Do you believe in a heavenly Father?
You might or you might not. Chances are that no matter your religious perspective, you would not be comfortable imposing your theological beliefs upon someone else. You might be even more uncomfortable doing so if that person were of a different faith — or none at all — a religious minority or a minor.
Jessica Ahlquist, a junior at Cranston High School West, falls within all three of these categories. She has expressed her disapproval of a prayer displayed prominently in the school's auditorium and has obtained legal assistance from the Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union to have the prayer removed. The school is resisting her request, arguing that the prayer possesses historical value that is independent of its religious connotation, and that its message is universal.
We disagree. We are skeptical of the notion that any statement beginning with an appeal to "Our heavenly Father" could truly be inclusive of people of a wide variety of religious beliefs or non-beliefs. For obvious reasons, this preface alienates atheists and agnostics who do not affirm the idea of G-d's existence. Additionally, any believer in G-d who does not conceive of the divine as either male or personal — a G-d that can be related to like a person — could reasonably feel excluded by this narrow depiction of a higher power.
Many adherents of Buddhism, Unitarianism and certain unorthodox denominations of Judaism or Christianity could not help but understand this statement as contradicting their own religious beliefs. Polytheists and those individuals whose theological beliefs defy easy categorization, such as Hindus, could feel similarly.
Furthermore, the body of the prayer contains several problematic phrases. In four locations within the text, the school appeals to a higher power to either "grant," "help" or "teach us" ways to behave and "conduct ourselves" as individuals. Such word choices invoke clear images of a divine being that can intervene in our day-to-day lives and cause us to act differently than we otherwise would. In our high schools, many students did not conceive of G-d in this fashion, and a prayer displayed prominently would have diminished their morale and detracted from their high school experiences. Where we grew up, most students did not feel that it was necessary or appropriate for the school to promote their individual beliefs in order for them to meaningfully partake in religious life.
Ahlquist is not seeking special recognition from Cranston West for her personal religious views. Rather, she simply wants the school to take a neutral stance so that it does not confer legitimacy on some students' theological perspectives at the expense of others'. She understands that the removal of the Cranston West prayer would be a step toward a stronger climate of religious acceptance at her high school. She wants to ensure that future students feel included even though they are not members of a dominant religious sect.
For her stance, she has felt harsh backlash from narrow-minded people in Cranston, in the state of Rhode Island and from across the country. In the past, she has been screamed at for her atheism, such as when she would not say the words "under G-d" while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. She has received malicious letters and hateful emails for taking a courageous and principled stand. No human being should be subject to such harassment, especially in a country that recognizes and has recognized freedom of religion as one of its founding ideals.
One of us identifies strongly as a religious Jew, and the other as an agnostic, albeit one with a strong affinity for his religious background. In the end, though, neither of those things matter. We firmly believe that no one should impose his or her own beliefs on another human being, and in our opinion, that is exactly what Cranston West has decided to do.
Ahlquist can take comfort in the knowledge that existing First Amendment jurisprudence is on her side. A long line of Supreme Court cases concerning government action and religion affirm that there must be a wall of separation between church and state, especially where schools are concerned. These include the 1962 decision Engel v. Vitale, which held that public schools may not impose an official prayer or require its recitation. In 1971, the Court held in Lemon v. Kurtzman that legitimate government actions must have a legitimate secular purpose, cannot have the promotion or inhibition of religion as its primary effect or result in excessive entanglement of government and religion.
Because the exclusionary language of this prayer could alienate individuals of a broad variety of faiths, and because our Constitution and First Amendment jurisprudence explicitly protect freedom of religion in public schools, we support Ahlquist's efforts to have the prayer removed. At the very least, we would encourage the school committee to consider adjustments to the prayer's language so that it could truly represent all members of the Cranston community.
Bradley Silverman '13 is the vice president of the Brown chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Lex Rofes '13 is the vice president for cultural arts of Brown/RISD Hillel, but speaks only for himself.
