By
Robin Kallsen
November 25, 2008
It was an unusual day in an unusual class.
During the time set aside for one-minute extra credit morning speeches, a student used the opportunity to lead a brief prayer in associate professor John D. Wilkerson’s political science class. The class, Political Science 353, a legislative simulation of the U.S. Congress, would soon be enveloped in heated debate.
Two outraged students, who described themselves as atheists, sent their objections in an e-mail to Ana Mari Cauce, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Cauce passed the message along to Stephen Majeski, chair of the political science department.
Faculty members and administrators met with Wilkerson to discuss the issue in an informational meeting last Thursday.
The context of the prayer adds a layer of complexity. Wilkerson described the prayer as nondenominational, much like the prayer that is performed when the U.S. Congress begins a day of work.
As his class is a simulation of the United States Congress, incorporating the prayer was consistent with the class’s learning goals, Wilkerson said.
“That’s why the prayer was allowed in the first place,” Wilkerson said. “It’s the first time anybody has suggested that they do a morning prayer and I thought it was a creative idea.”
Junior Amy Pennington came up with the idea to lead a prayer during her one-minute speech when she found out Congress performs nondenominational prayers, often inviting people of various religions to lead them.
“It was definitely monotheistic, Judeo-Christian,” Pennington said. “It mentioned God, but in the setting of how I did it, I think that’s a non-issue.”
The one-minute speeches are times designated for free speech, Pennington said.
But some students were offended and concerned the activity would become a new tradition.
Pennington said she was not aware of the controversy until she received an e-mail from Wilkerson informing the students that morning speeches would be suspended.
However, one of the students who objected to the prayers indicated complaints were apparent well before the e-mail went out.
“I kind of got in an argument with the student about [the prayer],” said a student who objected to the prayer, who wished to have their name withheld. “I got really mad in class the next time.”
A teaching assistant then told the student and a friend to sit in the hall.
The students who walked out said the prayer was specifically Christian, although Wilkerson said there was no mention of Jesus.
“A party leader pulled us out of class and said, ‘You guys are being disrespectful and there are a lot of Christians in the class,’” said one of the offended students. “But we’re here to learn, not pray.”
The students said they believed allowing the prayer was illegal. However, as the prayer was student-initiated and presented during a time set aside for open speech, and especially given that the class is a simulation of Congress, no clear precedents apply in this situation, Wilkerson said.
“I can’t just go to my employee handbook,” Wilkerson said. “Obviously I know what I can’t do; I didn’t encourage this behavior.”
Administrators who learned of the issue also feel the specifics of the situation are such that it is up to Wilkerson to decide how to proceed.
“I am confident in Professor Wilkerson’s judgment and in his ability to balance the various issues and principles at play here,” Cauce wrote in an e-mail. “If students are interested in discussing the role of prayer in the academy further, Dean Taylor and I will be happy to arrange a forum on the topic later in the year.”
The students who objected to the prayer were upset that the activity began without warning. If there is to be a prayer, it should be included on the class syllabus, they said.
“I wouldn’t take the class if prayer was in the syllabus,” said one of the students, who also wished to remain anonymous.
Norm Arkans, associate vice president of media relations and communications, indicated that, regarding the question of whether or not the prayers violated the First Amendment’s “establishment” clause, the most important piece of the story to note is the course description.
“If students want to start off a class with prayer, the answer is no,” Arkans said. “But the context here is different — this was a simulation of Congress, so everything’s intended to imitate what happens in Congress.”
However, not everything that is done in Congress is done in the class, said one of the offended students.
As for resolution of the issue, the unique nature of the class offers an interesting option for dealing with the situation, as students can work out their objections through the simulation process, by submitting legislation and then debating it.
“It strikes me as a fascinating educational moment,” Arkans said.
Reach contributing writer Robin Kallsen at development@dailyuw.com.
87 Comments
#1 Confused
on November 25, 2008 at 8:28 a.m.(Portland, OR | Unverified Name)
What are the objecting students so afraid of? All it was was a prayer. And
#2 Removed
on November 25, 2008 at 9:01 a.m.#3 FUP
on November 25, 2008 at 9:22 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
While I think opening the "class" with prayer was kind of unnecessary (all we're doing is passing fake legislation), I don't see how the students could make such a fuss over it. If they are atheists, it should not make a bit of difference to them whether or not they have to sit through a one minute prayer to a deity they don't believe exists.
I'm curious to see how many people comment on this article.
#4 Sarah Roepke
on November 25, 2008 at 10:02 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Because this was a student initiated prayer during an assigned speech that reflected the opening ceremonies of the actual congress I believe it was appropriate. Students have the fundamental right to talk about their religion in a public school, and in political science or philosophy classes it will often come up in assignments.
I am an atheist and I can understand where these two students were coming from. They too have the right to criticize prayer in front of the mock congress, despite the apparent hostility displayed by other comments that have "outed" the students who wished to remain anonymous.
Prayer is fairly benign in reality, but symbolically it undermines the essentially humanist nature of our congress-- and courts, and government. When the congress gets together to draft legislation and pass laws they are doing it under the pretense that reason, logic, and debate will turn out legislation that will best serve our country. They can be derived directly by addressing the needs and voices of the citizens-- the rationale behind a representative democracy. Our laws, government and justice system come from humans.
If we didn't believe that we were capable of figuring it out then we could ask god to ordain a king and have judges consult tea leaves when deciding a verdict. We could give the pope veto power over our bills.
The preservation of the secular state is vital to a free society where the individual citizen is free to choose their own religion. But just as we have checks and balances in our government we have them in public discourse. Religion is not above criticism and atheists will not remain silent when facing the tyranny of the majority.
#5 John
on November 25, 2008 at 10:04 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
This is completely outrageous. For this much effort to be put into something so meaningless is beyond me. If you don't care for it then sit down, shut up and 60 seconds later it will be over. Presto. This is not an issue of church and state. The founding father's goals were to be that people like this Austin and Jared could be "atheists" and not have anyone say anything about it. Not to rid anything religious from anything government related. I would love to be in this class and rip these two losers a new one.
#6 Tom Giardino
on November 25, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Tolerance is a two-way street. It doesn't make sense to fight for tolerance (equal rights, gay marriage, et al) on one hand and then be completely intolerant on the other.
The cool thing about our country isn't that we have the right to complain.
The cool thing about our country is that we can be exposed to other viewpoints and then choose to accept or reject them. I thought prayer in class was a little silly, because I'm not a religious person. but I'm still willing to allow students to pray if that's how they want to use the one-minute speech.
Similarly, I wouldn't object if an atheist stood up and extolled the virtues of a godless existence (which actually might be pretty funny).
Live and let live.
#7 Kathy
on November 25, 2008 at 10:44 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Wow, some people are ridiculous. Given the context of the class, the prayer was appropriate. I don't understand how some people are so easily offended.
And talk about intolerance.
#8 Tannaz
on November 25, 2008 at 11:38 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I think that many people who have recently written comments on this article do not know what they are talking about. First of all, it was not Jared De Chandieu or Austin Young. Get your information straight before you accuse the innocent. Second of all, this is a free country and people are allowed to complain, no matter what, so I suggest that you respect that right, rather than telling people to deal with it. Would you tell black people that during the civil rights movement? Oh just sit down, its okay that your rights are being taken away from you. No I don't think so. How about we all be TOLERANT! I know its a crazy idea, but wouldn't it be nice if we could all respect each others views and opinions. Maybe one day...maybe.
#9 Joe the Plumber
on November 25, 2008 at 11:50 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Actually Tannaz, it WAS those two.
And how dare you compare the plight of black people during the civil rights movement to two students objecting to an inclusionary prayer? How exactly were those students' right being taken away?
#10 Joe the Plumber
on November 25, 2008 at 11:51 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
*rights
#11 Tannaz
on November 25, 2008 at 12:02 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
okay believe what you want, but know that you are wrong. And you are being just as secretive as the two people you "think" you are talking about.
#12 Danielle
on November 25, 2008 at 12:03 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Joe the Plumber: looks like YOU are the one who doesn't have the guts..how about you reveal yourself??
prayer is acceptable in public classrooms = NEVER.
#13 CongressRocks!
on November 25, 2008 at 12:10 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
horray for congress!
#14 AFab
on November 25, 2008 at 12:14 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
So, in this case, the objectors are the ones being intolerant of people's theistic beliefs.
The prayer didn't disrespect anybody's beliefs or opinions. It's not disrespectful to practice something you believe is right. If that were the case, then atheists NOT praying would be disrespectful towards theists.
The girl who prayed didn't try to impose her beliefs on anyone. She just did what Congress does all the time. Like others have said, in this context, the prayer was totally appropriate.
#15 Austin Young
on November 25, 2008 at 12:19 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Dear Joe The Plumber,
I would just like to inform you, and everyone else who believes his accusations, that I was not one of the students in the article who "refused to say my name". In fact, I had no involvement in this publishing this article at all. Perhaps before you start defaming my character by accusing me of an interview that I did not make you should get the facts straight.
Also, about this topic on the whole. It may have been a few students who actually brought this complain to higher university authority, but they had EVERY right to. They legitimately felt as though their rights were being infringed in a public setting, and the response from some of the leadership in the class was to either shut up or leave the class. I'm sorry....no actually I'm not sorry....those two alternatives just simply aren't good enough. There were plenty of students who objected to having prayer in class. An actual vote was never taken, but I can guarantee at least 20 people in class (who I've either talked to or spoke up in class) who were against having prayer.
The professor realized the dangers of this disruption and he ruled that prayer was no longer going to be allowed. Everyone here can get their panties in a bunch over this issue but for purposes of this simulation, we've moved on...so why don't you all who aren't apart of the class do the same
Respectfully,
Austin Young....NOT an interviewee in the article
#16 Tannaz
on November 25, 2008 at 12:19 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Praying in class does impose that person's beliefs on the one's that do not have it. "It's not disrespectful to practice something you believe is right." which is what you said, this is exactly what those (atheist) students did. They were practicing what they believed in, so maybe you should understand that its a two-way street and it goes both ways.
#17 Justice Pelton
on November 25, 2008 at 12:20 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
This issue should never have been raised. This is a simulation that everyone voluntarily signed up for. This is outlined in the syllabus. The ignorance of a few individuals of the current procedures in Congress should not interrupt our class as it moves forward.
To raise this issue as a formal complaint is small, petty and shows extreme weakness on the moral character of the recent actions of these few individuals from which it was brought.
My opinion is based on the act of not voicing one's opinion to the instructor, which would allow the instructor the respect necessary to correct the situation in house; instead of simply lodging a complaint.
I have been accused of hiding my opinion behind a emails within the simulation. Unfortunately my opportunity to voice my opinion was stopped with the suspension of one minute speeches in class. This is another example of how my freedom of speech was further censored by the few.
So if this was a speech class and the instructor told us to give a one minute speech on any topic and someone said a prayer, you would make a formal complaint?
If the Professor or TA was saying a prayer every morning to us, I would be fully supporting the cause. This is not faculty forcing religion in the classroom.
This is your fellow classmates following curriculum to get a better grade. This is just a class; I hope the small few gain their true intentions without losing anything else in the process.
I am not religious and I do not care about prayer, I only fear the precedence of student censorship. That is not good for anyone. My issue is student censorship which I feel is a slippery slope that is easily turned on but very difficult to turn off.
What is next?
#18 Anonymous
on November 25, 2008 at 12:33 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Professor, if you're reading this, your class sucks.
#19 Jessica
on November 25, 2008 at 1:11 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Don't be an asshole "anonymous." Ass...
#20 Austin Young
on November 25, 2008 at 1:52 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I'm glad to see that the blatant LIE by Joe the Plumber accusing me of being a student in the article that refused to give a name was taken down.
#21 Austin Young
on November 25, 2008 at 2:11 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
"The founding father's goals were to be that people like this Austin and Jared could be "atheists" and not have anyone say anything about it. Not to rid anything religious from anything government related. I would love to be in this class and rip these two losers a new one."
John,
Don't speak for our founding fathers, because the truth is you don't know anything about what they wanted. Heck, smarter and wiser constitutional specialists have struggled for centuries about what our founding fathers "wanted", and you want to lead us to believe that now you have all the answers? I advise that you to go talk to the many Supreme Court Justices that have ruled against certain religion establishment in public settings, and see what they have to say. And ripping me a new one? is this honestly the best retort you could think of to express your disbelief?....if it is, I hope you stay in college for a very very long time
#22 Danielle
on November 25, 2008 at 2:15 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
"This is a simulation that everyone voluntarily signed up for. This is outlined in the syllabus. "
where in the syllabus is a daily prayer mentioned?? if we are to immitate everything congress does, then I should be expecting a pretty fat check in the mail any day now.
#23 Pilots are cool
on November 25, 2008 at 2:17 p.m.(San Francisco, CA | Unverified Name)
This class is awesome and it sucks that this was reported on especially given that no conclusion was given 1 min speeches are allowed just not prayer
I'm all for seperation of church and state
But this not state endorsing church or forcing religion, it is a couple of students "preying" that the troops are safe and that congress will be productive.
The statements were more about hope then god.
This article is counter productive and people should not hide behind names like anonymous and while funny, joe the plumber
Ben graham
D-hi-01
#24 Austin Young
on November 25, 2008 at 2:37 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
This is for all those who aren't in the class, or for those who are in the class that don't understand the scope of the issue this is the timeline:
* During morning speeches a class prayer was led by a member of the house the friday before veterans day.
* After the first morning prayer was given some students were in disbelief over the matter, but no action was taken at this time. I was one of the students who questioned the action of prayer in class, but did not speak out against it at this time. I thought it would a one time thing...just let it go
*The very next week another prayer was offered and we were led to believe that this would become a daily occurrence. When students objected to doing this we were told by the T.A.'s and our mock party leaders to leave the class if we had an issue with this. When the topic of whether or not doing this at all in a public classroom was illegal, the response was "I don't know" (The Professor was at a conference for this second prayer)
*Some students felt that the answer of "I don't know" was not a reasonable conclusion about having prayer in class and sought higher university authority on the matter that could actually give us an answer
*Some students felt that this matter should be dealt with in class, but other students, myself included, felt that it would be an utter waste of time to do. We are a simulation of congress, but we are first and foremost students at a public university bound by the laws of the state and the national government (things that we cannot change no matter how much we think we can in this simulation). We are already a slow moving Congress...the last thing that some students, including myself, wanted to do was use class time to discuss this issue even further. Instead of talking about real national issues like energy independence, health care, the economy, and the war in iraq, we'd be talking about what's appropriate in our morning speeches. No, I believe that the correct action was taken and the right people ruled on the issue
*Until the department could come to a course of action they said that all morning speeches would be cancelled
*The decisions was given to the Professor on how to act and he said for purpose of this simulation and potential distraction prayer in class has, that no prayer would be offered any longer.
* Then the daily published this article, in which I was NOT apart of
*Then we all started commenting
.....that's the story.
#25 Brian
on November 25, 2008 at 3:28 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
So what damage has been done to the poor atheist students? Why are they so afraid that listening to another person's beliefs might cause them some sort of trauma? I guess their own belief system must be barley hanging by a thread if something so benign threatens to topple it.
By the way Numbnuts, it's freedom of religion not freedom from religion. You would think in this day & age with all of the crises that our country is going through these idiot students could find something more important to do with their time.
#26 Holland Avery
on November 25, 2008 at 3:35 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
After reading this article in the Daily, I quickly went to the website expecting multiple comments. I have not been disappointed.
I knew there would be objections to the prayer, but I have such a hard time grasping such strong objections.
In light of the information offered by Austin, that it was implied prayer would become a daily ritual, I can see why objections were made. I do think it would have been better to wait for the teacher to return.
I think it is great that the Administration has left the subject up to the teacher. But, I think the Professor Wilkerson's response was very weak.
I too am in a simulation course, of the EU, and we try and make things as realistic as possible. Thus, the idea of students, initiating something that is done daily in Congress, seems completely reasonable. I am sure that many Congressmen and women are atheists also, but we still have nondenominational prayers every day. We also have statement's from congressmen such as "Jesus was a community organizer and Pilate was a governor".
No ones free speech should be stopped when it is aligned with such common practices, in a simulation course such as this. We do not edit out prayers, racial slurs, and crude languages from theatrical performances at UW, because in such contexts, they are acceptable. For this same reason, we should not prevent students, during a free speech time, the ability to do something that is done everyday in congress.
#27 Nick Jacob
on November 25, 2008 at 3:48 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Funny how we can have gay rights marches, anti-Israel tables, socialism tables, and all other sorts of stuff on campus, but the minute someone says a one-minute prayer, a complaint is lodged.
Austin, I hope you know Jesus loves you man, even if you don't believe in Him.
#28 Kristin
on November 25, 2008 at 3:58 p.m.(Olympia, WA | Unverified Name)
It was nice to see another side of the story - the way the story was written ("It was unusual day in an unusual class.") implies that this wasn't becoming a habit. Once again the Daily misses journalistic integrity by a mile with one-sided reporting. It can't be that hard, people!
Aside from all the arguments about how it happened and who protested it, I'm curious about the intent. Was it about praying, REALLY? Or was it about being defiant and using prayer as a tool or a weapon? Because that's kind of sad.
#29 Nick Jacob
on November 25, 2008 at 4:06 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Hi Kristin,
I can tell you, as a friend of Amy's, and as someone who supported the idea of her using her one-minute speech to say a prayer, the prayer wasn't being used at all as a tool or a weapon. There was nothing malicious about it.
#30 Jason
on November 25, 2008 at 4:06 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
The problem with religion is that it's not true. Universities exist to preserve and transmit truth, like a priesthood but about something real.
Religion is stupid and sub-adult, and by the time we get to college we don't want to be subjected to it anymore. It's absurd, asking favors from painted sticks, talking to invisible creatures, it's demeaning; iron-age superstitions don't belong in the modern world. Savages plopped onto the stage of the civilization shouldn't be humored. After twenty years of adults lying to us about the nature of the cosmos, enough is enough.
It's too bad that we have to go to the UW and not a real school like Harvard, but even a public school should have some intellectual standards. Part of being an adult is accepting that death is real and that the pie in the sky when you die is not.
#31 Nick Jacob
on November 25, 2008 at 4:13 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
And that uplifiting moment, ladies and gentleman, was brought to you by Jason.
#32 Holland Avery
on November 25, 2008 at 4:20 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Jason,
I take offense to your comments, I don't plan on complaining to any authority about them, even though they are being transmitted via a public university forum.
Just to offer some insight, countless people, much more intelligent then you or I will ever be, in fields such as physics, biology, chemistry, and genetics, and beliefs in God. To label all of them as "stupid and sub-adult" only shows your own ignorance.
As far as Harvard being a real school school. I am assuming, due to your previous bashing on religion, that you say such a thing because of its teachings concerning religion. Well, Harvard Divinity School is a very prestigious school, that allows people to get a Master of Divinity, to prepare for "ministerial work". That is something UW does not offer.
#33 Emily M.
on November 25, 2008 at 4:20 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I would be surprised if these atheist victims didn't look back on this in a few years and feel ashamed. What a narcissistic waste of time! Why not try bitching the blues about REAL injustice? There's plenty, and you don't have to look far to find it.
To the whiners: I think you owe the city some community service. And, get over yourselves.
#34 Tannaz
on November 25, 2008 at 4:21 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
The real problem here is that people are not being tolerant of the fact that some people did not appreciate prayer in class, and I think we all need to respect that. The complaint was lodged because after complaining multiple times about how prayer made some people uncomfortable nothing happen. That is why the complaint was lodged. So lets get that straight, the people who felt uncomfortable complained and nothing happened therefore, since nothing happened decided to complain. That's to clear the air on that issue.
The point of this is that some people in class felt uncomfortable and now the issue is solved. Honestly, there is no more reason to argue if it was right or wrong. It happened, its over, and we should all just let it go. To be completely honest, prayer should not have been even a part of class, so its not even an issue. Our class is about simulating congress and I think that is exactly what WE ALL should be focusing our attentions on now.
#35 Nick Jacob
on November 25, 2008 at 4:28 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
"the people who felt uncomfortable complained and nothing happened therefore, since nothing happened decided to complain."
Will all due respect Tannaz, was a complaint to the department chair really necessary? I mean, you couldn't play rock, paper, scissors for a minute? You couldn't listen to "Love Lockdown" for a minute? You couldn't play hangman and use a three-letter word for a single minute?
I mean, there are dozens of ways to fill a minute's worth of time. I just gave you three good ones, for example.
#36 Elizabeth S.
on November 25, 2008 at 4:38 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Is diversity a positive term when the activists themselves are intollerant of differing views?
#37 Nick Jacob
on November 25, 2008 at 5:02 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Well Elizabeth, I could be wrong, but I believe diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.
10 points to the first person to name the movie. ;-)
#38 Caytie
on November 25, 2008 at 5:16 p.m.(North Bend, WA | Unverified Name)
Nick i believe the answer is Anchorman (10 points to the republicans!) I wish that this issue was solved inside the class and the fact that it was not is disapointing to me. I know that many people in the class think that we wasted too much time talking about this and not focusing on actually simulating congress
#39 Jessica
on November 25, 2008 at 5:19 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Separation of church and state people...end of discussion
#40 VIT
on November 25, 2008 at 5:22 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I feel so sorry for the poor students that had to sit through a prayer asking for the safety of the troops. Obviously their whole life is now warped.
As a recent graduate, I can tell you that literature and history are full of referances to faith and belief. God is frequently mentioned in Drama and Art. If you are in University to escape religion, you are in the wrong place.
If you are here to learn, learn that prayer and religious life abounds in this world and has for as long as people are around. You do not need to have faith yourself, but have some respect for others.
#41 Nick Jacob
on November 25, 2008 at 5:23 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Nice job Caytie! Lol.
And no Jessica, it's not the end of the discussion. This was not a mandatory prayer, it was not promoted in any way, nor encouraged by Professor Wilkerson or the TA's. It was one minute of a student expressing her Constitutionally protected 1st Amendment rights.
#42 Austin
on November 25, 2008 at 5:41 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
"Austin, I hope you know Jesus loves you man, even if you don't believe in Him."
Nick Jacob,
I hope for you that you do not think that just because people speak out against having prayer in school that they do not believe in God. I think that there are plenty of rationale people in this world that can believe something but when it comes to governing or public settings, they do not impose their will on others. A prime example of this is President Obama’s opinion on marriage (we talked about this in our simulation). He believes that marriage a union between a man and a woman. But he ALSO believes that such language should not be in our national laws, which is why he fully supports repealing DOMA. So I would encourage you to not jump to conclusions about a persons personal beliefs.
And on this issue of tolerance, that, to me, isn’t the issue. I am perfectly tolerant of various religious doctrines and I’ve always have been. I think MOST people are, even the non Christians, given how prevalent Christian doctrine is in our society. This issue to me, and others in the class, is about time, place, and, manner. I could care less what people choose to believe, but just like talking about bombs in an airport is inappropriate, prayer in public schools in appropriate. Now while there may not be Supreme Court precedent regarding this particular instance, there is a plethora of precedents that have relevant connections supporting the idea that religious prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, and none supporting the idea that in this case it’s ok.
I agree with Tannaz, this matter has been settled whether people like it or not.
#43 Nick Jacob
on November 25, 2008 at 5:57 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
"I hope for you that you do not think that just because people speak out against having prayer in school that they do not believe in God."
I'd say the vast majority of people who would go so far as to lodge a formal complaint with a school because God was mentioned in the classroom, probably don't believe in God, or have a serious problem with Him. I apologize if I mistakenly put you in this category.
#44 Removed
on November 25, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.#45 Alex Lark
on November 25, 2008 at 6:38 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
The Christians need to be put in their place. Having prayer in school shows total disregard for the separation of church and state. So what if the real congress prays each day. They shouldn't be allowed to. There is no place for religion on public property or in our government.
I am completely offended by how some student can impose their religion on my education.
#46 Anonymous
on November 25, 2008 at 6:43 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
lol, Congress not being allowed to pray? I could have sworn freedom of speech applied to Congressmen as well as ordinary citizens.
#47 Justin
on November 25, 2008 at 6:56 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name)
Alex Lark, it is incredibly intollerant and ignorant of you to say that "the Christians need to be put in their place." Since when does freedom of speach apply to everyone but one group of people.
Also, there is a difference between a student imposing her religion on you and reading a one minute prayer excerpt that was used in the United States Congress. Why is it so offensive to hear a student express her hope for our soldier's safety in the war that they are fighting to protect us?
You can not force every single person on the planet to hide their religious beliefs because you personally feel uncomfortable with them. The design of the class is to imitate Congress so that the students may better understand our government and be better prepared for what their future's have to offer. If you are honest in your claim that you want a better education, then you should be open and respectful to hearing other viewpoints and beliefs rather than segregating groups and claiming that people need "to be put in their place."
#48 Austin Young
on November 25, 2008 at 8:21 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
UW daily, I would appreciate it if you took down the following comment
"Isn't it funny how my habit of sending out long, drawn-out messages over legsim has carried over to my daily comments?
Later guys, I'm going to go masturbate to images of president barack obama."
This was not made by me and to whoever did send the message, it was very immature. You obviously are in the class and if you have words to say to me I suggest you do it in person and not through these childish means. I thought we were all adults here.
#49 Aubrey
on November 25, 2008 at 8:28 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I would like to note that atheism is a religion in its own right, as to be an atheist you must actually have the BELIEF that there is no God, where an agnostic sees no evidence for or against the existence of God. That being said I could understand why someone who is an atheist would have a problem with prayer because they have BELIEFS that are contradicted by prayer.
This says two things to me, firstly someone who holds a BELIEF that can be shaken simply by another person taking a contrary position does not really believe in their position deeply. Secondly, all you atheists need to stop being so high and mighty until you ditch your own religion,
Remember Children: The absence of proof is not the proof of absence!
#50 Tierney C.
on November 25, 2008 at 8:32 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
To the individual who posted a comment pretending to be Austin Young, who quite obviously in our Congress class; I have one question for you:
What Would Jesus Do?
#51 Tierney C.
on November 25, 2008 at 8:47 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
"I'd say the vast majority of people who would go so far as to lodge a formal complaint with a school because God was mentioned in the classroom, probably don't believe in God, or have a serious problem with Him. I apologize if I mistakenly put you in this category."
A) God was not mentioned in the classroom. Actual prayer was taking place, and contrary to what was said about it being "non-denominational", I've never heard any other religion use references such as "Lord" "Savoir" and "Heavenly Father" besides Christianity; which I guess I can't blame the republicans for not acknowledging other religions when their party is consisted of one homogeneous group. & B) I have a hunch that if I went down there and gave a one minute speech about how those of you who do believe in God have a serious lapse of logic and rationality, you would have an issue with that.
Bottom line forums like this are appropriate areas of discussion, not the class that I pay money to attend.
#52 Tierney C.
on November 25, 2008 at 8:52 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Haha, I'm so clever! That'll show those evil, homogeneous Republicans!
#53 Barack Obama
on November 25, 2008 at 8:55 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
"I have a hunch that if I went down there and gave a one minute speech about how those of you who do believe in God have a serious lapse of logic and rationality, you would have an issue with that."
Are you suggesting that I, your lord and savior, have a serious lapse of logic and rationality?
#54 AFab
on November 25, 2008 at 9:27 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
"I have a hunch that if I went down there and gave a one minute speech about how those of you who do believe in God have a serious lapse of logic and rationality, you would have an issue with that."
Wow. That's completely different from giving a one minute prayer. You would be trying to convince people that religion is irrational. The morning prayers, as I understand it, were not trying to convince you that atheism is irrational.
#55 Tannaz
on November 25, 2008 at 9:47 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
The point I think that most people on the opposing side of prayer are trying to make is that, it was not needed in class, there was no reason for it to happen in class, therefore there shouldn't be an argument about it, because there was no need for prayer in class period, the end. It didn't help us with our education, it didn't do anything to make the class better or worse.
#56 Justin
on November 25, 2008 at 9:53 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name)
If the class is imitating Congress then going through the same procedures as Congress, such as saying a non-denominational prayer, is beneficial to the class. It prepares the students for what they can expect in the future.
#57 Nick Jacob
on November 25, 2008 at 9:59 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Phew. I'm glad you cleared that up Austin. I was wondering for a sec bro...
#58 Nick Jacob
on November 25, 2008 at 10:05 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
"it didn't do anything to make the class better or worse."
Then why lodge a formal complaint? If it didn't make the class worse, and didn't make your life worse, then why the need to go to the department chair?
#59 I have a headache
on November 25, 2008 at 11:04 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
Merry Christmas atheists!
Does that hurt too?
If you sneezed and I said "bless you", would you lodge a complaint?
You are not defenders of the separation clause, you are intolerant to anyone religious, or anyone who doesn't get offended when they hear a prayer.
Get over yourselves.
One of these complainers actually seems to be a "member" of two minority groups currently fighting for equality and freedom. I wont say which two. How someone in this situation could be intolerant to anyone is beyond me. (Not saying that to be mean, it just needed to be said.
#60 Gillian P.
on November 25, 2008 at 11:16 p.m.(UW Campus)
I think that if someone was to speak about gay-rights/marriage or abortion or another controversial topic and if other students were to file a complaint because it made them feel uncomfortable they would either be denied or if their complaint was to go thru, they would undoubtably be considered narrow-minded.
Seriously, imagine if people could no longer talk about gay-rights with their one-minute speech because their peers didn't agree with it. People would be outraged! how dare that be censored, people deserve equal rights, people deserve to go up on stage and speak about what they want. No one is going to deny that there are people who are made uncomfortable by that kind of stuff. But no, those people stay seated, keep there mouths shut and show respect and let their peers speak.
and to say that prayer was being used as a weapon is wrong and disrespectful
#61 Tannaz
on November 25, 2008 at 11:17 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Well Nick, if you really care, yes it hurt me. I really didn't appreciate it, and the only reason the complaint was lodged, which I've explained multiple times, was because no one did anything about it, and the other people in our class felt that something needed to be done.
And to the person who has a headache, you are being completely hypocritical. You are being intolerant of anyone who chooses to be an atheist. Do you think that is really fair? I do not think so. I don't understand, why just because someone chooses not to hear a prayer in class, therefore they are intolerant? Where is the respect for someones opinion, and feelings by making them feel bad for how they feel?
I feel like some people tonight hurt other peoples feelings tremendously and that is not what the point of this issue was even about. Making others feel bad for how they feel is not fixing a problem. There is a more constructive way to fix this problem, which is to be understanding of both sides and the ENTIRE situation before jumping to conclusions.
#62 Eddy Coe
on November 25, 2008 at 11:17 p.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
I hate to say it, but I think there is interesting points on both sides.
Nick Jacob and company are right to say that you can't censor a person's right to pray and that the TAs nor the prof. encouraged or discouraged this behavior.
On the other hand, organized prayer during class instruction has been deemed illegal (indeed unconstitutional) by the courts for violating the establishment clause.
However, going back the OTHER way, the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals or groups can pray in class whenever normal conversation would be permitted.
I guess the legal question would be this:
does organized prayer by an individual during professor sanctioned one minute speeches count as violating the establishment clause?
It's murky to me because while it is an individual actor, it is also professor sanctioned time. But then again, if the professor were to censor people during the speeches, he'd have a whole new complaint filed.
I really don't know the answer. I'm just trying to play the political scientist.
So, how about this:
everyone find a Supreme Court case that supports your argument and write up a brief of the case and it's findings.
Then we can ask for extra credit. :D
#63 Agnostic
on November 25, 2008 at 11:18 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
Since my placing in the political spectrum is gay; I can't stand it when any group becomes the focus of intolerance or discrimination.
In this case, that group is the people who are psychologically sophisticated enough to understand that no one can force you to do anything.
Targeting individuals using their speech time to pray, and giving Prof. Wilkerson a set of problems he didn't deserve is disgraceful.
Hopefully this can be resolved in class and out of the media. If these people are capable of a calm conversation about the subject.
#64 Dana Folkins
on November 25, 2008 at 11:46 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
It seems as though we are forgetting one important aspcet of the class: it is a learning experience. And while I did voluntarily enroll in the class, I did so because I wanted to learn more about Congress and actively participate in my learning, not so I could listen to my classmates pray.
Our class is a simulation, which does not mean that we do everything exactly as Congresspeople do, rather we imitate what is relvant in our context. And in our context of a public university, prayer in the classroom (in a non-theological class) is irrelevant and should not occur. Additionally, extra credit is allotted to those that give a one minute speech, which does not occur in Congress. Moreover, I understand prayer to be a very sacred and private interaction between a person and their god and personally, I do not think that such an intimate act should be used for something as trivial as extra credit.
Lastly, I just want to add that as a child my parents taught me that "There is a time and a place for everything" and our simulation is neither the time nor the place for a prayer.
#65 Nick Jacob
on November 25, 2008 at 11:50 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Tannaz, it's sad (not sarcastic) to me that a prayer that asked for us all to come together and be a productive body, was hurtful to you.
I can't see how it was hurtful, but if you say it was, I'll believe you.
#66 Kristin
on November 25, 2008 at 11:55 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I didn't mean disrespect by asking whether the prayer was used as a weapon. I wasn't there, but the sense I got was that it was an "I'll do this because I CAN" and not, as Dana has just so nicely put it, a sacred thing between a the person praying and his or her god. Especially given the information that there had been spoken concerns about the prayer, and that the next time it happened just happened to be when the professor was out of town, you can hardly blame a person for wondering if there wasn't a bit of the mice playing while the cat was away.
Again, no disrespect. But if you think that prayer is never used as a weapon, please wake up.
#67 Tannaz
on November 26, 2008 at 12:07 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Thank you Dana. I think her comment was very thoughtful and brought a great perspective to this issue.
#68 Luaren Pardee
on November 26, 2008 at 12:29 a.m.(San Jose, CA | Unverified Name)
From what I understand the Supreme Court ruled against Bible reading in public schools through Abington Township School District v. Schempp. It was part of a string of rulings made against establishing religion in public schools through the Establishment clause in the first amendment. The establishment clause reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
So wouldn’t reading a student lead prayer in class be constitutional, furthermore wouldn’t blocking our free speech on religion unconstitutional?
#69 Randy Ferreiro
on November 26, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Tannaz: "why just because someone chooses not to hear a prayer in class, therefore they are intolerant?"
That's hardly what anyone is saying. If you all had chosen to cover your ears and "not ... hear a prayer in class" there could be no accusations of intolerance. Rudeness, maybe, but not a big deal.
The part where you are intolerant, and I do hope that you get this, is where you expect to be allowed to voice your opinions, be comfortable and NOT pray, but you refuse to grant people who think differently than you do the same courtesy.
As soon as a huge fuss was made, it became obvious, once more, that while Christians are generally called bigoted and narrow-minded for wanting to maintain their rights, no atheist would ever be called narrow-minded for wanting to interfere in religion. In fact, they would probably be called enlightened.
Here's the thing: if some students have to listen to you talk about whatever your one-minute speech on topic X, you can sure as heck sit there and be polite during their one-minute prayer.
People pray. Get over it. There is absolutely no reason it should "offend" you. I am a Christian. Am I "offended" when people push for gay marriage? No. Am I "offended" when a Muslim prays? No. Am I "offended" when an atheist RESPECTFULLY and INTELLIGENTLY says that they don't believe what I do? No. So why should you be offended when I pray?
You claim that the person with a headache is being intolerant of atheists. Look in the mirror; aren't you being completely intolerant of Christians (or religious people in general)?
#70 Lauren Pardee
on November 26, 2008 at 12:37 a.m.(San Jose, CA | Unverified Name)
I should learn to type slower… my name is actually Lauren :)
#71 ben graham
on November 26, 2008 at 12:51 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
this has gotten completely out of control
the seattle pi has now picked it up
would everyone stop bashing each other, we should all show respect for one another, whether they be pro or anti god, gay or straight, black or white, republican or democrat, we all need to respect each other and these comments have gone to far.
to headache...
I am not the person you are reffering to, but i am truly offended by your statement, that shows utter disregard for respect of human dignity.
to everyone, please attach your names to this, and do not be a complete coward and hide behind the tag, anonymous.
-ben, a member of this class
#72 Janice P.
on November 26, 2008 at 6:14 a.m.(Barcelona, Spain | Unverified Name)
Amen to that, Randy Ferreiro (post #69). Thank you.
Tolerance, respect, and freedom of speech is what this is comes down to. Please stop complaining and degrading your fellow classmates and practice respect. It was only one minute of your time.
#73 Danielle
on November 26, 2008 at 10:12 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
"no atheist would ever be called narrow-minded for wanting to interfere in religion"
Randy have you read ANY of the above posts?
IT IS NOT ABOUT Christians themselves, its about bringing religion into the classroom...where it does NOT belong.
Oh, and Randy:
"Get over it."
FYI this matter has been setteled, by the professor about a week ago in fact! maybe you are the one who needs to get over it..
#74 Tom Giardino
on November 26, 2008 at 10:42 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Do any of you truly believe that it is possible to change someone's opinion by insulting them on the internet?
#75 Eddy Coe
on November 26, 2008 at 10:58 a.m.(Long Beach, CA | Unverified Name)
Tom, I totally think you can. I've seen it work.
No, but seriously, Ben has it right. Don't hide behind tags if you want to throw insults. Have the courage to put your name on it.
#76 ATHIEST
on November 26, 2008 at 1:11 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I'm an Athiest.
It's pretty simple to see why.
I live my life according to reason and logic, and refine my beliefs as they are changed through experience.
I don't believe in God because I've never seen any miracles, no one on Earth can verify the truth of the Bible's contents, it contains hundreds of contradictions, and if the Bible was truly god's word, plenty of Christians should be out in the streets stoning everybody else for their sins.
I also believe that religion is the greatest threat to continued human existence, and I believe that we should take back the mantle of moral values and apply it to genocide, climate change, and poverty, as opposed to same-sex marriage, evolution vs. creationism, and abortion.
when 40% of America believes they're going to be Raptured in their lifetime, our foreign policy arguments are always going to be a little bit crazy with the Christians in charge.
THAT SAID...
I do not have a problem with a morning prayer in class...
as long as us athiests get to have one right after...
I'm in this class, and it would go something like this.
THE ATHIEST'S PRAYER
We, the people, of sane minds and logical thought, do hereby pray to the nothingness, the vast expanse of space, of which we are only a small speck. We are insignificant, human beings evolved from monkeys, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, and all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. There is no such thing as life after death, and when we die we will be but ash, meaningless, of absolutely no consequence to anyone, anything, or any God. May the great expanse of the universe in all its glory, and our love for our fellow man, guide our judgement here today.
Wouldn't it be great if religion wasn't about telling everybody else they're wrong and they're going to suffer forever in a fiery eternal hell? And then fighting over it constantly?
#77 Randall F.
on November 26, 2008 at 4:06 p.m.(Seattle, WA)
Danielle: "Randy have you read ANY of the above posts?"
I have, indeed. And the major part of what I have seen is atheists defending themselves by calling religious people intolerant and narrow-minded, completely missing the irony in those statements.
And, IN CONTEXT, I said "Get over it" in a general sense. Perhaps "live with it" would be better. People pray, you might as well get used to it.
#78 Gillian P.
on November 26, 2008 at 5:15 p.m.(Bellevue, WA)
"Wouldn't it be great if religion wasn't about telling everybody else they're wrong and they're going to suffer forever in a fiery eternal hell? And then fighting over it constantly?"
the prayer given in class wasn't about converting people or telling them they were wrong or condemned to hell, it was about honoring the troops that serve our country, the troops that give their lives to protect us and to ensure that we live in a FREE country. I think the troops would be disgusted to see the trouble coming to a student who wanted to take one minute to read a prayer about them for veterans day, and to see that the student has been denied the freedom they were fighting for.
#79 Kristin
on November 26, 2008 at 5:26 p.m.(Olympia, WA | Unverified Name)
So, did it happen once? Or twice? What are we talking about here?
I'm not sure how the class works, but here's a suggestion that is inclusive and respectful: Maybe planning for such a thing in the future could involve an interfaith discussion so that the prayer would be a little more inclusive. Or maybe, you know, a moment of silence (which could be seen as a kind of generic prayer but is respectful to non-religious folk) could be used and would be just as respectful to the veterans. Maybe that would have been a more appropriate follow-up after the first prayer garnered criticism.
It's not hard to find a way to consider everyone and still honor those being thought of.
#80 Austin Young
on November 27, 2008 at 12:33 a.m.(Tacoma, WA | Unverified Name)
Kristin, It happened twice. And during the morning speeches when the first one was given (friday before Veterans day) a moment of silence WAS given. It was on the second time that people started bringing this to higher attention
Gillian P, Are you in the class? Did you hear both prayers? Can you say for sure that the second one was about protecting our troops?....... let me know when you have the answers.
#81 Erik
on November 27, 2008 at 3:07 a.m.(Everett, WA | Unverified Name)
All these students are doing is looking for attention. Unbelievable how students at this school are out in red square daily screaming for equal rights yet it's obvious that in reality they only care about getting their own rights while taking away everyone elses. Listening to a prayer is not going to kill you, especially if you claim to not believe in God. GET A LIFE!!
#82 Ryan
on November 27, 2008 at 3:13 a.m.(Everett, WA | Unverified Name)
"if the Bible was truly god's word, plenty of Christians should be out in the streets stoning everybody else for their sins."....."Wouldn't it be great if religion wasn't about telling everybody else they're wrong and they're going to suffer forever in a fiery eternal hell? And then fighting over it constantly?"
Wow.. clearly you are an atheist who has never actually read the bible for yourself.. you must just be shouting what your friends tell you because that's just ridiculous. Not to mention you are talking about how obnoxious a 1 minute prayer is?.. My goodness you should stop and listen to yourself for 2 seconds and see how obnoxious you sound.
#83 Hillary W.
on November 27, 2008 at 5:59 p.m.(Kenmore, WA)
I see absolutely no reason why this prayer shouldn't have taken place. As someone who is non-affiliated with any religious organization, I would feel very hypocritical expecting other people to put up with my disbelief of their religion while not putting up with the beliefs of others. In the end, these students have just made themselves out to be petty, argumentative, and unaccepting. Personally, I'd really rather see religious people embracing and valuing non-religious people as well as non-religious people embracing those of faith. It has to be a two-way street, there's no way around it.
#84 Randall F.
on November 28, 2008 at 2:47 a.m.(Bellevue, WA)
@ Hillary W
You are my new hero.
#85 Joy
on November 29, 2008 at 8:01 p.m.(Bothell, WA | Unverified Name)
Alex Lark, hopefully someday you'll realize what a ridiculous comment that is.
Yay for going to a university where I'm forced to read detailed pornographic accounts of gays having sex and having sex with their dogs and cows, (and have the professor call criticism against homosexuals the "only fault of the author's brilliance"), but am told a one-time prayer in a class is offensive and out of place.
#86 TM
on December 3, 2008 at 4:47 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
The point of this whole issue was that there shouldn't be prayer in a political science class, where students pay money to learn about politics. It should be in a religion class, or a class where religion is a main focus. The issue is about the learning, not about the praying. It upsets me that people think this issue is about religion, its not. Just to clear things up.
#87 Charles S.
on December 8, 2008 at 5:53 p.m.(Chelan, WA)
WOW, my alma mater, a top rated University, in a class designed to simulate the activities of the US Congress, SUSPENDS the one minute of free speech, BECAUSE TWO people complained about the content of One Student's use of those 60 seconds!??? Jeepers, you could study the Legislature in Olympia, where they do the same thing.
No wonder Free Speech and Freedom of Religion are embedded in our Constitution.
Post a comment