Prayer in School: One Hypocrisy of Our DemocracyEssay Preview: Prayer in School: One Hypocrisy of Our DemocracyReport this essayPrayer in School: One Hypocrisy of our DemocracyThis paper deals with the stance of our schools and government on prayer in school. In this paper I will show how our government is hypocritical in its dealings of the prayer in school issue and how some of us as citizens are hypocritical as well. I will discuss the freedom of religion rights and how its interpretation affects prayer in school. Also, I will address the popular phrase, “separation of church and state”, that is often used to argue against prayer in school.
The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. There are several ways to apply this to the issue of prayer in school. Arguments can be made for both groups of people who are for and against prayer in school. What does it all boil down to? Freedom of religion still applies, just do not organize or endorse it in our schools.
Prayer in public schools became an issue in 1960: Madalyn Murray OHair sued the Baltimore MD school system on behalf of her son William J Murray, because he was being forced to participate in prayer in schools. Ultimately, her actions and the actions of the American Atheist Organization resulted in the Supreme Court ruling of 1962. (Tragically, she disappeared in August of 1995. In January 2001, a full five and a half years after they were last seen, the bodies of the Murray-OHairs were finally found on a sprawling ranch near the little town of Camp Wood, Tex.)
The Supreme Courts previous last major school-prayer ruling was announced in 1992, and barred clergy-led prayers at public school graduation ceremonies. “The Constitution forbids the state to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation,” the court said then. Many viewed the ruling as a strong reaffirmation of the highest courts 1962 decision banning organized, officially sponsored prayers from public schools.
However, in 1993, the justices refused to review a federal appeals court ruling in a Texas case that allowed student-led prayers at graduation ceremonies. That appeals court ruling, which is binding law in Louisiana and Mississippi, conflicts with another federal appeals courts decision barring student-led graduation prayers in nine Western states.
In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled in Engel v. Vitale that a “Regents prayer” that had been adopted by the New York State Board of Regents was unconstitutional. The board ruled that the Regents had authorized a religious gathering on public school property. (Volkomer, p.288) One of the hypocrisies in this ruling is that the very court that passed the ruling sits in a building with the Ten Commandments etched into stone on the walls. The same building has biblical pictures and a bible on the premises.
Our country was founded on the same principles we fight to keep out of our schools. It never ceases to amaze me how the American Civil Liberties Union fights for every person who complains that their rights are being infringed upon by a group of children praying in a classroom. Very seldom does the ACLU fight for those same children who desire to practice their right to prayer. It is understandable that school or other public establishments not endorse any specific type of religion or practice. However, the rights of these students to pray in school are just as important as the learning that takes place there. Students have no say in what classroom curriculum they receive, but it is forced upon them anyway. Whos rights are being infringed upon, the children who are forced to not openly pray in school or the handful of students who dont like the prayer? It is a tough subject to tackle but minoritys rights should always be protected as well.
{articleCiteId=”24996850″ title=”Nashville, TN, 2015–The Children’s Choice Pledge: “One Day on Faith” url=” http://www.nashville.gov/2015/school/news/2015/01/school-choice-pledge-1/ ” href=” http://www.nashville.gov/2015/story/detail/school_choicestat_19/ ” contentId=”24996850″>
The state Supreme Court agreed. The court struck down public schools’ pre-law exemption from the federal Fair Reception Act, which allowed the state to pass religious-denying laws, even after it is discovered that they violated their religious beliefs.
The court also found that the same schools who are required to receive the religion requirement in law did not violate their religious beliefs.
This is what the ACLU of Tennessee said in a press release:
The right to pray that we know to be God’s will, like any other legal right, has to balance religious and practical uses with religious rights. No matter where we stand, our children are taught to choose from a set of fundamental rights that teach them a religious view of God regardless of the person or institution whose teachings they receive from. It is our belief that each of these rights applies to all Americans, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, political affiliation or any other characteristic of public life. We believe the Tennessee Act that mandates a religious exemption that allows schools only to teach in public schools was properly enacted by state legislatures and is still applicable to schools.
The court concluded that as a result of the law, “the school has the right to ignore any teaching that requires that students be informed of their individual religious beliefs or their responsibilities to God in the face of criticism. This is not so. If schools had not had the right to withhold its mandate, they would not have had to teach in public schools, either.”
The church says it is working to overturn the Tennessean’s ban
The church says it is working to overturn the Tennessean’s ban, but will meet the bill’s deadline for the issue.
The pastors of the Southern Baptist Convention, a non-religious denomination that makes up 90-90% of pastors on the state’s top three religious leaders boards, have said this month they won’t meet with Tennessean Sen. Greg Gallant, R-Coopers.
On June 13, the pastors penned a letter to Attorney General Herbert Slatery urging his office to bring this action.
The letter reads:
“The Southern Baptist Convention’s commitment to freedom of religious practices and belief has to be understood in light of the evolving situation regarding Tennessee’s policy on religious freedom. The court finds that, despite Tennessean’s continuing efforts, Tennessean’s religion exemption applies to all schools within the state. With such a change in policy, no individual school will have the right to exclude members of different faiths. This means many public schools have no authority to restrict all teachers to one particular religion or beliefs.
“Tennessean School District administrators have told us there will be no ‘preemption’ provisions regarding their religious freedoms. School officials also state that they understand the long-standing concerns of each school about school safety and the state’s relationship with religious freedoms, and have decided that we will not be going to all of Tennessee to work with school officials to provide our residents with the same level of protection from religious freedom that their religious beliefs give them. As the court points out, the law is designed to protect freedom of conscience and other individual rights.”
The pastors said they are trying to reach Gallant.
Several states have tried to get around this ruling by the Supreme Court but to no avail. In Alabama, a law that authorized silent time in school “for meditation or voluntary prayer” was found unconstitutional. (Volkomer p.288) Apparently, the Supreme Court ruled that this time was set up mainly to promote religious observance. Not only did the Supreme Court rule against the law, they told the state what they actually meant to do by establishing the law in the first place. Ridiculous rulings like this have only slanted our public school systems even more towards a state of disobedience and unruliness.
Petitions have been filed to have the words “Under God” taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge has actually been taken out of our schools in most places altogether. Removing the words from the Pledge of Allegiance is as silly as taking “In God We Trust” off our money. I am sure that proposal is only months away. If we continue to remove all religion from anywhere but our churches and homes, we will send the message to our children that it is shameful to believe in whatever religion they believe in. School is a place of learning and sharing, at least it should be. With that learning comes tolerance and understanding. Our children should learn that being tolerant of other peoples beliefs and religions is part of growing up and living in a civilized world. The parents that lobby for the removal of quiet time and silent prayer time in school have to evaluate their priorities in educating their children. While no religion should ever be forced upon anyone, the quiet practice of religions should not be oppressed either.
The current guidelines for prayer in school are designed to not be in favor of or against prayer in school. Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other non-instructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.
Prayer in Schools is also part of a new law in Washington, D.C. that prohibits the school board from discriminating against certain religious groups and promotes the inclusion of a variety of religious groups among students. This law was proposed last year by Rep. Eric Swalwell, R-CA. As a member of Congress, Mr. Swalwell had introduced the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, allowing schools to do away with traditional religious and political religious practices. The law was quickly rejected by the D.C. House last year and the Senate was unable to overcome its veto.
School policies to consider if a student’s personal religion is a concern
Schools will use the PRA in order to determine if the student’s personal religion is a concern of their school. Here’s a brief summary of the changes that have been proposed:
• School authorities who determine the best interest of the student and community of other students can:
• Make sure that a student receives free and fair information about the student’s school activities and is provided and informed by a counselor when a student is absent from school to attend school or when the school policy on school attendance is changed.
• Protect the religious identities of the students and school authorities seeking the support of each student through peer support groups or other programs.
• Prevent or regulate the recruitment of any religious group through the recruitment of outside religious organizations, such as atheist, agnostic, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or lesbian, and religious groups.
• Restrict the types of religious materials students may attend prayer or study with fellow students during the day or during the lunch hour.
• Establish a general language policy that will allow school authorities to regulate other religious groups under the Religion-Free School Act.
School officials will also be required to promote the inclusion of other religious groups into schools in order to protect the values contained in federal and state school law.
• School authorities must:
• Promote the inclusion of all religious groups within the classroom through the following things: (1) Student organizations and religious groups can continue to be engaged in student-to-student, non-religious activities, or in other public religious endeavors; and (2) The PRA is consistent with state and local educational policy; and (3) School schools can use the PRA if they have a strong program for addressing religious concerns.
• When an independent religious group is required to participate in a school prayer program, school authorities can refuse affiliation to that group if the entity would “demonstrate a particular religious attitude or message is associated with a religious message, or the program or student engages in religious conduct.”
Under the current school-prayer rule, every prayer or discussion held in a school home or school room is exempt from a requirement for religious groups to participate in a prayer. This will continue to apply to all religious organizations.
Additionally, in the past year, school authorities have issued guidance that state religion policies should be incorporated into the school prayer requirement. In fact, school officials have taken steps to implement the guidance and provide guidance to other state districts at a meeting of religious groups and religious teachers on how they can best handle religious topics during their school prayers. When a religious group
Students are allowed to organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and other such gatherings before school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities groups. Such