I thought it would be appropriate if the first AFA article I looked at dealt with the Separation of Church and State in the US. Personally, I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state. I think it's an excellent idea. By forcing religion and prayer out of schools, you are not isolating anyone simply because they are of a different faith. These children might feel isolated enough as it is, and having school prayers would only magnify this feeling. It also allows for less prejudice in schools. Now, it's true that prejudices aren't caused simply by prayers in schools, but, by allowing religion into schools, you are increasing the possibility that faith will become relevant to either teachers or fellow students. We do not go to school in order to pray. Most of us go to school to learn things like Math or Science. Things which are independent of religion and which religion really has no bearing on (1+1=2 whether I believe in God or not). Here in Canada, there is no law separating church and state. It is my firm belief however that such a law is a good idea. The AFA, of course, disagrees with me.
Reverend Rooney tackles the issue of prayer in schools in exactly the way you would expect a religious fanatic to behave. He believes that the law is "the height of intolerance to refuse to allow others to even hear another persons prayers." He also believes that "it is right [for Christians] to pray openly and publicly at home, church, and at school." Not a response I was terribly surprised to see. I must say however, that the way he defended his views was rather... well... silly. Rooney examines points which many use to defend the separation of church and state and then goes on to show why these reasons are not enough to support the law in question.
In his second paragraph, he addresses the issue that many believe Jesus was against public prayer. Rooney claims that this belief is false. According to him, what Jesus was actually against, was hypocrisy (which would mean he was against all religious fundamentalists, but that's another story). He says that Jesus was against those who prayed "in order to be seen by men." That is, he was against those who prayed insincerely. Jesus himself DID pray aloud in public. Therefore, we should not condemn prayer in schools. Of course, Rooney fails to see the irony of his point. If prayer was again performed in schools, then the amount of 'insincere' praying would sky rocket. For example, let's say that at the beginning of every school day, students are to recite a prayer. Well, that means every child who prays just because he/she is told to, is praying 'insincerely', which according to Rooney (and apparently Jesus) is a sin. After all, just because a child recites a prayer, doesn't mean he or she believes it. Prayer in school can't force children to pray SINCERELY in school. That is up to them and them alone. Those who want to pray sincerely to God during school can and often do, pray silently.
In his third paragraph, Rooney addresses the issue that prayer in schools can be an intrusion in the life of a person of another faith. Rooney does not disagree with the statement and simply goes on to explain that there are so many things which are intrusive, but which are not outlawed. Basically, he's using the "But EVERYONE is doing it!" argument. I bet Rooney fell victim to peer pressure a lot as a child. He says that "Yes, public prayer is intrusive to some people. But so are commercials. So are sports commentators. I found the views of some of my teachers in high school, college, and seminary to be offensive and intrusive." Mr. Rooney clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about. First and most importantly, commercials are not designed to further one religious group over another. With the exception of commercials on religious networks, commercials very rarely target a single religious group. You don't see "Jesus Toothpaste: Toothpaste of the Messiah!" Most commercials try to appeal to as many people as possible. Commercials may be intrusive, but they don't try to make one religious group sound more important than another. By having prayer in schools, you are only trying to appeal to the Christians and no one else. Second, there is a mute button you can press when you don't like sports announcers and commercials. There is no mute button in public schools. Third, Mr. Rooney's claim that he found teachers in high school, college and seminary to be intrusive and offensive deals with his PERSONAL beliefs, not the beliefs of a majority over a minority. If I find the word "stupid" to be offensive, it's not the same situation as someone who has 30 people calling him a "dirty Jew" or a "dirty Black". Both can be offensive and intrusive, but when a minority is being oppressed or ignored by a majority, then it becomes a problem. That's the problem with prayer in schools. It ignores the religious views of the minority in favour of the majority's. And, what I find most ironic is that Rooney claims that while movies, commercials and television are intrusive, no tries to outlaw them, but the AFA DOES try to outlaw these things when they find them to be "intrusive". The AFA has a section of their website devoted entirely to the boycott of Disney. Why would they boycott Disney? Well, because Disney hired Martin Scorsese, who was the director of The Last Temptation of Christ! Since the AFA found this movie to be "intrusive" and "offensive", they were outraged at Disney just for hiring the film's director! Well, maybe it's just me, but that makes Mr. Rooney sounds like quite the large hypocrite (which, as we know, Jesus doesn't like). After all, if Rooney supports things which are "intrusive" and "offensive" because they are everywhere in our society, then he has no right to be part of a group that Boycotts Disney for the same reason.
At the end of his third paragraph, Rooney claims that "it is a sign of fear and/or shame when religious beliefs (often expressed in prayer) are prohibited. People who refuse to hear other beliefs are usually insecure about their own. Thus, silence becomes a defense mechanism." Once again, Rooney shows that he has no real understanding for the reasons behind the separation of church and state. Religious beliefs and prayers are not prohibited because of fear and/or shame. In fact, it's quite the opposite. By removing prayer from public schools, we are allowing people of all faiths to believe what they want without being forced to utter some prayer which they don't believe in and which they find offensive. No one is saying people can't have beliefs in schools. No one is saying people can't pray silently in schools. People are saying that no one should be forced to utter a prayer of only one religion. As for Mr. Rooney's claim that the people who refuse to hear other people's beliefs are insecure about their own religion, well there is no argument here. The argument against prayer in school isn't about hearing prayers, it's about hearing only one prayer and having your own faith ignored as a result. I wonder how Mr. Rooney and the AFA would feel if all public school only had prayers to Satan and ignored Christianity entirely. I can PROMISE you that they would find it outrageous. Mr. Rooney's arguments can be used to support prayers to Satan in public schools. After all, they may be "offensive" and "intrusive" to Christians, but so are commercials and sport announcers! Clearly Mr. Rooney isn't for prayer in schools. He's for CHRISTIAN prayer in schools. Other prayers would be "intrusive" and "offensive" and that would enrage the AFA.
In his fourth paragraph, Rooney gives the most absurd suggestion I've ever heard. He claims that just because it's against the law to have prayer in schools, doesn't mean Christians should follow it. He manages to quote some Bible passages to support his view. Wow. He's sure setting a good example for the youth of tomorrow, isn't he? "You don't need to follow the law if you're Christian, because we're better than people of other religions." Look, Rooney may not LIKE the law, but that doesn't mean he can just ignore it. Since religious fanatics love using the Slippery-slope argument when dealing with abortion, I'd like to use it here. I mean, where do you draw the line? First, you ignore the law concerning church and state. Next you'll ignore the law concerning robbery. Then, murder will be allowed and you will be promoting the killing of all non-Christians. It'll be Nazi Germany! The fact is, you may not like a law, but it's there for a reason. No one is above the law, and promoting people to break the law simply because you disagree with it makes you a hypocrite. Especially when you claim that almost any event is a violation of your "freedom of religion", a law which the AFA mentions time and time again to defend of its hate-filled articles
<----- Back to previous AFA articles and reviews
<----- Back to my homepage