How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

[Metaphor]

Secular religions are belief systems that include most or all of the trappings of religion but no particular belief in a deity.

An example is the prayer (Acknowledgment of Country) given to indigenous people in Australian workplaces before large/significant meetings or with meetings with external participants.

Acknowledgment of Country is not a prayer. Claiming that it is doesn't make it one.

It is a secular prayer. It functions much like 'grace' does before a meal for Christians. And, just like any conduct of public prayer in front of a captive audience, people are forced to endure it.

But worse, people are forced to utter it.

First "secular religion, now "secular prayer" How many more oxymorons do you have up your sleeve? Are national anthems secular hymns?

"Secular religion" is already an accepted term.

Definition of prayer​

1 : an address (such as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought

2 : the act or practice of praying to God or a god


No God, no prayer, except in the colloquial sense. If you are trying to convince us that the colloquial use of the word applies here, you haven't got a prayer.

I'm quite sure, Hermit, that the government forcing you to utter things you don't believe is like water off a duck's back.

But to me, it's prayer. And I'm an atheist.

 

[Hermit]

Are national anthems secular hymns?

Many national anthems are religious hymns.

No. They are national anthems. Hymns are songs of praise to God. Some national anthems include references to a god, but they are essentially songs of praise to a country.

 

[Hermit]

Secular religions are belief systems that include most or all of the trappings of religion but no particular belief in a deity.

An example is the prayer (Acknowledgment of Country) given to indigenous people in Australian workplaces before large/significant meetings or with meetings with external participants.

Acknowledgment of Country is not a prayer. Claiming that it is doesn't make it one.

It is a secular prayer. It functions much like 'grace' does before a meal for Christians. And, just like any conduct of public prayer in front of a captive audience, people are forced to endure it.

But worse, people are forced to utter it.

First "secular religion, now "secular prayer" How many more oxymorons do you have up your sleeve? Are national anthems secular hymns?

"Secular religion" is already an accepted term.

It's an accepted oxymoron like "deafening silence", "virtual reality", "fight for peace", "military intelligence" et cetera. All of them make sense only as colloquialisms.

 

[Ford]

Secular religions are belief systems that include most or all of the trappings of religion but no particular belief in a deity.

An example is the prayer (Acknowledgment of Country) given to indigenous people in Australian workplaces before large/significant meetings or with meetings with external participants.

Acknowledgment of Country is not a prayer. Claiming that it is doesn't make it one.

It is a secular prayer. It functions much like 'grace' does before a meal for Christians. And, just like any conduct of public prayer in front of a captive audience, people are forced to endure it.

But worse, people are forced to utter it.

First "secular religion, now "secular prayer" How many more oxymorons do you have up your sleeve? Are national anthems secular hymns?

"Secular religion" is already an accepted term.

It's an accepted oxymoron like "deafening silence", "virtual reality", "fight for peace", "military intelligence" et cetera. All of them make sense only as colloquialisms.

Or in the case of this thread, "one man band."

 

[Copernicus]

From a linguistic perspective, there is nothing wrong in principle with oxymorons like "secular religion". Words and expressions often take on meanings that contradict their original or literal meanings. We even have the term "contronym" to denote words that take on opposite meanings in context, e.g. the word "sanction", which can mean either "permit" or "penalize" in different contexts. The problem is that religious beliefs and political beliefs can be dogmatic, so it is possible to broaden the meaning of "religion" to just something like "social dogma", and "secular religion" then makes more sense as an expression. However, people can get caught up in terminological disputes, insisting that words mean different things in the same context, and that is where the courts come in.

A court will need to interpret what the word "establishment of religion" means in the First Amendment, which broadly covers both freedom of religious expression and freedom of political expression. In a way, the legal profession is largely about linguistic usage, because laws are supposed to be encoded in language, which is notoriously dependent on context for interpretation. And one can get wrapped up in how much a modern interpretation of an 18th century expression should be about the "original intent" of the framers and their historical context in a modern context. The answer to that is seldom easy. It seems clear to me that "religion" really referred to a social institution with a theological doctrine behind it, not just broad political speech. The Supreme Court, in this case, has the power to reinterpret not just the meaning of "religion", but any expressions and words in the Constitution, and there is very little that anyone can do to stop them from simply wiping out rights and precedents that have been in place for decades. I doubt that their decision, if it tries the protect the coach's religious activity in this case, will just be limited to a coach uttering a private prayer on the sidelines. It will be about the ability of schools to host religious activities in their tax-supported facilities.

ETA: Note that the term "secular humanism" has already been declared a valid form of religion by a past Supreme Court. The term is broadly interpreted to mean that atheists have the same rights as religious believers in the US. However, that term was coined by Anglicans to refer to moral behavior not grounded in religion. It didn't actually refer to an atheist dogma. Since that time, it has been embraced by many atheists and agnostics as applying to their own situation.

 

[Hermit]

From a linguistic perspective, there is nothing wrong in principle with oxymorons like "secular religion".

Yes. And people know what is meant by that expression, but it is not what the US constitution refers to in the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

 

[Bomb#20]

So, then, are we all on board with having laws authorizing the courts to enforce the principle that, as Justice Jackson wrote, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or low, can prescribe what should be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other issues of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith there."?

Nobody seems to be disputing her statement.

It was the other Justice Jackson, the one Roosevelt appointed.

Why do you think it relevant to bring it up here?

I just can't help wondering whether the operative concepts that are causing no one to be disputing it are Jackson's concepts -- "issues of opinion" and "force citizens to confess by word or act their faith there". Or is it rather the concepts getting invoked in the thread -- "the Right", "Christian", "Prayer", "religion", "church" and "an attack against people like us and our children" -- that are causing no one to be disputing it?

Slate accused the Christian Right of "flipping the First Amendment on its head". It seems all of us here are agreed that it is wrong for the Christian Right to flip the First Amendment on its head.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are national anthems secular hymns?

Nah, they're country music!

 

[Bomb#20]

First "secular religion, now "secular prayer" How many more oxymorons do you have up your sleeve? Are national anthems secular hymns?

Definition of prayer​

1 : an address (such as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought

2 : the act or practice of praying to God or a god


No God, no prayer, except in the colloquial sense. If you are trying to convince us that the colloquial use of the word applies here, you haven't got a prayer.

So if a Buddhist doesn't believe in gods but he spins his prayer wheels and chants his mantras because that's how Siddhartha taught us to pursue our personal journeys toward Enlightenment, then that doesn't count as prayer, except in the colloquial sense, why? Because Merriam-Webster was written from the perspective of middle-Eastern religions instead of far-Eastern ones?

 

[Copernicus]

...Slate accused the Christian Right of "flipping the First Amendment on its head". It seems all of us here are agreed that it is wrong for the Christian Right to flip the First Amendment on its head.

I think that those on the Christian right would say that it is liberal anti-Christian bigots who "flip the First Amendment". This is a very common theme among them--that anything that tends to impede their right to proselytize their doctrine can be interpreted as an attempt to "prohibiting the exercise" of religion. Consider the actual words of the First Amendment, especially the part that I put in boldface:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, suppose that you are a devoutly religious Supreme Court justice, or one just hellbent on sticking it to those godless liberals. IMO, we've got both on the Supreme Court today. You can easily apply that bolded part to establish a claim that schools ought to allow voluntary religious services in public schools. There might be some debate over whether atheist students ought to be allowed the same option to "practice their faith", but that's not an issue that a Supreme Court Justice for Life need concern himself or herself about. If necessary, they could just declare that atheism isn't really a religion and is therefore a moot issue.

I once met an Australian atheist who told me that he needed to sign a court document in Indonesia that required him to declare his religion. He tried to claim atheism, but the bureaucrat insisted that atheism wasn't a valid option. So he had to pick a Christian denomination in order to meet the requirement. The language of the First Amendment could be tweaked to give students a kind of Hobson's choice in what they could count as a protected religious practice. I'm stretching my imagination on this, but not all that far.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think that those on the Christian right would say that it is liberal anti-Christian bigots who "flip the First Amendment". This is a very common theme among them--that anything that tends to impede their right to proselytize their doctrine can be interpreted as an attempt to "prohibiting the exercise" of religion.

Yes; but I think all of us here agree that their opinion on that point is poorly reasoned.

Consider the actual words of the First Amendment, especially the part that I put in boldface:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, suppose that you are a devoutly religious Supreme Court justice, or one just hellbent on sticking it to those godless liberals. IMO, we've got both on the Supreme Court today.

Seems likely. We'll have to see how it plays out though -- SCOTUS members often surprise the people who install them.

You can easily apply that bolded part to establish a claim that schools ought to allow voluntary religious services in public schools.

Sure, but only by failing to apply the unbolded part right before it about "respecting an establishment of religion". An awful lot of people across the religious and political spectra seem to be convinced that their right to freely speak and freely exercise their own views includes a right to have their speech and exercise be paid for by the state, while simultaneously being equally convinced that their opponents' right to freely speak and freely exercise the opposing views does not include any symmetrical right to have that speech and exercise be paid for by the state. "Free" in common usage appears to stand for three distinct concepts:

1. I get to do what I want.
2. You get to do what I want.
3. You get to do what you want.

Most people who think of themselves as in favor of freedom appear to care a lot about 1 and 2. 3, not so much.

There might be some debate over whether atheist students ought to be allowed the same option to "practice their faith", but that's not an issue that a Supreme Court Justice for Life need concern himself or herself about. If necessary, they could just declare that atheism isn't really a religion and is therefore a moot issue.

I once met an Australian atheist who told me that he needed to sign a court document in Indonesia that required him to declare his religion. He tried to claim atheism, but the bureaucrat insisted that atheism wasn't a valid option. So he had to pick a Christian denomination in order to meet the requirement. The language of the First Amendment could be tweaked to give students a kind of Hobson's choice in what they could count as a protected religious practice. I'm stretching my imagination on this, but not all that far.

If our courts find themselves needing to rule on whether something is or isn't really a religion, that's a red flag that our jurisprudence has taken a wrong turn.

 

[bilby]

Are national anthems secular hymns?

Many national anthems are religious hymns.

No. They are national anthems. Hymns are songs of praise to God. Some national anthems include references to a god, but they are essentially songs of praise to a country.

God Save the King (or Queen) is very clearly a hymn. It's a prayer set to music. And it barely mentions the country, with one reference to reigning over "us" and one to defending "our laws" being as close as it gets. It's a call for divine support for the person of the monarch.

National anthems that praise a country, without reference to the seeking of divine support for it, tend to be those written in the twentieth century; Older anthems are usually hymns.

The very etymology of the word 'anthem' reflects this: Originally from Latin (probably via French) meaning a verse-response song, by the C14th it meant "a composition (usually from Scripture) set to sacred music" and by the end of the C16th "song of praise or gladness". It came to be used in reference to the English national song, which as I point out above is itself a hymn, and was then extended in meaning to refer to the national hymns of other countries, and later still to national songs that might not be hymns.

 

[Copernicus]

Secular governments are a relatively modern phenomenon. Throughout most of human history, religion has always been closely tied to nations and governments. The US Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by John Locke, who supported religious tolerance but excluded tolerance of atheism. (See John Locke and the Atheist Exception.) But the US Constitution was more greatly modeled after David Hume's political and religious ideas. (See Hume on Religion.) That's why religious conservatives who maintain that the US was founded as a "Christian nation" tend to cite the Declaration of Independence a lot and take a fuzzier view on the role of religion in the Constitution. The Church of England and Anglicanism was not very popular among the revolutionaries, because the head of the church was the English monarch. The Episcopalian church is essentially an American version of the Church of England, but with closer ties to Scotland. (I myself was raised as an Episcopalian, served as an altar boy in childhood, and was confirmed at the age of 12, shortly before I was deemed old enough to no longer have to put up with it.)

 

[bilby]

Secular governments are a relatively modern phenomenon. Throughout most of human history, religion has always been closely tied to nations and governments. The US Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by John Locke, who supported religious tolerance but excluded tolerance of atheism. (See John Locke and the Atheist Exception.) But the US Constitution was more greatly modeled after David Hume's political and religious ideas. (See Hume on Religion.) That's why religious conservatives who maintain that the US was founded as a "Christian nation" tend to cite the Declaration of Independence a lot and take a fuzzier view on the role of religion in the Constitution. The Church of England and Anglicanism was not very popular among the revolutionaries, because the head of the church was the English monarch. The Episcopalian church is essentially an American version of the Church of England, but with closer ties to Scotland. (I myself was raised as an Episcopalian, served as an altar boy in childhood, and was confirmed at the age of 12, shortly before I was deemed old enough to no longer have to put up with it.)

Yeah, the head of the Church of Scotland is the Scottish monarch, who (since 1605) is the same person as the English monarch.

But I can see why the Episcopalian church didn't want to shout about that bit.

 

[Hermit]

So if a Buddhist doesn't believe in gods but he spins his prayer wheels and chants his mantras because that's how Siddhartha taught us to pursue our personal journeys toward Enlightenment, then that doesn't count as prayer, except in the colloquial sense, why?

Because reciting mantras are not prayers. Don't be misled by the English expression, "prayer wheel". Wikipedia's article itself points the mistake out:

The common term, “prayer wheel” is a double misnomer. A long strip of rolled-up paper bearing printed or inscribed mantras rather than prayers, per se, is inside the cylinder. The term “mantra mill”, in contrast to “prayer wheel”, is perhaps a better translation of the Tibetan 'khor-lo, since a "mill" refers to a turning process that generates a particular output, in this case generating merit.

The Tibetan word for the device is འཁོར་ལོ།, and no proper translation includes the word "prayer". Google Translate doesn't do Tibetan, but you can insert the word in this Tibetan to English Translation Tool. It is free and very thorough.

 

[Hermit]

Are national anthems secular hymns?

Many national anthems are religious hymns.

No. They are national anthems. Hymns are songs of praise to God. Some national anthems include references to a god, but they are essentially songs of praise to a country.

God Save the King (or Queen) is very clearly a hymn. It's a prayer set to music. And it barely mentions the country, with one reference to reigning over "us" and one to defending "our laws" being as close as it gets. It's a call for divine support for the person of the monarch.

It's a secular hymn at best. The original lyrics (published in 1745):

God save great George our king,
Long live our noble king,
God save the king.
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the king!

Today's standard version:

Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen!

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!

It is not a religious hymn. It's an anthem. While it contains an intercessional request addressed to God, the essential ingredient of a religious hymn is missing.

A hymn is a type of song, usually religious and partially coincident with devotional song, specifically written for the purpose of adoration or prayer, and typically addressed to a deity or deities, or to a prominent figure or personification. The word hymn derives from Greek ὕμνος (hymnos), which means "a song of praise".

National anthems that praise a country, without reference to the seeking of divine support for it, tend to be those written in the twentieth century; Older anthems are usually hymns.

The very etymology of the word 'anthem' reflects this: Originally from Latin (probably via French) meaning a verse-response song, by the C14th it meant "a composition (usually from Scripture) set to sacred music" and by the end of the C16th "song of praise or gladness". It came to be used in reference to the English national song, which as I point out above is itself a hymn, and was then extended in meaning to refer to the national hymns of other countries, and later still to national songs that might not be hymns.

Thanks for outlining how anthems have changed over the centuries. It looks like on their way from being "a composition (usually from Scripture) set to sacred music" they have morphed into "song of praise or gladness". In the case of God Save the King (or Queen) the target of praise is not God. It's the noble King or Queen.

(All emphases are added by me.)

 

[Ford]

Secular governments are a relatively modern phenomenon. Throughout most of human history, religion has always been closely tied to nations and governments. The US Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by John Locke, who supported religious tolerance but excluded tolerance of atheism. (See John Locke and the Atheist Exception.) But the US Constitution was more greatly modeled after David Hume's political and religious ideas. (See Hume on Religion.) That's why religious conservatives who maintain that the US was founded as a "Christian nation" tend to cite the Declaration of Independence a lot and take a fuzzier view on the role of religion in the Constitution.

Religious conservatives in the US tend to stop reading the Declaration of Independence after it says "endowed by their Creator" and rarely skip ahead to the next part. "See! It says Creator! That's our God! Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like Jesus said!!!"

They never, ever quote the part where it says "that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men," because implicit in that statement is 'ole Tommy Jefferson's deist belief that the "Creator" was a spectator god who didn't get involved. Modern evangelicals think the Almighty steps in at the end of their kids' high school football game and decides the outcome, so it is no wonder that they avoid the idea of an uninterested deity who says "I dunno, you guys figure it out for yourselves."

The Constitution? It starts out by taking the "consent of the governed" thing from the Declaration and enshrining it in the first 3 words of the preamble, making "we the people" the ultimate authority....no god (or clergy) needed. As Ingersoll pointed out, the American founders sought to "retire the gods from politics" by rejecting divine authority as the source of power. Kinda hard to square with the idea of a "king of kings."

 

[bilby]

Are national anthems secular hymns?

Many national anthems are religious hymns.

No. They are national anthems. Hymns are songs of praise to God. Some national anthems include references to a god, but they are essentially songs of praise to a country.

God Save the King (or Queen) is very clearly a hymn. It's a prayer set to music. And it barely mentions the country, with one reference to reigning over "us" and one to defending "our laws" being as close as it gets. It's a call for divine support for the person of the monarch.

It's a secular hymn at best. The original lyrics (published in 1745):

God save great George our king,
Long live our noble king,
God save the king.
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the king!

Today's standard version:

Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen!

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!

It is not a religious hymn. It's an anthem. While it contains an intercessional request addressed to God, the essential ingredient of a religious hymn is missing.

A hymn is a type of song, usually religious and partially coincident with devotional song, specifically written for the purpose of adoration or prayer, and typically addressed to a deity or deities, or to a prominent figure or personification. The word hymn derives from Greek ὕμνος (hymnos), which means "a song of praise".

National anthems that praise a country, without reference to the seeking of divine support for it, tend to be those written in the twentieth century; Older anthems are usually hymns.

The very etymology of the word 'anthem' reflects this: Originally from Latin (probably via French) meaning a verse-response song, by the C14th it meant "a composition (usually from Scripture) set to sacred music" and by the end of the C16th "song of praise or gladness". It came to be used in reference to the English national song, which as I point out above is itself a hymn, and was then extended in meaning to refer to the national hymns of other countries, and later still to national songs that might not be hymns.

Thanks for outlining how anthems have changed over the centuries. It looks like on their way from being "a composition (usually from Scripture) set to sacred music" they have morphed into "song of praise or gladness". In the case of God Save the King (or Queen) the target of praise is not God. It's the noble King or Queen.

(All emphases are added by me.)

WTF?

The definition of 'Hymn', that you just posted as a refutation of my claim that God Save the King is a hymn, is a perfect and exact fit for the song in question, and leaves exactly no doubt that GStK is a Hymn.

And no 'secular hymn' either - it mentions God as the very first fucking word.

 

[Copernicus]

Secular governments are a relatively modern phenomenon. Throughout most of human history, religion has always been closely tied to nations and governments. The US Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by John Locke, who supported religious tolerance but excluded tolerance of atheism. (See John Locke and the Atheist Exception.) But the US Constitution was more greatly modeled after David Hume's political and religious ideas. (See Hume on Religion.) That's why religious conservatives who maintain that the US was founded as a "Christian nation" tend to cite the Declaration of Independence a lot and take a fuzzier view on the role of religion in the Constitution. The Church of England and Anglicanism was not very popular among the revolutionaries, because the head of the church was the English monarch. The Episcopalian church is essentially an American version of the Church of England, but with closer ties to Scotland. (I myself was raised as an Episcopalian, served as an altar boy in childhood, and was confirmed at the age of 12, shortly before I was deemed old enough to no longer have to put up with it.)

Yeah, the head of the Church of Scotland is the Scottish monarch, who (since 1605) is the same person as the English monarch.

But I can see why the Episcopalian church didn't want to shout about that bit.

Actually, it was a bit more complicated than that, and I was always confused about the differences between Anglicanism and Episopalianism, which both take their ecclesiastical traditions from the Church of England. However, the Episcopal Church was founded after the Revolution and completely split off from any connection to the Church of England. It just takes its traditions from the Scottish branch, whereas Anglicans tend to be more English-influenced. Neither Anglicans nor Episcopalians had any connection to the British monarch after the Revolution, but there were still a lot of people left in the US who felt loyalty to the British monarchy. The Episcopal Church must have felt itself to have made a cleaner break, I suppose.

 

[Copernicus]

Getting back on topic, this NPR article does a more detailed job of describing the events in question and looking at both sides of the issue:

The Supreme Court ponders the right to pray on the 50-yard line​

It isn't yet clear whether the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court will use this lawsuit to reimpose prayer sessions in public schools, and it isn't just a concern for atheists. Any minority religion is going to feel crowded out by the majority of Christians seeking to promote their faith, as was quite evidently the case with this coach's seemingly innocuous behavior of having a "private prayer" at the 50 yard line after each game. However, the conservative bloc is quite unanimously Christian, and they probably won't feel much empathy for those minority religions and for nonbelievers who might be inconvenienced by all the Jesus bombing. They are just going to have to learn to duck and cover when the calls to prayer start.