prayer.
“This is a small victory in a huge battle — the battle to remove God from any kind of politics or political arena,” said the youth and family minister at Church of C.
The decision, announced Monday, ended a five-year legal battle. In a 57-page opinion, District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. threw out a lawsuit brought by “Jane and John Doe” against the school district that charged the board’s practice violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
Farnan found that the elected school board is closer to a legislative body than a school, and therefore a prayer is permissible.
“Although reasonable people can differ as to whether the board’s policy is wise, could be more inclusive or is actually necessary to solemnize board meetings, too much judicial fine-tuning of legislative prayer policies risks unwarranted interference in (a legislative body),” Farnan wrote.
Indian River School Board President Charlie Bireley said he feels like a gigantic weight has been lifted off the board’s shoulders.
“My personal opinion is they shouldn’t be offended,” he said. “We read a disclaimer to let everyone know that we’re going to pray and all they have to do is leave the room. No one is forced to listen (to the prayer).”
The lawsuit was first filed in 2005 by two Jewish families, “John and Jane Doe,” parents of a child in the school district, and by Mona and Marco Dobrich, who filed after a Christian prayer was offered at their daughter’s 2004 graduation.
It claimed the district created “an environment of religious exclusion” through the use of often explicitly Christian prayers at school board meetings, athletic events, banquets and graduation services.
The Dobriches claimed they were harassed, and so the judge allowed the second family to remain anonymous.
A year ago, the district settled the bulk of the lawsuit relating to its schools and school activities. The district made an undisclosed payment to the families, promised not to promote a specific religion and adopted new policies that the plaintiffs helped draft encouraging tolerance.
The settlement intentionally left out the issue of the school board praying before its meetings so it could be decided separately.
But Jerry Mueller, a Jewish parent, said he doesn’t agree with the ruling.
Prayers offered at school board meetings should be nondenominational, he said.
“There are a lot of generic prayers that allow people to pray to their chosen higher power,” he said. “I’m a human being who thinks we should act as a responsible community and try not to offend anyone.”
Attorney Thomas J. Allingham II, who represents the Doe plaintiffs, said his clients were disappointed by this long-awaited ruling.
“But we fully expect to appeal the decision to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, and we continue to believe in the merits of our challenges to the board’s prayer practices,” he said.
Bireley said all board members are Christian, but the group is open to recognizing future members who may practice other religions.
“We all take turns saying the prayer,” he said. “If we had a Jewish board member, he or she could say the opening prayer and we would not have a Christian prayer at that meeting.”
(Source: http://www.delmarvanow.com/)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
18 Responses
Hellooooo!
This IS a xtian country.
Face it.
Deal with it, orrrrrr…. maybe wake up and realize we should be in OUR OWN country
(which, yes, I know, is very far from the way it should be, — but IS still OUR country)>
It says in the Constitution; “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor restricting the free exercise thereof”.
Any law that would bann the prayers would be a law ‘regarding the establishment of religion’ and thus unconstitutional.
Such a law would also obviously ‘restrict the free exercise thereof”.
So this law was rightfully struck down by the courts because it is unconstitutional on not one but on two counts.
This court made the right decision.
It’s about time we realized that we can’t push around the Christian majority in this country, without creating deep resentments against our community.
hereorthere and deepthinker
i agree with you that we should not try to upset the christian majority, especially when the alternative is a completely atheistic system, which could have terrible consequences in the long run.
hereorthere, i’m not quite sure what you’re saying, that to ban the prayers would be the equivalent to establishing a religion? how so? it would seem that the constitution prohibited the gov’t to create a state religion of any kind, and also to restrict the freedom of it’s citizens to go to their place of worship and pray, this is a public institution, which is an extension of the gov’t itself, and there’s a much stronger case to be made that they would not be able to pray in the name of one specific deity, by name.
in the end, i do believe that it’s better for them to pray to the yoisel himself than for them to be completely atheistic, if given those two choices, but i don’t see why they can’t just use the word “G-d” or “almighty” and keep it non denominational.
as far as we’re concerned, we should try our best to be peaceful with the world, even if we just have to grin and bear it, no pun intended.
I agree with #3
And I’m especially frustrated at the attempts to have the content of the prayers changed since they the board members are all Christain. It’s America, let them say what they wantjust as we would not want anybody en
I agree with #3
And I’m especially frustrated at the attempts to have the content of the prayers changed since they the board members are all Christain. It’s America, let them say what they wantjust as we would not want anybody mixing in to our business.
Hanavon I did not say that banning the prayers would establish a religion (except for a liberal religion, like Gaytheism).
I said that is violated the constitutional clause against any law that would be passed ‘in regards’ to the establishment of religion.
A law against any religion is jsut as much a law that has some impact ‘regarding’ the ‘establishment’ of a religion as any law that would be in favor of it’s establishment.
So if the government themselves had specifically said they were goung to establish “the United States Chruch” for example.
That would be actually establishing a state religion to exclude all others.
Individuals who decide to start a meeting with prayers to their deity is not that knid of violation.
It used to be right after the founding of this country as a separate sovereign nation that on US military ships, they had twice daily Christian prayers, and anyone who did not stand quietly when they were held or who mocked the prayers was punished.
This was official US naval policy in the first 20-50 years (or more?) after the Declaration of Independence, was signed.
Even if the United States would declare itself a christian country, that wouldn’t either be unconstitutional. It’s obvious that the founding fathers of this country did view the country as a christian one. The constitution says that the state will not force people in any matters of religion. Consider what they had escaped. That is what they were trying to avoid.
#1, I beg to differ. On a macro level, Jews have no less an investment in this country than any other people. On a micro level, the homes we own and apartments we rent are no less ours than any other American, and, in fact, we do seek our rights with vim and vigor.
Finally, the youth and family minister of Church of C is a moron. This was not a battle to remove G-d from anything. And the irony to claim that in response to the interests of Jews is a classic case of audacity.
The ruling was antisemtic hidden behind the minister of Church of C’s phony statement.
Why don’t you peole just read the history of this country. It was founded by Protestant Calvinists who wanted to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Let’s not fall victim to the revisionist sophistry of our Reform-Jewish brothers!
If they want no Christian prayers in school, they need to send their kids to a real Jewish school that teaches Torah and Mitzvos. Yes, there’s the First Amendment, and it protects both the right to practice religion and to not have the government impose a particular religion on anyone. How those balance against each other has been debated for more than a half century now. But the fact is that the majority here is Christian, and most communities in America have long established customs that recognize that. Jews need to be stronger in our Judaism, as defined by Torah, instead of trying to make the Christian majority weaker.
B H descent goyim have more sechel than these non observasnt Jews, Its a Brocha that people start the day with thanks to G-d Its a Chr. country B H Hashem is coming back
hereorthere and deepthinker
hahaha, that’s funny, gaytheism, did you make that up?
deepthinker,
actually, the calvinists were not the founders of the united states at all, the founding fathers were all “deists” and were NOT religious. it is true that they founded the country in order to be free from religion, because the catholics in europe were waging war on protestants. this is not an example of reform revisionism at all! you should read some of the writings of thomas jefferson, john locke, kant, rouseau, hume, and the many other enlightenment thinkers upon whose philosophy the founding fathers based the constitution and bill of rights.
torahyid1
thats not a very torahdike way of looking at things at all, it’s appalling actually to hear someone say that when he calls himself a torah yid.
the non religious jews are afraid, and rightly so, of a brazen faced christian movement that will inevitably lead to antisemitism. it’s not the pshat that they’re just religious in a live and let live sort of way, they will always use that particular brand of religion to persecute the jews in the end, as it says in matthew “go not after the gentiles, go after the lost sheep of israel” we support christianity in the absence of religion, but be ware of christians who get too farfrumt.
to #8:
Actually, George Washington wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli that “the government of the United States ss not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. The Founding Fathers were deists, and definitely believed in a Creator. As such would likely have approved the recitation of non-denominational religious prayers, but not explicitly Christian ones–as the Dobrich and Doe families requested.
In point of fact, no one wanted to “remove G-d” from the political arena. The Jewish families were simply requesting that any official prayers offered during school board meetings be non-denominational ones. If Christians consider that tantamount to “removing G-d” from any political arena, that’s because they don’t define G-d the same way we Jews do, even if they use the same word (not that I would expect them to).
Hanavon in cemment #13 yes that is my coined word.
And no certainly at least some if not all of the Founding Fathers did believe in a creator and put that into the Constitution where it say that “all men are endowed by theior CREATOR, with certain inaleinable rights, etc…
#16 That is in the declaration of independence.
No reference to any deity in the Constitution.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution
It’s in the Declaration of Independence, written as one of this country’s founding documents by the same ones who wrote the Constitution.