A Texas family from Carrolton by the names of David and Shannon Croft are suing Gov. Rick Perry and a school district over a state-mandated moment of silence in schools. Their 3 children attend Rosemeade Elementary and their argument is that the moment of silence is unconstitutional and amounts to state-mandated prayer.

For a bit of food for the brain this morning, currently there are 25 states that have moment of silence statutes. Thirteen of these states explicitly specify prayer as an "option"(take notice of the quotations). Then of course here is the real surprise (ah sarcasm). This couple has a history of complaints against religious words and images in schools having previously complained about Boy Scout rallies, fliers sent home about Good News Bible Club, and the inclusion of "silent night" and a Chanukah song at the Holiday Concert.

Let’s first go into the definition of Separation of Church and State before I rant about this case. The Constitution states that Congress “should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This U. S. Supreme Court and other U. S. courts have been continually asked to interpret this clause. The case used as a template for all decisions to come regarding religion and school was Lemon v Kurtzman (1971). The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that direct government assistance to religious schools was unconstitutional. The majority opinion outlined a test “Lemon Test”, for deciding when a law violated said clause. According to the decision, a law involving religion is constitutional if it has a secular (non-religious) purpose, neither for or against it (neutral), and does not result in “excessive entanglements” between government and religion.

Whew okay then so that was a brief summary of Separation of Church and State. Ah now for my opine. I will respond on a few different points. To begin, I would like to go back to the 13 states that specify prayer as an option. The case the lovely Crofts brought to the courts (because it would seem they have nothing better to do and the attorney loves the limelight) is nothing but a waste of time. Lets for argument sake say Texas is one of the states that allow prayer as an option. This would mean an option (defined in Webster’s Dictionary as: An act of choosing-the power or right to choose: freedom of choice. Okay with that out of the way this would mean that again for the sake of argument the Crofts are basically advocating that this moment of silence is being forced upon their children because it possibly amounts to prayer. Okay, I don’t know about you but in High School whenever there was a moment of silence I was silent, but then again I am not an insolate. However, many students would continue to talk and completely ignore the voice over the intercom telling them to observe said silence. Again the possibility of this so-called prayer is only specified in 13 states as remember that word of the day “option”. So again the Crofts fail to realize that say Texas is one of those 13 states, the prayer they are advocating takes place is in fact an option!!! No one individual can nor will force someone else to pray. When I was in Elementary school, I attended a religious church that also had their own school (Rock Church to be exact). Every morning there would be a prayer said in the gym prior to class. As I recall this was not forced upon me. Grant it I had to sit there but I wasn't forced to do anything. This case is just another pair of ridiculous adults who have nothing better to do then to force their atheistic views upon society.

Okay now for my 2^nd rant. The definition of Separation of Church and State using the 1971 case via the Lemon Test basically states that this specific argument brought by David and Shannon would be In fact Constitutional because a moment of silence is 25 states does not include the word of the day-option- of prayer. Either way a moment of silence is a non-secular-neutral form of expression. How in the world does this result in an entanglement between government and religion? It does not because a moment of silence is not religious!!!!! For Pete’s sake (or in this case Dave and Shannon) pretend some of us have a clue here. A moment of silence is that Silence!!!! You can think whatever you want in your head you just can’t speak!!!!

For the third and final rant I shall discuss this lovely couple’s hobby of going after religious words and images. Okay first off lets assume the Crofts are atheists or agnostics. And as usual their argument is that “religion is offensive”. (I wonder how it could be considering most don’t believe in a god so how can one be offended by something that doesn’t exist? Hmmm riddle me that! Anyways for arguments sake these atheists/agnostics are offended by religion because for some reason it keeps them up at night. Okay for the record I am non-denominational with a mother who was born into a Jewish household who later became as she terms it “born again” ,and a German father raised Catholic. I am not very religious and don’t really find anyone offensive. Unless of course they tell me their religion is superior to mine and they push their religious opinion on me. Anyways lets just say for argument sake I will use the song by John Lennon-my father hates this song-Imagine. Imagine a world with no religion. Here is the thing Lennon I am a but on the edge about that statement. Here is why… I live in a society that is “me” consumed. No one looks out for the next guy only him or herself. We have people that live to harm us.. i.e terrorists, murderers, rapists, child molesters, druggies etc. All of these types of people who live to hurt others. But then there is also another side to what is termed a balance in society. There are the good people (who are in my opinion centered or independent, basically no far left loonies) who generally care about others and strive to make a difference in society. I’d like to think that religion calms people. It gives people something to fear and perhaps a reason to aspire to become a better person. People are no longer fearful of going to jail or cops. But if there is a possibility of ending up in Hell that forces people to behave, then I am all for it. So I’d rather not imagine Lennon’s world, I prefer mine. So as for the poor couple in Texas they should really try and make a difference in society by promoting something that helps others rather than diminishing an opportunity of something better.