THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, August 3, 1996 TAG: 9608020080
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E6 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: Issues of Faith
SOURCE: Betsy Wright
LENGTH: 88 lines
Last Week's Issue of Faith: My concerns over a proposed constitutional amendment that proponents hope will clarify the role of religion in American public life, including school prayer.
This Week's Reader Responses:
From Theodore R. Wolf of Virginia Beach: ``Reason Number Five (for not having prayer in schools): There are more than 200 denominations of Christian churches in the U.S.A. Can you imagine devising a prayer that would satisfy the fine lines of distinction of 200 different interpretations of Christianity? Not to mention the even more divine views of non-Christian religions.''
From Rona K. Proser, a rising sophomore at Kempsville High School in Virginia Beach: ``I am a big supporter of the separation of church and state, and believe that no form of religion belongs in a public school. I don't want Christians to force their religion upon me, as would happen if prayer were allowed in school. . . .
``Christians, as least in my school, already have the chance to express their religion. They have morning prayer group in the cafeteria and Bible Club one afternoon a week. They also `witness' and try to convert non-Christians such as myself. When issues like prayer in school come up, you need to think of how it will affect Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and (other non-Christians).''
From attorney Keith A. Fournier, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice in Virginia Beach: ``I was so disappointed in your July 27 column. . . . No one is proposing the `legislation' of prayer in school. The amendment has nothing to do with school-sponsored, or congressionally drafted `prayers.' The amendment is simply a response to very poor judicial decisions of late which have seriously impeded religious freedom. . . .
``You maintain that the amendment is an attempt to `appease conservative Christian voters.' That simply is not true. Many `liberal' and `conservative' voters, Democrats and Republicans, support this amendment. Why? Because they do not want to see continued hostility toward faith and the values informed by faith in the marketplace. . . .
``(This amendment) is about leveling the playing field and attempting to right a serious wrong which has been occasioned by poorly reasoned judicial opinions. Rather than a jurisprudence of accommodation (which was clearly the standard and norm intended both within the text of the first amendment and over two hundred years of judicial interpretation), we have created an environment of hostility. . . .''
(Columnist's Note: Fournier also sent a copy of the testimony of ACLJ chief counsel Jay Alan Sekulow before the July 23 House subcommittee meeting, mentioned in last week's column. In his testimony, Sekulow gave reasons why the amendment should be adopted, citing numerous examples where citizens have been denied their religious liberties. For a copy of that testimony, contact the ACLJ at 579-2489.)
From Edward G. Kreyling Jr. of Virginia Beach: ``I believe the issue is not prayer in schools but the attempt to exclude God from the public schools. We may have different beliefs as to the nature of God, but almost all believe that there is a supreme being to whom we are accountable. . . .''
From Jim Grace of Virginia Beach: ``Everyone seems to assume that new words in the Constitution will improve the current situation relative to the relationship between church and state in these United States. This is quite a misunderstanding of how the system works. It is not the words, but the interpretation of those words (by the Supreme Court), which will impact religious freedom within our society. . . . We are not dealing with word-smithing here. We are dealing with hardened hearts. Hopefully, those hearts will hear the cries of the masses and take heed in future interpretations set before them. Each one of us should therefore take comfort in our particular religious body, hold fast to our beliefs and pray that God will guide the hearts of those within the court who interpret today's words, and tomorrow's.''
From Thomas Roper of Virginia Beach: ``Throughout the country, children prayed in public schools. The teachers were told by the government leaders that in order to return to traditional family values, prayer would be the order of the day. Those students who refused to pray were to be excused, but their names were noted by the teachers and their classmates. The time and place? Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Those devotional exercises had no humanizing restraint on the alumni of those schools. Many became some of the most savage Nazi barbarians. . . .
``The pressure for public prayer . . . is a screen for `officials' to say that religion is to be preferred over non-religion. And if religion is to be preferred, someone has to decide which religion that will be.''
From Rabbi Israel Zoberman of Congregation Beth Chaverim of Virginia Beach: ``I believe that God should, indeed, be present in our public educational system, but not in a subjective manner upholding a certain religious approach clearly identified or nebulous. . . . The cause of religion is best served when its teachings and guidelines are expounded upon in one's church, synagogue and mosque, where interpretation is offered according to one's traditions.'' by CNB