Lieberman and Prayers -- His Speeches vs. Prayer in School

[dc sports]

I caught VP nominee Lieberman on TV this morning -- and he had a question put to him about religion. The anchor (I think Katie Couric) asked how he justified giving a prayer in several speeches, when he supported the Supreme Court ruling on banning them at school events.

Lieberman responded by saying that it was two completely different situations. He was exercising his right to free speech by giving a spontaneous prayer, and in football games and graduation ceremonies, it was included "in a more organized manner."

The more I think about this, the less it makes sense. The Supreme Court has indicated that the defining criteria as far as schools goes is that the prayer isn't organized by school officials (including student officials) and doesn't use the broadcast or public address systems. Apparently (and it hasn't gone back to the Supreme Court yet) prayer outside of these guidelines is OK, and doesn't violate the principle of separation of church and state.

Yet in Lieberman's case, he is the focal part of the speeches. The sessions are organized by his staff / supporters, and he is the one who determines the content of his speech. He does use public address systems, and has no problem broadcasting his prayers.

How are the two cases different? Why can't a student, or school official, exercise their right to free speech, and give a "spontaneous" prayer over the public address system at a football game? Does Mr. Lieberman have special authority to determine which prayers are spontaneous, and which are organized?

My problem isn't with either group saying a prayer -- personally, I think both should be allowed. But, I don't like Mr. Lieberman applauding the Supreme Court ruling on one hand, then trying to differentiate between that and what he does.


Related story from MSNBC: Does God Belong on the Stump http://www.msnbc.com/news/454682.asp

------------------
Stay Cool...

[Achebe]

I would argue that Lieberman's speeches don't fall up under the law, in that they aren't state sanctioned.

But the democrats just accepted $65 Million dollars from the FEC (rather than using their own money). It sounds as if you have a point there dc sports.

My conclusion, though, happens to be different. I don't want prayer in schools, and I certainly don't want to have to listen to it when I'm evaluating candidates to be the VP. Politicians should know better than to marginalize the American atheist.

------------------

[dc sports]

Achebe, I agree that it's within the letter of the law -- and it has to be. Congress can't touch religion, leaving it generally up to the Supreme Court to rule on such cases.

The thing that gets me is that he didn't try to argue legality -- which it is, or ethics -- where it's questionable, but probably OK.

It bothers me that he measured himself by the yardstick issued by the Supreme Court on prayer and school -- and distorted the rule. He said that it was OK for him to mix prayer and political office, because he didn't plan it -- it's spontaneous. He also said he was exercising his right to free speech -- in the same manner denied to schoolchildren.

------------------
Stay Cool...

[This message has been edited by dc sports (edited September 05, 2000).]

[rimbaud]

Achebe,

Politicians do not care about alienating the "American Atheists." They do just fine without those votes. Simply a non-factor.

What is the difference with Lieberman giving a prayer and every president I have ever heard ending his speech with "God bless you all, and God bless America!"

We are simply used to the latter - just like thinking that the Pledge of Allegiance is secular and not a useless tool of prapaganda. It is simply "normal."

The question, then, is "what is the point?" If it is said so much that it is just another meaningless soundbyte, why waste our time? Add it all up and it probably would amount to months of our lifetimes.

Blah!

So sleepy.

------------------
Talking to a dead hare about art

[Achebe]

Rimbaud,

I have to admit that atheists probably make up 0.025% of the electorate ( http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/biggrin.gif) but it seems as if there would be a significant portion of people that would be turned off by such jargon.

It all seems pretty ridiculous to me. I would think that Lieberman could make a more sophisticated argument for his actions than the one that dc sports cites:

He (Lieberman) was exercising his right to free speech by giving a spontaneous prayer, and in football games and graduation ceremonies, it was included "in a more organized manner."

If the keyword is "spontaneous" then I would think that alot of schools will be able to spontaneously break the law tomorrow. Maybe, just maybe, they'll choose to do it again the next day. What a joke.

Public figures shouldn't be held to an unreasonable standard when it comes to their GOD. However, there is a bizarre line that is taking shape. If 'state sanctioned' is the criteria with which the Supreme Court uses to outlaw organized prayer at school events, what then should the Supreme Court think of FEC cash going to the major parties' coffers? If you're a public figure on the campaign trail, virtually anything you say could be considered campaigning on the people's money. Strange.

------------------