Children can pray any time, silently and voluntarily as the Bible recommends Matt. The Supreme Court ruled only that government-sponsored prayer and Bible-reading as religious exercises were a violation of the neutrality clause of the First Amendment. The Engel and Schempp rulings against state-sponsored prayer and Bible reading in public schools, however, did not steal from children their right to acknowledge God, but merely reinforced the First Amendment's neutrality clause.
These were religious exercises and thus constituted an establishment of religion, which violated the rights of children who came from families with different or no religious beliefs. Furthermore, Justice Tom Clark stated clearly in Abington v. Schempp that the Bible could and should be read in classrooms as part of students' academic education: It certainly may be said the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities.
Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. Abington v. Schempp Although the wall concept has been the legal interpretation of the First Amendment for more than years, a complete separation of religion and government is probably impossibility.
Religion and government Martin Marty noted that religion is not confined to formal institutions, but is "increasingly diffused throughout the culture" The problem for courts and public institutions, then, becomes how broadly is religion to be defined and "where does religion stop? The Court has also recognized that religion is such an integral part of society that it cannot be totally removed from state functions. Thus, in Lemon v. Kurtzman the "Lemon test" was created as a means of clarifying the issue.
Vitale case, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional the New York Regents "nondenominational" prayer that was recommended to be said each morning in every public school in the state. The following year, in Abington v. Schempp, Bible reading as a morning exercise was also ruled a violation of the First Amendment's clause forbidding the establishment of a religion. The latter, however, implies that some confusion is unavoidable and acceptable.
The questions for society and state-supported schools are: what kind and how much? Charles Haynes, a visiting scholar at the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, Vanderbilt University, advocated having academic studies on the Bible and world religions in public schools. The purpose would not be to promote any particular faith or to proselytize, but to expose students to the cultural and intellectual aspects of many religions. He believed that students who know how humankind has struggled with the great religious questions are not so vulnerable to the nonsense and dangerous ideas spouted by certain groups and movements.
He argues that one of the most dangerous assumptions educators make is that we should teach our idea of truth. But being truly well-educated means knowing alternatives to your idea of truth. However, reading the Bible as part of a secular program of education, studying the doctrines and practices of world religions, and being confronted with other concepts of truth is to the worse than avoiding religion altogether, for this opens the door to biblical scholarship, historical and literary studies, archeological findings, comparisons with "pagan" religions, and various interpretations of scriptural passages.
Contrary to the statements of official leaders, government schools are not antagonistic to religious beliefs, but must draw a line between an academic study of an important part of our culture and an unconstitutional preference of one faith over others, or of religion over non-belief. Thus, reading the Ten Commandments and comparing them with similar tenets in other religions would be a legitimate lesson; posting the Commandments in every classroom would be a promotion of the Judeo-Christian faith and a violation of the First Amendment.
A discussion of religion is legal in any class where it is integral to the subject. For instance, many historical topics, from medievalism to Martin Luther to the Mayflower Compact, cannot be understood without investigating the religious underpinnings. Novels, short stories, and poetry are especially laden with religious elements, including biblical and other scriptural references from a variety of faiths. In August , the U.
Department of Education disseminated to every school district in America a statement of principles concerning the extent to which religious expression and activity are permitted in public schools. Conclusion Nothing in the First Amendment converts the public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the schoolhouse door. While the government may not use schools to coerce the consciences of public school students, or to convey official endorsement of religion, the public schools also may not discriminate against private religious expression during the school day.
Thus, in addition to learning about religion in academic classes, students can practice their faith in a variety of ways that do not interfere with the rights of others. They can pray silently, read the Bible on their own time, request alternate books that are compatible with their beliefs, and express their religious convictions whenever it is appropriate for such discussions.
Teachers, however, have a sometimes difficult task. They must walk a narrow path between promoting a common core of democratic values and those values that reflect only the beliefs of specific religious groups. They must determine what constitutes an academic study, what becomes indoctrination into a particular faith, what is discrimination against private religious expression or nonreligious belief, and what is a valid, even necessary, means of educating students in a democratic society. With one order you receive 5 in 1. Who could disagree? How ironic that those campaigning on an anti-Big Government theme, who contend that government should get out of our private lives, would seek to tell our children who to pray to in our public schools!
As many editorials across the country have pointed out, the school prayer debate seems calculated to deflect attention away from the more pressing economic questions facing our nation. As one conservative governor put it: "If we don't deal with the economic issues, we'll need more than prayer to solve our problems.
Some politicians like to blame everything bad in America upon the absence of school prayer. Get real! Entire generations of Americans have grown up to be law-abiding citizens without ever once reciting a prayer in school! If prayer is the answer, why are our jails and prisons bulging with born-agains! Japan, where no one prays at school, has the lowest crime rate of any developed nation. Institutionalizing school prayer can not raise the SAT scores only more studying and less praying can do that.
It is irrational to charge that the complicated sociological problems facing our everchanging population stem from a lack of prayer in schools. One might just as well credit the lack of prayer with the great advances that have taken place since the and decisions on prayer.
Introduction (Debate in favor of having prayer in public schools is initiated at this point). The thesis statement is, “In the contemporary world of loss of morality. Prayer in School Thesis Statement For the supporters of public prayer, the constitution supports their freedom of religion to be able to uplift.
Look at the leap in civil liberties, equality, environmental awareness, women's rights, science, technology and medicine! The polio scare is over. Fountains, buses, schools are no longer segregated by law. We've made great strides in medical treatment. We have VCRs and the computer chip. The Cold War has ended! Who would turn the clock back? Our political system is a democratic republic in which we use majority vote to elect certain officials or pass referenda. But we do not use majority vote to decide what religion, if any, our neighbors must observe!
The "majority" is free to worship at home, at tax-exempt churches, on the way to and from school, or privately in school. There are 16 school-less hours a day when children can pray, not to mention weekends. Many in the "majority" do not support school prayers. And if the majority religion gets to choose which prayers are said in schools, that would mean a lot of Protestant kids will be reciting Catholic prayers!
The Roman Catholic Church is the single largest denomination in our country. Should Protestant minorities be excused so the classroom can pray in unison to the Virgin Mary? In a few school districts, Muslims outnumber other religions. Should Christian minorities march into the hall with their ears covered while the principal prays to Allah over the intercom?
Given the regimentation of school children, it would make more sense to have a "moment of bedlam" than a "moment of silence"! Obviously, the impetus for "moments of silence or meditation" is to circumvent the rulings against religion in schools.
The legislative history of such state laws reveals the religious motives behind the legislation, as in the Alabama law struck down by the U. Supreme Court in calling for a "moment of silence for meditation or prayer. When a "moment of silence" law was enacted in Arkansas at the suggestion of then-Gov. Bill Clinton, the law mandating this meaningless ritual was later repealed following popular indifference. We know from experience that many teachers and principals would regard a "moment of silence" mandate as a green light to introduce prayers, causing more legal challenges at the expense of taxpayers.
In , the Court ruled in Lee v. Weisman that prayers at public school commencements are an impermissible establishment of religion: "The lessons of the First Amendment are as urgent in the modern world as the 18th Century when it was written. One timeless lesson is that if citizens are subjected to state-sponsored religious exercises, the State disavows its own duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people," wrote Justice Kennedy for the majority.
He dismissed as unacceptable the cruel idea that a student should forfeit her own graduation in order to be free from such an establishment of religion. This is a ruse proposed by extremist Christian legal groups such as the Rutherford Institute, and the American Center for Law and Justice run by televangelist Pat Robertson. Religious coercion is even worse at the hands of another student, subjecting students to peer pressure, pitting students in the majority against students in the minority, treating them as outsiders with school complicity.
Imposing prayer-by-majority-vote is flagrant and insensitive abuse of school authority. Such schools should be teaching students about the purpose of the Bill of Rights, instead of teaching them to be religious bullies. Some principals or school boards have even made seniors hold open class votes on whether to pray at graduation, leading to hostility and reprisal against those students brave enough to stand up for the First Amendment.
Bryan, Jr. We cannot put liberties protected by our Bill of Rights up to a vote of school children! Should kindergartners be forced to vote about whether to pray before their milk and cookies? Under such reasoning, what would make it wrong for students to vote to segregate schools or otherwise violate the civil liberties of minorities? Our founders wisely adopted a secular, godless constitution, the first to derive its powers from "We, the People" and the consent of the governed, rather than claiming divine authority. They knew from the experience of religious persecution, witchhunts and religious discrimination in the Thirteen Colonies, and from the bloody history left behind in Europe, that the surest path to tyranny was to entangle church and state.
That is why they adopted a secular constitution whose only references to religion are exclusionary, such as that there shall be no religious test for public office Art. There were no prayers offered at the Constitutional Convention, which shows their intent to separate religion from secular affairs.
Prayers in schools and religion in government are no panacea for social ills - they are an invitation to divisiveness. More people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other cause. As Thomas Paine pointed out, "Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed.
Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed. Keep the church and state forever separate. Thomas Jefferson, author of the sweeping Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, stating that no citizen "shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever Written by Annie Laurie Gaylor. FFRF is a non-profit, educational organization.
All dues and donations are deductible for income-tax purposes. FFRF privacy statement. Member Login. About FFRF. Getting Acquainted. Dan Barker. Annie Laurie Gaylor. Freethought Hall. About the Foundation FAQ.
Internship Opportunities. Fellowship Opportunities. Annual Report. Privacy Statement. Request Information. Contact Us. Legal Challenges. Ongoing Lawsuits.
They wanted to find a place where they could farm and raise a family with financial prosperity, but mostly they came to the Americas to have the freedom to worship God in their own way. The Federal Government may not establish a national church or religion or excessively involve itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Free Essays words 2. Strong Essays words 2. A Prayer On The Church - One of my pastoral mentors recently asked for my prayers concerning a crisis within the church.
Highlighted Court Victories. Other Court Challenges. New Legal Successes. Legal Archives. Freethought Today. Freethought Today Archives. Foundation Books. Secular Funerals. News Releases. FFRF in the News. Current Media Coverage. Archives Media Coverage. Freethought Radio.
Listing of Guests. Show Items. Freethought Matters. Action Alerts. Active Action Alerts. Archived Action Alerts.
Freethought Now Blog. Blog Archives. Timeless Topics. Freethought of the Day. Today's Freethought. Browse By Date. Browse by Name. Browse by Topic. News Release Archives. For the Media. Presskit and Logo. Media Contact Signup.
go Convention Site. Open House. Future Conventions. Past Conventions. Student Essay Contests. Nonbelief Relief, Inc. FFRF Chapters. Atheist in Foxhole Award. Avijit Roy Courage Award. Clarence Darrow Award.
Emperor Has No Clothes Award. Forward Award. Freethinker of the Year Award. Freethought Heroine Award.