When My Teacher Made Me Pray
When I was in second grade, my teacher made us pray that the law would change so that a day at school could once again begin with a prayer. I was 7, but even at that age, I knew there was something nonsensical about praying to be allowed to pray.
This was at a public school outside Philadelphia in the 1960s, not that long after the Supreme Court ruled that prayer in public schools violated the Constitution. In our predominantly Catholic neighborhood, my family, with its three kids, seemed to me to be abnormally small. There were 30 students or more in that class, and I was probably the only Jewish kid. I bowed my head to my desk and mouthed the words the teacher asked us to recite.
She also asked us to bring Bibles to class. I don't know why—maybe to ascertain who among us had one at home. We didn't have anything at home we called a Bible. My family attended a Reform synagogue, and we were not particularly observant. But I would have known by then that I was different from my classmates, because we did not celebrate Christmas.
I felt singled out as different, Bible-less and unholy, and it caused me to shut down. That year, I came home with C's and D's on my report cards.
[Elizabeth Bruenig: Who counts as Christian?]
When my parents asked what was wrong, I would say 'nothing.' I was a middle child, and my role in the family was to never be too much trouble. But my silence ran deeper than that. I knew that if I told my parents about my teacher, they would go to my school and raise objections. That would shine an even brighter spotlight on me, which was the last thing I wanted. I must have figured that it was better for my parents to think I was kind of dumb.
I've thought about that long-ago experience a lot recently, now that religion, and specifically Christianity, is ascending in public life.
A couple weeks ago, Pete Hegseth, the nation's top military leader, led what was called the 'Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service' at the Pentagon. As described in a New York Times story, it sounded like a revival meeting. 'This is precisely where I need to be, and I think exactly where we need to be as a nation, at this moment,' Hegseth said: 'in prayer, on bended knee, recognizing the providence of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.' He continued, 'King Jesus, we come humbly before you, seeking your face, seeking your grace, in humble obedience to your law and to your word.'
In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott is expected to sign legislation requiring classrooms in the state's roughly 9,000 public schools to be postered with copies of the Ten Commandments. This school year, for the first time, teachers in Oklahoma were ordered to keep a Bible in their classroom: 'Every teacher, every classroom in the state, will have a Bible in the classroom, and will be teaching from the Bible in the classroom,' said the state superintendent. He stressed the historical importance of the text for America's Founding Fathers and suggested that it could be brought into science classes as part of discussions about how it inspired investigations into 'God's creation.' He expected 'immediate and strict compliance' with the mandate.
To make the case for more religious content in schools and elsewhere in public life, proponents often argue that the Fathers were men of faith who believed that the nation and even the Constitution itself were divinely inspired. History suggests this is an exaggeration at best. The Founders were men of the Enlightenment, and some, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin, were attracted to Deism—a belief system that stresses rationality over superstition and rejects the notion of a supreme being who intervenes in the universe. That's a long way from the Christian nationalism of Hegseth and others who are now seeking to bring their faith into the public square.
[Molly Worthen: What the fastest-growing Christian group reveals about America]
But we are of course a Christian nation and probably will always remain so. No one knows that better than non-Christians. It is a fact of life, and not an unhappy one, or at least not for me. I am married to a woman who grew up attending a Presbyterian church. We raised our children in both of our traditions. There is a big difference, however, between the choices we make and the ones forced on us.
The aggressive push to flood the nation with religious faith—a specific faith, and a particular strain of that faith—undermines any notion of American plurality. It comes at a cost not just to the nation, but to individual Americans. You want to advance in Hegseth's Pentagon? You would do well to attend one of his prayer services—they are going to be held monthly—to pray, and to do so conspicuously and in full voice.
Thirty-one million people live in Texas—67 percent of whom identify as Christian. The rest, about 10 million Texans, are Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or a mix that a Pew Research Center study identified as atheists, agnostics, and 'nothing in particular.' Some children from those families will now have to sit in school while a faith other than their own is pressed on them.
They'll feel, as I did, like an interloper—unwelcome in their own classroom.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth could be ‘on the hook' for hundreds of millions on Qatari jet, says Raskin
The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has warned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that he could be 'on the hook' for hundreds of millions of dollars for having accepted a luxury jet from the Qatari government. In a letter sent Wednesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) argued that Hegseth's formal acceptance of the Boeing 747 jetliner last month – a move made so that the Air Force can upgrade its security measures so it may eventually be used as Air Force One – violates the Constitution emoluments clause. The rule bars federal officials from accepting financial benefits from foreign governments without congressional approval. 'I write now to urge and advise you to promptly mitigate these violations—and your own personal legal exposure—by either returning the plane to the Qatari government or promptly seeking Congress's consent to accept it,' Raskin wrote. The Pentagon announced on May 21 that it had officially accepted the 13-year-old luxury jet previously used by the Qatari royal family, a supposed 'free,' gift that could be used to supplement the aging Air Force One fleet, according to President Trump. The transfer has been criticized by U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who say it raises ethical and corruption questions in addition to costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit the plane into a secure and working Air Force One. Others have focused on the national security risks of such a gift, saying the aircraft would have to be swept for listening devices. Some have worried that in Trump's push to use the plane before he leaves office, the Air Force will rush security upgrades and cut corners on protection systems. A former professor of constitutional law and former ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Raskin has focused his criticisms on the ethical issues around accepting the Qatari plane, repeatedly arguing that it requires congressional approval. 'The Constitution is perfectly clear: no present 'of any kind whatever' from a foreign state without Congressional permission,' Raskin wrote on X last month after news of the gift broke. Congress has the authority to block federal officials from receiving gifts from foreign governments, as granted in the Constitution, but the government arm has not held any formal vote to accept the plane or not. Democrats largely have been unsuccessful in stopping Trump from accepting the Qatari jet. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last month attempted to pass a bill that would bar the use of a foreign jet as Air Force One, but that effort failed. Raskin, along with other Democrat lawmakers, have introduced resolutions to condemn the gift but Republicans have blocked them from being considered on the floor. Making matters more complicated, Democrats, given their status as the minority party, can't convene any oversight hearings that would force government officials to testify on the issue, and their colleagues across the aisle have not called any such hearings themselves. In his letter, Raskin says Hegseth is in violation of the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which could prompt the Attorney General to bring civil action and penalties against him. Under that law, government officials can accept certain gifts up to $480 in value, and they cannot 'request or otherwise encourage the tender of a gift or decoration' from another country. In violating the act, Hegseth can face a penalty 'not to exceed the retail value of the gift improperly solicited or received plus $5,000.' 'In other words, you may be on the hook for $400 million (plus $5,000) even for a jumbo jet that you accepted on behalf of the President but do not get to personally enjoy,' Raskin writes, referring to the cost of a new Boeing 747-8 jet. 'If you truly believe that there is nothing untoward about the President asking for and receiving a $400 million 'flying palace' from a foreign power, then you should let Congress and the President's Republican colleagues vote to approve the transaction,' he adds. 'If you're unwilling to do that, you must return the plane to Qatar.'

Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Transgender troops face a deadline and a difficult decision: Stay or go?
WASHINGTON — As transgender service members face a deadline to leave the U.S. military, hundreds are taking the financial bonus to depart voluntarily. But others say they will stay and fight. For many, it is a wrenching decision to end a career they love, and leave units they have led or worked with for years. And they are angry they are being forced out by the Trump administration's renewed ban on transgender troops. Active duty service members had until Friday to identify themselves and begin to leave the military voluntarily, while the National Guard and Reserve have until July 7. Then the military will begin involuntary separations. Friday's deadline comes during Pride Month and as the Trump administration targets diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, saying it's aiming to scrub the military of 'wokeness' and reestablishing a 'warrior ethos.' 'They're tired of the rollercoaster. They just want to go,' said one transgender service member, who plans to retire. 'It's exhausting.' For others, it's a call to arms. 'I'm choosing to stay in and fight,' a noncommissioned officer in the Air Force said. 'My service is based on merit, and I've earned that merit.' The troops, who mainly spoke on condition of anonymity because they fear reprisals, said being forced to decide is frustrating. They say it's a personal choice based on individual and family situations, including whether they would get an infusion of cash or possibly wind up owing the government money. 'I'm very disappointed,' a transgender Marine said. 'I've outperformed, I have a spotless record. I'm at the top of every fitness report. I'm being pushed out while I know others are barely scraping by.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said this is President Trump's directive and what America voted for. The Pentagon, he said, is 'leaving wokeness & weakness behind' and that includes 'no more dudes in dresses.' Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, a veteran, and 22 other Democratic senators have written to Hegseth urging him to allow transgender troops to keep serving honorably. Already, more than 1,000 service members have voluntarily identified themselves as transgender and are slated to begin leaving, according to rough Defense Department estimates. Defense officials say there are about 4,240 active duty transgender troops but acknowledge the numbers are fuzzy. For many, the decision is financial. Those who voluntarily leave will get double the amount of separation pay they would normally receive and won't have to return bonuses or tuition costs. Those who refuse to go could be forced to repay reenlistment or other bonuses as high as $50,000. That was the tipping point for Roni Ferrell, an Army specialist at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington. Ferrell, 28, lives on base with her wife and two children and had planned to stay in the Army for at least another decade. But she said she felt 'backed into a corner' to sign the voluntary separation agreement, fearing she would have to repay an $18,500 reenlistment bonus. 'My commander basically said it was my only option in order to make sure my kids are taken care of,' Ferrell said. The Marine, who has served for more than 25 years, said she had planned to stay and fight, but changed her mind. Lawyers, she said, told her an involuntary separation would put a code in her record saying she was forced to leave 'in the interests of national security.' That designation, she said, could mean those involuntarily separated could lose their security clearances, hurting future job prospects. In a statement Friday, a defense official said the code 'is not intended' to trigger clearance revocations and that gender dysphoria is not a security reporting requirement, according to the director of national intelligence. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Cynthia Cheng-Wun Weaver, senior director of litigation for Human Rights Campaign, said it's important for troops to talk with judge advocates general in their services to ensure they understand the different procedures being implemented. The Air Force service member and a transgender officer in the Army National Guard both said they plan to stay and fight. Lawsuits over the ban continue and could change or block the policy. For troops involved in the court battles as plaintiffs, leaving voluntarily now would likely hurt their standing in the case. For others, it's simply dedication to their career. 'I've really embraced military culture, and it's embraced me,' the Air Force member said. 'It's not about money. It's the career that I love.' The Guard soldier echoed that sentiment, saying he will stay on 'because it is important to me to serve. Frankly, I'm good at it, I'm well trained so I want to continue.' Others without bonuses to repay or who have been in the military only a short while and won't get much in separation bonus pay may opt to stay and see what happens. National Guard members who are heading to their monthly drill weekend or annual two-week drill in June could be required to go but serve as the gender they were assigned at birth. That means they would have to wear uniforms and haircuts of that gender, use that bathroom and be referred to as 'sir' or 'ma'am' based on that gender. For many, that could be close to impossible and create uncomfortable situations. 'If I were to show up to drill this weekend, I'd be expected to use all female facilities, I would be expected to wear a woman's uniform,' said the Army Guard officer, who transitioned to male about five years ago and says others in his unit know him as a man. 'I don't look like a woman. I don't feel like a woman. It would be disruptive to good order and discipline for me to show up and to tell my soldiers, you have to call me 'ma'am' now.' It's not clear if Guard units are handling it all the same way, and it could be up to individual states or commanders. Some may allow troops to postpone the drill or go on administrative leave. The service members interviewed by The Associated Press said they don't know what will happen once the deadline passes to leave voluntarily. Some believe that unit commanders will quickly single people out and start involuntary separations. Others say the process is vague, may involve medical review boards and could take months. The defense official said Friday that as the Pentagon takes these steps, it 'will treat our service members with dignity and respect.' Under Hegseth's directive, military commanders will be told to identify troops with gender dysphoria — when a person's biological sex does not match their gender identity — and send them to get medical checks to force them out of the service, defense officials have said. The order relies on routine annual health checks — so it could be months before that evaluation is scheduled. 'My real big sticking point is that this administration's whole push is to reform this country based around merit, and that gender, race, etc., should have no factor in hiring,' the Air Force service member said. 'If that's true, I'm solely being removed for my gender, and merit is no longer a factor.' Baldor writes for the Associated Press. AP writer R.J. Rico in Atlanta contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump urges Supreme Court to allow mass layoffs at Education Department
President Donald Trump's administration urged the Supreme Court on Friday to allow officials to gut the Department of Education, a key priority for the president that has been stymied by a series of lower court decisions. The emergency appeal landed at the high court days after the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reverse a lower court order that halted mass firings at the department, which was created during the Carter administration. Trump has filed more than a dozen emergency appeals at the Supreme Court since he returned to office in January. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the administration argues its effort at the Education Department involves 'internal management decisions' and 'eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration's view, are better left to the states.' Though Trump has repeatedly vowed to get rid of the department, the administration's lawyers told the Supreme Court in its filing on Friday that 'the government has been crystal clear in acknowledging that only Congress can eliminate the Department of Education.' Trump ordered mass layoffs at the department earlier this year. The problem for the administration is that the department was created by Congress, and so lower courts have ruled it cannot be unilaterally unwound by the White House. At the same time, the administration does have the power to reduce the size of federal agencies, so long as they can continue to carry out their legal requirements. And that, the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court, is precisely what the administration is attempting to do. 'The Department remains committed to implementing its statutorily mandated functions,' the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court in the appeal. The Education Department is tasked with distributing federal aid to schools, managing federal aid for college students and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws – including ensuring schools accommodate students with disabilities. Most public-school policies are a function of state government. US District Judge Myong Joun, nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden, indefinitely halted Trump's plans to dismantle the agency and ordered the administration to reinstate employees who had been fired en masse. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a teachers' union, school districts, states and education groups. Noting that the department 'cannot be shut down without Congress's approval,' Joun said Trump's planned layoffs 'will likely cripple' it. 'The record abundantly reveals that defendants' true intention is to effectively dismantle the department without an authorizing statute,' he wrote. The Supreme Court is already considering a related emergency case about whether Trump can order mass firings and reorganizations in other federal departments. 'What is at stake in this case,' the 1st Circuit wrote, 'was whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department.' Trump's order would have affected about half of the department's employees, according to court records.