Rob Sherman Advocacy         

October 5 , 2007

Dawn and Rob Sherman Battle Unconstitutional
Illinois Public School Student Prayer Act

      During the past year, the Illinois General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1463, amending 105 ILCS 20-1 of the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, to make the provisions of Section 1 of the Act mandatory rather than voluntary.  Section 1 of the Act will now say, "In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day," but the name of the Act is the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act.  The Act then attempts to invoke a lawyer trick known as "denying the obvious" by saying, "This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day."  I call it denying the obvious because, not only is it a religious exercise, it's intended to be a religious exercise.  That's the whole purpose for enacting the law.  Section 1 of the Act now directly contradicts Section 5 of the Act, which correctly states that, "consistent with the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions," the only form of student prayer that is permitted in the public schools is student initiated prayer that "is not sponsored, promoted or endorsed in any manner by the school or any school employee."  It's pretty hard to claim that prayer during that period is student initiated when the period is government mandated.

      Indeed, the Act acknowledges, right there in Section 5 of the very same statute, that the new provision of Section 1 of the statute is unconstitutional.  If "all the pupils therein assembled" shall observe the state-mandated brief period for silent prayer, that sure doesn't sound like it's student initiated.  Rather, it is, undeniably, "sponsored, promoted and endorsed by the school."

      On March 21st, the Senate voted 58 to 1 in favor of the Bill.  On May 31st, the House voted 86 to 26 in favor of the bill.  On August 28th, Governor Blagojevich vetoed SB1463 because it's unconstitutional.  Last Wednesday, October 3rd, the Senate voted 42 to 9 to override the veto.  Next Wednesday, October 10th, the House will vote on whether to override the veto, and it is most likely that the vote will be sufficient to override the governor's veto, at which time the bill will become law.  The Act will now require teachers to stop teaching their secular, public school curriculum at the start of the school day and, instead, replace their public education curriculum with a State-mandated prayer session.

      Last night, October 4th, my daughter, Dawn (Remember her?  She's the one who "got God banned from homecoming" last month at Buffalo Grove High School), and I made separate presentations to the High School District 214 School Board regarding the Student Prayer Act.  I asked that the Board direct its teachers and employees to ignore, disregard and defy the law when the amendment to the Act becomes law next week.  I explained that the law is unconstitutional because the obvious purpose of the law is to get more prayer into the public school classroom, in clear violation of all three prongs of the "Lemon Test" three-part Supreme Court standard for state/church separation.  Part One of that standard requires that a law must have a secular purpose as its principal and primary effect.  Part Two of that standard requires that a law neither advance nor inhibit religion.  Part Three of the standard requires that a law must not cause an excessive entanglement between state and church.

      I mentioned to the School Board that one need look no farther than who the sponsors of the law are in order to demonstrate that the intent of the law clearly and undeniably is to get more prayer into the public school classroom.  One co-sponsor is Senator James Meeks.  Senator Meeks' day job is pastor of Salem Baptist Church, the African American version of Willow Creek Community Church and perhaps the biggest Black mega-church in Chicago.  Can anyone seriously believe that Senator/Reverend Meeks, whose day job is to get more people to pray, did not have as his goal getting more prayer into the public school classroom?  Another co-sponsor is Senator Jacqueline Collins, a minister at Saint Sabina Catholic Church, also on the South Side of Chicago.  St. Sabina is best known for Father Michael Pfleger.  Can anyone seriously believe that Senator/Minister Collins, whose day job is to get more people to pray, did not have as her goal getting more prayer into the public school classroom?  Another co-sponsor, on the House side, is Representative LaShawn Ford.  Rep. Ford is a member of the Saint Martin de Porris Catholic Church Parish Council and Finance Committee.  Can anyone seriously believe that Representative/Parish Council Member Ford, whose day job is to get more people to contribute money to his church, did not have as his goal getting more prayer into the public school classroom?  Can anyone seriously believe that three legislators who are also church leaders/officers did not have as their goal for amending this law getting more prayer into the public school classroom?

      After I made my presentation, Dawn made hers.  She stated that she will not tolerate her education being damaged by having the public school cause her first-period biology class to have "more religion, less science."  Dawn also stated to the School Board that she would be a plaintiff if this matter needs to end up in court.

      By sheer coincidence, the school district's outside legal counsel, Darcy Kriha of the downtown Chicago law firm Franczek Sullivan, was at the meeting to assist the school district with a closed session matter.  Darcy is one of the nation's most highly respected lawyers regarding the subject of state/church separation in the public school setting.  Darcy and I know each other.  She and I made a joint appearance on February 17, 2005, at an Elgin school district forum, where she and I were the expert speakers on the subject of state/church separation in the public school setting.  On that date, Darcy gave me a copy of her brilliant and thorough overview on the subject of state/church separation in the public school setting.  I was so impressed by it, I posted to my web site, with her permission, of course, a copy of her document, entitled Separation of Church/State Doctrine in the Public School Setting.  In her document, Darcy commented on the very issue of a mandatory moment of silence in public schools.   Here's what the very own legal counsel to Dawn's school district had to say on the subject:  At Section II, "Commonly Asked First Amendment Questions," Paragraph A, "About School Prayer," #1. "Can a school district sponsor prayer or a mandatory moment of silence?" Darcy gave a one-word, unambiguous answer:  "No."  Did Darcy make herself perfectly clear?  Darcy went on to provide the legal substantiation for her perspective:  "[T]he United States Supreme Court struck down a state [Alabama] statute that authorized a one-minute period of silence in public schools for 'mediation' (sic -- should be meditation) 'or voluntary prayer.'  Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) .  The Court found that the legislative purpose behind the moment of silence was to permit prayer, therefore the statute was unconstitutional."

      Can there possibly be any question about whether that same legislative purpose exists with SB1463, here in Illinois, what with the co-sponsors of the bill being leaders and officers of prominent churches?  They are in the business of coming up with ways to get more people to pray, so they used their positions as legislators to sponsor a law to have the government coerce children to pray.  That doesn't say much about the merits or credibility of religion when the leaders of religion demonstrate that they think that the only way to get children to pray is to get government to force children into praying.

      Can you imagine a situation where, if Dawn's school implements the law and we immediately sue, we end up in federal court opposite the school district's attorney, Darcy Kriha, and we begin the case by giving the judge a copy of Darcy's own analysis, affirming that the law is unconstitutional?  I'm sure it won't get that far, because the School Board and I, as well as the school administration and I, have excellent working relationships.  In addition, Darcy and I have a great relationship, so I'm sure that they will be able to Stop Me Before I Sue Again.

      However, by making our presentations to the School Board last night, we made it clear that we are not going to be pushed around on this one.  My daughter's message was, "Don't mess with Dawn.  I stand up for my rights."  They already know my message on that subject.