Mohawks' Thanksgiving Address may yield to intelligent compromise
These are the opening words to the Thanksgiving Address at the center of a persistent disagreement in the Salmon River Central School District.
"The words that come before all else" had been heard with the daily announcements and Pledge of Allegiance at the main campus and the St. Regis Mohawk Elementary School until a complaint came last year.
The passage was labeled a prayer by attorneys advising the School Board. The lawyers say its recital was a violation of the separation of church and state.
Mohawk students and parents say it is a cultural expression, not a prayer, and should be allowed.
16 comments:
Good for the Mohawk in this fight. I tend to err on the side of freedom of expression and tolerance, even if there is a chance that a bigot might not like what someone else says and scream about "church and state" in an effort to silence it.
Writerfella here --
Obviously, there is no 'separation of church and state' issue here, just one of 'the dominant society' and 'majority rule.' Though the white man makes all the rules, he expects all others to obey them while he schemes and plots to try to find ways around those rules for himself. No one can deny that aims of the Republican majority in Congress are to return Christian prayer to US schools, to insert Creationism and intelligent design 'concepts' into science textbooks, and to preserve and enforce the American Socialists' Pledge of Allegiance to include the phrase 'under God.' Moves are underway to amend that Pledge even further, to read, "...with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn." No doubt it is not long before it also reads, "...with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn, and to whom marriage is between one man and one woman."
If they somehow could work in the reputed 'war on terror' and 'weapons of mass destruction,' they would.
The real danger here is this: in 2009, the Pledge might read, "We pledge allegiance to the flag and the President of the United States of America, and to the Republic(ans) for which they stand..."
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
All paranoia aside, I have no problem with someone making a speech in public school and invoking whatever deity they want. The mention of deities that I do not believe in does not send me into an intolerant rage (at which point I pick up the phone and call the trigger-happy ACLU to enjoin in yet another frivolous lawsuit to censor speakers who name deities).
Writerfella here --
The intent of that part of the Constitution usually is taken to mean that government should advocate all religions, or advocate NONE. At best, it quite is a noble intent. At worst, it has spawned many ignoble attempts at circumvention, some to great success. Fundamentalist sects that mostly had abandoned The Old Testament portion of their Bibles because it was 'too Jewish,' found themselves advocating the displays of The Ten Commandments on public grounds and in public buildings. Suddenly, the Decalogue became a representation of Christianity, even though Christians did not exist when Charlton Heston came down from Mt. NRArarat.
And writerfella is a science fiction writer who knows logical extensions and probability theory. It is not paranoia to knock on your neighbors' doors if you smell smoke in the building.
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Actually, there is a "separation of church and state" issue here. A public school is a government-operated institution. Anytime someone utters a prayer under authority of a school, it's a church/state issue. That's why the Pledge of Allegiance case, a similar school conflict, went to the Supreme Court before it was tossed on technical grounds.
Writerfella here --
Always read writerfella carefully; I cannot be speed-read.
In my previous post, I spoke directly to the issue of the Mohawk blessing, which clearly is not a 'separation of church and state' matter. But it has been made victim to resentment over the removal of prayer from schools. I included no excuse for or defense of the Pledge of Allegiance or even Johnson's Wax Pledge. That I mentioned the alleged Pledge was to illustrate my point that he who has the Golden Rule makes the rules.
I attended El-Hi public school here in Oklahoma from 1948 -1959 and I very much remember the prayers that opened each day, then preceded lunch, and then closed the school day. My Kiowa maternal grandfather was a Baptist minister and I knew the prayers I had to endure in his Redstone Baptist Mission were little differing from the ones I had to endure in school. Consequently, when officially sanctioned prayers in schools were deemed to be Protestant in nature, I fully supported the decision under which such prayers finally were prohibited and removed.
I also was in school when the Pledge of Allegiance was altered to include the words, "...under God". It was explained by various teachers that both patriots and patriotism were 'Godly' and that was why the Pledge was changed by Congress. But I was suspicious.
Early on, because I had read science fiction from age 5, I knew a lot about science. My second grade science text said that, if the Earth stopped rotating, people and cars and buildings would just float off into space. I took the book to the teacher and told her it was wrong. Why, she asked? And I said because gravity always is there and does not come from motion or stillness. I was sent to the Principal's office for being 'disruptive.' I explained to him that mass attraction is not affected by rotation. He really was sympathetic but he said he would have to send a note to my parents. Then I asked him a question: are you saying that she was right? Yes, she was. I was shocked! I said, but that would mean that...teachers don't know everything! That's right, we don't. I was devastated!
So, when the Pledge was changed, I still found the courage to ask the teacher if that didn't make it just another prayer? And so I was sent to the Principal's office even faster for being 'disruptive.'
Quoting me, I posted, that "the white man makes all the rules (and) he expects all others to obey...while he schemes and plots to try to find ways around those rules for himself." It all harkens back to the anti-Socialist sci-fi satire, ANIMAL FARM, where George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) wryly observed in 1944 that "all animals are created equal, but some animals are created more equal than others..." He wrote that about Russia (and also England) and the obvious results of human evolution toward Socialism, but he might as well have been writing about the United States since 1962. That the Pledge of Allegiance, which was an American Socialist document written before 1900, is today so dear to 'the dominant society' totally is in keeping with Orwell's vision. And now, mine, as well...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
I guess it also depends on where you draw the line. If you get an occasional Christian prayer or Mohawk blessing as an official, but minor part of an occasional event, you are nothing other than an uptight intolerant twit if you get all bent out of shape about it or even go to the extent to enlist lawyers to waste everyone's time with a frivolous lawsuit. A place where an occasional public prayer (including one like the Mohawk address) takes place cannot be confused with a church.
Daily (or almost daily) led prayers? That's entirely out of line, and another matter altogether. A place with such (see Writerfella's El-Hi public school experience) does indeed start to seem like a church.
Does Rob see the Mohawk address as a prayer?
Russ wrote, "Obviously, there is no 'separation of church and state' issue here" without specifying what "here" referred to. I correctly noted that the First Amendment applies to any statement of religion under school authority--whether it's the Pledge of Allegiance, a Christian prayer, or the Mohawk address (if it is indeed a prayer).
As for whether it is a prayer, I'd say it's largely an issue of semantics. I could argue it either way.
Unlike "not a sioux," who would allow Christian prayers in school (but would wring his hands helplessly when schools banned prayers to Allah, Buddha, or Wicca), I'd err on the side of caution. I'd rather allow no prayers than "all" prayers, because authorities inevitably would decide which prayers were "good" and which weren't. But a compromise like the one mentioned in the article may be the best solution.
Incidentally, it's not "intolerance" if non-Christians, agnostics, and atheists have to tolerate Christian prayers while Christians don't have to tolerate anything. It's a violation of our right to be treated equally under the law. If "not a sioux" thinks this is a trivial violation of our rights, too bad. That's for us to decide, not him.
So "not a sioux" thinks an occasional prayer is okay but not a daily prayer? This begs the obvious question of how much prayer is too much. How about one prayer a week? Three prayers a week? A prayer every other day? Tell us where the dividing line is, since you seem to think you can draw a line between permissible and impermissible behavior.
Quoting Russ, I agree that "the white man makes all the rules (and) he expects all others to obey...while he schemes and plots to try to find ways around those rules for himself." This is why the libertarian ideal of no government is actually a prescription for "might makes right." In reality the rich and powerful would dominate the poor and weak, just as they did during the first century and a half of our history.
"...would wring his hands helplessly when schools banned prayers to Allah, Buddha, or Wicca..."
That's a mis-charactarization (intentional?), as I have made clear that my statements and views are completely neutral in regards to which religion is being expressed. The only religion I denigrated was Scientology, in fact.
As for the "trivial violation of rights", it is indeed trivial if the prayers (again: regardless of whether or not they are Christian) are a minor part of an occasional event. Here, the only "violation of your rights" is your right not to hear something that might offend you. That's intolerance.
You asked: "Tell us where the dividing line is, since you seem to think you can draw a line between permissible and impermissible behavior."
You mentioned the weekly prayer (or even more frequent prayer). I definitely draw the line at that. See what I earlier said about Writerfella's school experience in Oklahoma. I would not draw the line at an occasional/rare event where an individual (who is not representing the school) speaks a prayer into the microphone. This includes Muslim as well as Mohawk.
The libertarian ideal is actually a recognition of the problem that government already is "might makes right", and that very often government action is itself an instance of the powerful praying on the weak. If you apply the libertarian ideal to such events as the Trail of Tears, it would not have occured.
(heh. too much prayer discussion. That's PREYING, not praying!)
Writerfella here --
Name someone rich and powerful (or the child of someone rich and powerful) who has been sent to fight in Iraq. It is both the poor and the weak who have gone and so the last 80 years of American history are little differing at all.
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
You wouldn't wring your hands helplessly when schools banned non-Christian prayers, "not a sioux"? Then what would you do? File a lawsuit? Burst in with guns and take hostages? What?
I didn't mischaracterize your views. I showed you how foolish they were. Your position may be perfectly neutral, but that's not true of the people who enforce the laws. They, not you, would decide which prayers are valid and they, not you, would discriminate. And you'd be partly responsible for their discrimination because you would naively and incorrectly assume they'd be neutral, like you.
So "occasionally" is okay but not weekly? You still haven't drawn a dividing line. Give me the exact number of prayers per year that you'd consider constitutional. One a year? One a month? One every two weeks? What?
Students almost never represent a school, so that's not the issue. The key constitutional questions include how much students say at an event and whether attendance at the event is mandatory. As I understand it, a student can thank God briefly but can't proselytize other students.
The Trail of Tears wouldn't have happened if the US government were libertarian? Got news for you, pal. The government was largely libertarian then. If the federal government hadn't intervened, people at the state and local levels would've continued running roughshod over Indian rights.
Jackson claimed he was acting to protect Indian lives and interests. What he did was merely transfer the conflict from the Southeast to Oklahoma. But the fundamental problem wasn't his actions. It was the government's failure to protect minority rights--the same thing that would happen under any libertarian system.
I do not commonly use the "wringing of hands" description, and I might have missused it. But suffice it to say that banning speech is always a censorship issue.
" And you'd be partly responsible for their discrimination because you would naively and incorrectly assume they'd be neutral, like you." is a mischaractarization because I KNOW they are not neutral now. I'm speaking in favor of a tolerant attitude that should prevail, not in protection of one that I think exists.
Re: Trail of Tears. The libertarian movement is where you will find the loudest property-rights zealots. That is, those who defend property rights of the people when they are endangered by ruling elites who try to take the property. Also, even if it is more law enforcement (and less libertarian), this view tends to favor strict enforcement of laws against criminal trespass and thievery. With this in mind, the US government would have not forcibly moved the Cherokee, and it would strongly protected the property rights of the Cherokee from the white mobs trying to force them off their land (I side with libertarians on this)
The libertarian ideal of leaving matters to the people instead of the ruling elites would have been much better in other aspects of Native oppression as well, most notably religion. A government adhering to ideals of liberty would not have waged the many decades long war to eradicate Native spirituality while explicitly forcing Christian conversion (I side with libertarians on this issue)
You know officials aren't neutral, but you'd let them conduct occasional prayers, knowing they'd discriminate in favor of Christian prayers. That's the same as saying you favor Christian prayers. If you're neutral on religion, the only practical solution is to ban all prayers. That way officials can't discriminate in favor of Christianity.
I still don't see any dividing line. Where is it? I'm waiting....
I don't hear many (or any) libertarians speaking up for the Indians' right to run their own governments or control their own lands. Where are all the libertarians who support Indian sovereignty as the perfect example of local self-rule?
In reality, almost every so-called libertarian is a conservative/libertarian. These people favor small or big government depending on which one benefits them the most. It's usually big government, since "small government" leaders such as Reagan and Bush have led the recent expansion of federal power.
There seems to be a big difference between how you think the world should work and how it really does work. The reality is that most libertarians are hypocrites who favor their own interests over their so-called principles. Alas....
Actually, this wasn't made clear earlier: I do not support officials leading prayers. I don't think the government should waste time or money on this. However, if sometimes a Mohawk guest at an assembly invokes Mohawk spiritual concepts, or a student speaking at a graduation invokes the Christian God or Jesus, I'd not call for censoring it.
Re: "I don't hear many (or any) libertarians speaking up for the Indians' right to run their own governments or control their own lands"
Back in the early 1980s, I picked up an issue of a major Libertarian magazine. The cover story was about a Native Libertarian speaking about just this. Also, I would suspect that the libertarians are now opposing the casino restrictions/regulations.
(As a side issue, we haven't even discussed how libertarians want to zero out all welfare. I disagree with them on this, quite strongly)
The libertarians I speak with ALL condemn "big government....leaders such as Reagan and Bush"
re: "There seems to be a big difference between how you think the world should work and how it really does work"
It's a difference I know, and I am not confusing the two. Is it so bad to speak of wanting things to be better, while knowing that things now are not that way?
Back in the early '80s? That must be when libertarians still had principles.
You may know a few "pure" libertarians, but the conservative/libertarians who claim to be for "small government" are almost all hypocrites.
Post a Comment