Defend religious freedom by rejecting school board prayer | Opinion

Bravo to Prosser School Board’s student representatives for defending religious freedom. Adult board members should follow their example and reject a proposal to begin public meetings with a prayer.

Prosser School Board Director Frank Vermulm’s idea to start incorporating prayer into public board meetings may be well-intentioned, and he’s certainly not wrong that the board is confronted with “a lot of issues.”

But if prayer helps him focus on the difficult work before him, he should call on his higher power privately. Subjecting everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, to his personal religious practice is out of line.

Adding prayer to the school board’s already-full agenda would add unnecessary controversy that exceeds the scope of the school board’s responsibilities. Contrary to Vermulm’s thinking, forcing prayers in public meetings won’t foster unity or provide solace. It would sow division, exclude people of different faiths, trample individual religious freedoms, and blur the line between church and state.

The school board’s student representatives neatly summarized the problems with the proposal in comments that show wisdom beyond their years. “I don’t think that religion should be brought up in schools at all,” said student representative Yoshimi Garcia.

Fellow representative Noah Dempsey wisely added, “Why bring more controversy into something that doesn’t need it?”

As Dempsey noted, the district would need to bring in prayers of all types to be inclusive. That’s the approach the Kennewick City Council is trying out, having recently relented to John Trumbo’s multi-year campaign to kick off public meetings with a prayer.

The resulting awkward system is a watered-down attempt to inject faith while respecting diverse religious and a religious views. By trying to make a system that caters to all faiths, they end up honoring none. It is much easier and simpler to achieve the same effect by not bringing in any kind of prayer.

That shouldn’t be seen as a failure of faith but as a realistic approach in a diverse community. Religion is personal and forcing it into a public arena where it is not enthusiastically welcome is bound to cause tension instead of harmony. The school board also would court expensive lawsuits.

Vermulm says he believes the board would have the right to incorporate prayer into meetings because the U.S. Constitution guarantees religious freedom. But that constitutional right also guarantees people’s freedom from religion’s influence if they choose.

While Vermulm may find solace in prayer, mandating its inclusion infringes upon the rights of those who do not share his beliefs. It’s unreasonable and unconstitutional to expect everyone who shows up for a public meeting – school board, city council or whatever level of government – to sit through a prayer if they want to participate in their government.

That extends to school board members, too. We don’t know the personal religious beliefs of each director. Nor do we care because they have no bearing on their secular mission. But surely someday, if not today, someone on the board would rather not sit through public prayers.

That’s the main difference between Vermulm’s proposal and a Bremerton High School football coach’s right to lead voluntary post-game prayers at the 50-yard line. A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the coach’s conduct because his prayers “were not publicly broadcast or recited to a captive audience,” and students “were not required or expected to participate.” Forcing prayer on attendees of a government meeting doesn’t meet the conditions on which the court’s divided ruling rests.

Unlike the coach’s voluntary prayers, school board-sanctioned prayers at public meetings have a captive audience. Individuals have no easy means to abstain. Vermulm’s proposal disregards this foundational principle and undermines the rights of individuals to participate in public discourse without religious interference.

While proponents argue for inclusivity, the reality is that religion is inherently personal. It’s not the place of secular elected boards to seek divine guidance to help them navigate complex earthly concerns.

We see too many people in public pray to their god and then in private perform as though they never heard the words.