Religion is one of the most controversial subjects known to him. Charles Caleb Colton once wrote, “Man will wrangle for religion, fight for it, or even die for it.” A few decades ago the Supreme Court ruled that the recitations of prayer along with Bible readings are indisputably unconstitutional. However, religion and prayer in the public schools remains one of the most contentious issues in American society.
Since colonization, Americans have developed the two basic elements of church and state. The first principle was toleration, which asserted that conflicting religious beliefs should be tolerated by law and custom. The second element presented the principle of separation, which set the precedent that the government could not be involved with religion. Today toleration is no longer an issue, however separation is still highly debated. Although the phrase, “separation of church and state” is not mentioned in the Constitution, the idea is deeply implicated. The first amendment adopted both principles stating,” Congress shall make no law respecting an established of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” Known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause these two clauses have been at the core of the legal controversy over prayer.
However the first amendment only pertained to Congress, and therefore only the Federal government. For many years state legislatures made laws intervening in religious matters. In 1868, the fourteenth amendment established that:
Tricia Andryszewski “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities o-f citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (13)
Although the fourteenth amendment was originally intended to end slavery laws in Southern states, over the years it has expanded, and taken on new meaning. It was not until in 1940 in the case Cantwell vs. Connecticut that the religion clause of the first amendment became applicable towards the states. Up until 1940, religion was very predominant in public schools throughout the United States. In colonial New England, the earliest standard text taught through Bible references. For example, the letter “A” was taught with the phrase, “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all”. Before the 1960s, it was routine for the school day to start with prayer. This routine was not only tradition, but according to religious advocates was the reason schools had such security. Religion it seems had a moral power, one many say should be reestablished. Promoters of prayer in the public schools argue that when religion was a part of schools, children were more respectful towards authority and school violence hardly existed. There were no newspaper headings with titles of teenager gun massacres or students assaulting teachers. However, these promoters tend to forget that there were a lot of shameful aspects of American society during these times. During prayer in public schools, Dr.King was assassinated because of his beliefs in equality, the Klu Klux Klan was actively preaching by burning the homes of African Americans, and in Vietnam hundreds of innocent soldiers were being killed for a war in which the reasons behind it were unknown to them.
In the case, Engle vs. Vitale, the Supreme Court banned the recitation of prayer in public schools. The case grew out of a recommendation of the Board of Regents of New York State to recite the following prayer:
Margaret C. Jasper wrote “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country”(415).
Parents objected to the prayer, and filed suit. The lawyers of the parents argued that the recital of the Regent’s prayer should not be allowed because the United States Constitution required separation of state and church. It violated the Establishment Clause by promoting specific religious beliefs and forms of worships. The prayer also conflicted with the petitioners’ faith and beliefs. Lastly, the Regents Prayer was not a part of a traditional heritage such as, “In God We Trust”. The lawyers also mentioned the coercion factor. Even if a student received permission from a parent to not recite the prayer, he still could not leave the classroom. He was still forced to be a witness to an activity that may conflict with his religion. Lawyers for school prayer insisted that no student was being coerced to any sectarian or other formal religious teachings. They accused the petitioners of trying to remove any recognition of God; attacking not only the Regents Prayer, but also any form of prayer. According to court records, the lawyers argued that:
Tricia Andryszeswski wrote“They deny to every public school the right to suggest to any child That God is our Creator and the Author of our liberties or to encourage any public expression of gratitude to Him for those liberties, regardless of the wishes of the child or his parents and regardless of the historical and constitutional tradition of this nation” (27).
They also pointed out that the Establishment Clause did not forbid public prayer. Furthermore, they claimed the Regents Prayer did not violate “separation of church and state”. Prayer in public schools was a popular tradition in New York and throughout the United States. They also brought on the valid point that voluntary expression of belief should not be abolished because of the mere fact that it conflicted to another individual’s faith. After all these prayers are voluntary, and those who feel violated are not obligated to participate. In the end, the Supreme Court opposed the logic of New York officials’ arguments, and sided with Engle, banning the Regents Prayer in New York State public schools. Justice Hugo Black emphasized on the violation of the Constitution saying:
Tricia Andryszewski wrote ”There can, of course, be no doubt that New York’s program of daily classroom invocation of God’s blessings as prescribed in the Regents’ prayer is a religious activity……We think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.(28)
Despite the finality of the court’s decision, yet another controversial case arose on the issue of prayer in public schools. Engle vs. Vitale had treated a specific prayer written by a state, disregarding the legality of other types of prayers. This issue was acknowledged in the cases School District of Abington Township vs. Schempp and Murray vs. Curlett. These cases dealt with the legitimacy of both prayer and Bible reading as devotional exercises at the beginning of the school day. In 1963, the Schempp family, which included husband and wife and their three children, filed suit against the Abington Senior high School. At the start of every school day, a selected group of students from the radio workshop broadcasted ten verses of the Holy Bible. This was routinely followed by the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. The Schempp family believed that these practices were an infringement upon their fourteenth amendment rights and a direct violation of the first amendment. The fourteenth amendment established that the states could not make or enforce laws that interfered with the privileges and rights of a citizen. The Schempps felt that their first amendment right was being breached since their son was subject to public expressions of religion that contradicted their beliefs. In the first trial Edward Schempp and his children testified to specific verses that conflicted with their own religion. During the second trial, the lawyers argued that Roger and Donna Schempp could have been excused from these exercises with a simple note. Why didn’t their parents take the necessary steps to do so? According to the trial court summary, schempp answered as follows:
Robert S. Alley wrote ”Edward Schempp, the Children’s father, testified that after careful consideration he had decided that he should not have Roger or Donna excused from attendance at these morning ceremonies. Among his reasons were the following. He said that he thought his children would be labeled as “odd balls” before their teachers and classmates every school day; that children like Roger’s and Donna’s classmates, were liable “to lump all particular religious difference [s] or religious objections” [together] as “atheism” and that today the word “atheism” is often connected with “atheistic communism”, and has “very bad” connotations, such as “un-American”…with overtones of possible immorality. Mr.Schempp pointed out that due to the events of the morning exercises following in rapid succession, the Bible reading, the Lord’s Prayer, the Flag Salute, and the announcements, excusing his children from the Bible reading would mean that probably they would miss hearing the announcements so important to children. He testified also that if Roger and Donna were excused from Bible reading they would have to stand in the hall outside their “home room” and that this carried with it the imputation of punishment for bad conduct.(92)
In Murray vs. Curlett, the issue was Baltimore’s treatment of a Maryland law regarding practices that commenced the day. The law required that each school either collectively or in classes shall begin the day by reading, without comment, a chapter in the Holy Bible or the use of the Lord’s Prayer. William J. Murray, a student in a Baltimore school was atheist, and he and his mother attempted to have the School Board end this religious practice. In response to their persistent yet unsuccessful efforts, the School Board changed the rules. The new rule specified that any child seeking to be excused from participation in opening traditions, only needed a written request from a parent or guardian. The Murrays rejected the new decree claiming that:
Tricia Andryszewski wrote “It threatens their religious liberty by placing a premium on belief as against non-belief and subjects their freedom of conscience to the rule of the majority; it pronounces belief in God as the source of all moral and spiritual values, equating these values with religious values, and thereby renders sinister, alien and suspect the beliefs and ideals of [the Murrays], promoting doubt and question of their morality, good citizenship and good faith.(33)
The school’s lawyers argued that Bible reading was not even a religious practice since it did not involve discussion or comment. I t also did not require a vow of faith, an acceptance of doctrine, or a profession of belief.
The two cases were so similar, that the Supreme Court judge consolidated them into one case, and ruled in them together in one decision. Thus in the case of Abington vs. Schempp, the Supreme Court ruled that devotional Bible reading and recitation of prayers were unconstitutional since it violated the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment which required neutrality. Justice Tom Clark ascertained that the school exercises at issue were indeed religious ceremonies whose purpose was to advance religion. He emphasized on the point that the first amendment does not prohibit the study of religion or the Bible as part of a secular public school education. The Bible may in fact be worth studying for its literary and history content.
Two decades later, the issue of religion arose again, only this time it was much more complicated. How can the government decide on what is considering religious or not? In the 1971 case, Lemon vs. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court devised a three-pong test, which determined whether a government act or policy was unconstitutionally religion. The test went as follows:
Margaret C. Jasper wrote “The act must have a non- religious purpose;
The act must not result in promoting or favoring any set of religious beliefs; and
The act must not overly involve the government with religion.”(47)
Later in 1992, in the case of Lee vs. Weisman, the Supreme Court ruled that graduation prayers in public schools, albeit, student-led, and supported by the majority of the student body, is unconstitutional.
The decisions of these cases are merely excuses for ignoring religion. Justice Black mentioned in Engle v. Vitale that bible readings can be used in the classroom if it’s a part of the curriculum. The stories had moral meanings behind them, and often times history textbooks did not convey them well. However, history text in schools hardly use a page to discuss the major religions of the world, let alone their moral power. By ignoring religion, the texts and standards are hostile to religion, even discriminatory.
There are too many religions in the world for writers to fit into one chapter in a history textbook. Due to these various religions, the government claims that prayer in schools may offend them. The idea is utterly ridiculous. Prayers at school games, for instance, asked for safety and victory, not conversion to Catholicism or Judaism. In addition, people get offended everyday by different aspects of society, and the government doesn’t censor them. In response to the decisions in Engle vs. Vitale and Abington vs. Schempp , where the parents argued that their children were being imposed upon, and thus were offended, children view much more unpleasantness on television. They view constant violence on the “Power Rangers”, and profanity and nudity in rated ‘R’ movies, but parents still don’t come screaming “offense” to government officials. Some parents even watch these programs with their children. The problem here is tyranny of the minority. Americans have allowed a few hundred outraged parents along with some strict atheists to erase religion from public schools and tradition.
There is also a moral power associated with prayer. Instead of fearing this power,however, people should embrace it. Gandhi, Jesus, Moses, and Buddha all have certain basic beliefs in common those even atheists will agree with. They all encouraged values of honesty, respect and responsibility. One does not have to believe in any God to apply these values in his life. The loss of these values among student bodies in public schools has been very apparent since the absence of prayer. In the past few decades, newspapers have constantly displayed stories of students assaulting teachers and even killing students. Also noteworthy is the fact that these students come from public schools. Prayer in school will not solve these problems of violence, but the habit of reciting it may help to develop an environment of peace and respect. Prayer usually has a soothing and calming effect.
The Supreme Court claims that its past decisions on prayer in the public schools are also interpretations of the Constitution, which states that the government must be neutral in areas of religion. Unfortunately, the courts have failed in achieving neutrality. If the public school system were neutral towards religion, it would not show leniency on behalf of any religion. However that is not the case. During the school year, students are off on Christmas and Easter, both of which are Christian holidays, and Ramadan, a Jewish holiday. Diwali, a Hindu celebration is not considered and neither is the Sikh New Year on April 13th. In order to achieve complete neutrality, any holiday relating to a particular religion will have to be removed from the school calendar. In addition, the motto “In God We Trust” will have to be permanently removed from American currency. After all it may offend someone. The pledge of Allegiance will have to erase the particular phrase that mentions God. That too can also offend someone. Realistically, none if these measures will be taken. “In God We Trust” is an American tradition. For that sole reason, prayer should be reinstalled into public schools. There are too many religions in the world for the courts to enforce neutrality. The fact is that someone’s religion gets offended everyday, whether by the provocatively dressed woman in the streets, the loud cursing from car drivers in traffic or the mention of God in the pledge. The government cannot control the words or actions of people, and therefore should allow religion to manifest itself again into the public school system.
Even with an array of cases verifying the unconstitutionality of public school prayer, seven out of ten Americans continue to favor it. Now the question that remains unanswered is: Do we need a constitutional amendment permitting prayer in public schools? Ironically, one of the firmest advocates of school prayer is William J. Murray. In 1963, it was his mother, Madalyn Murray who ignited the fire that later led to the banning of Bible reading in public schools. In Taking Sides edited by George McKenna and Stanley Feingold, Murray features an essay called, ‘Putting It Right’ which displays several propositions for prayer in public schools. The first point explains that the new amendment cannot command school prayer. The amendment would only give permission and accommodation for students who choose to initiate it. Murray recalls his past of religious coercion:” As a child I was caught between the atheism my mother enforced on me, and the religion enforced in my school. No child should be subject to these kinds of pressure.” Murray also calls for a limit in the federal government. The United States Constitution, therefore, could not be used by the United States Supreme Court or other courts to forbid prayer. Students and local School Boards would not have the right to have classroom prayer based on local and state decisions, not the first amendment. Third, the proposed amendment, would not reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in 1963. Fourth, the amendment would not support any particular religion; only permit it. Fifth, it should not be a “moment of silence” prayer. The Constitution already protects the right of Americans to silently express it. Lastly, the new amendment should reinstate and preserve a public school student’s right to initiate and lead prayer.
In closing the Supreme Court’s decisions against prayer in the public school system has created hostility and even discrimination towards religion. Religion, however is part of American history and tradition. As proof it is embedded in American currency and the Pledge of Allegiance. Instead of embracing the moral power of prayer, and the tradition, people fear it. Its purpose is not to convert, but to soothe, and perhaps unite. One prayer a day will not turn the United States into a tyrannical theocracy. It may offend some people, but it may also reestablish and encourage values of honesty and respect, two character traits that are necessary to live regardless of any religion. To completely enforce their rulings, the Supreme Court would have to wipe out American tradition, a drastic act that will never occur. Thus, prayer should definitely be reinstalled in the public school system.
