First Class

Amanda Leon

10-13-97

Paper #2

Religion in Public Schools

The practice of religion has been a major factor in American culture for centuries. The religion clause of the First Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," was developed to preserve the freedom of religion (Haynes 2). The religion clause was designed to protect religion from the control of the government, but, consequently, it restricts the expression of religion in public institutions such a s public schools. This highly debated issue of religion in public schools is supported by the belief that religion is critical to the formation of a healthy society but is disputed on the basis that the church and the state must remain separate to protec t the freedom of religion.

Controversies arise over the interpretation of the exact limits of religion in regards to public schools. The religion clause of the First Amendment is often misinterpreted to mean that absolutely no religious expressions or activities can take pl ace in public schools. Richard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education, published a statement in 1995 detailing the principles of the extent to which religious expression and activity are permitted in public schools. He stated that the First Amendment con tains two equally important obligations of public school officials in their dealings with religion. The first is that schools may not forbid students from expressing their own religious beliefs. Schools may not discriminate against religious expressions performed privately by students, but instead they must offer the same right to be involved with religious activities as they would offer to other activities. At the same time, schools can not endorse a religious activity, nor control participation in re ligious activity. In addition, school teachers and administrators may not organize or encourage prayer in the classroom (www.ed). Even with these guidelines, the debate over the extent of religion in public schools continues.

Favoring a loose interpretation of the religion clause are the supporters of the interaction between religion and the public school. These people firmly believe that religion should have an active role in the school curriculum. Charles C. Haynes, the scholar-in-residence at the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, participates in the fight to introduce religion into the public school curriculum. In April of 1996 during an interview with Ron Brandt, Haynes stated that under the First Amendment public schools may neither promote nor obstruct religion. Haynes believes that schools must be neutral, and neutrality means fairness even in regards to the curriculum. Haynes concedes that "promoting student freedom of co nscience and recognizing religion . . . in the curriculum creates a school culture in which no one imposes religious beliefs or practices on others . . ." (73). In his own article, Haynes discusses the possible risks of including religion in public school curriculum. He concludes that to integrate religion into the curriculum could risk the separation of the government from the church, but the greater risk is not to do so (Haynes 2). Haynes' opinion conflicts drastically with the opinions of those who take the opposite interpretation of the religion clause.

Promoters of a strict interpretation of the First Amendment believe protecting religious freedom can only be accomplished through the complete separation of the church and state. Mark Tekano presents in his article, "Separation Anxiety," some of the reasons people strongly believe in this separation. He states that many people are still concerned that allowing prayer in public schools' curriculums will mingle religion and civil authority, which could lead to the establishment of a state religion. Takano states that "the ultimate harm of mixing religion with politics is the eventual discrediting of religion." He also believes that to think the spiritual life of society will be improved through the implementation of religion i nto public schools is a mistake (1995). However, this opinion that society does not benefit from religion in the school is not held by all. People who disagree with the separation of the church and the state argue that religion is vital to forming a soc iety with strict morals and strong faith.

Promoters of the increased use of religion in the public school system feel that religion is, in fact, very beneficial to students. They feel that religion provides a tradition and a community in which people can find their identity as well as a s ense of stability. Religion is also believed to supply the answers to questions about pain, suffering, and death. One study discussed in the book School Wars reports the advantages religiously affiliated students have over nonaffiliated students. The study was performed by B.G. Frankel and W.E. Hewitt on students at the University of Western Ontario, which is a public istitution. The results of that study found that those students who belonged to a Christian group were healthier, happier, and h andled stress better than those with no affiliation. Specifically, nonaffiliated students were more concerned with personal success and materialism, where as those affiliated believed that friendships, parents, family, and God were more important. Lastl y, the study showed that those students affiliated with a religion were more satisfied with their lives (Gaddy 169). However, opponents of religion in schools would more than likely argue that these benefits are of little relevance when compared to the i mportance of protecting the freedom of religion.

Battles have been occuring for decades to keep religion out of the public school. These battles more clearly defined religion's limitations within the boundaries of the school. The first victory for the limitation of religion in school was in 194 7 with the case of Emerson v. Board of Education. The court ruled that there was a distinct wall between the church and the state. The decision prohibited the involvement of the government with religiously oriented activities or institutions. On e of the most influential cases won in favor of separation of church and state was the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale. The court's decision banned state-sponsored prayer in public schools (Geddy 182). This case originated in New York and concerned a prayer adopted by the New York State Regents in the 1950s. Ten parents sued New York Hyde Park public school district for the use of this prayer. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down the prayer, noting the separation m andate developed in the Constitution (Gaddy 187). Many court cases have been won in favor of those supporting the restriction of religion in public schools. The case of Engel v. Vitale was vital in maintaining the separation of church and state b y restricting the use of prayer in school. However, this limitation of prayer in public schools is not absolute.

The utilization of prayer in school is possible, but guidelines must be followed to avoid conflicting with the First Amendment. Richard W. Riley explained in his formal statement that the First Amendment does not prohibit private religious prayer by students. Students may pray in a non-disruptive manner when not engaged in school activities. Specifically, students in informal settings, such as cafeterias and hallways, may pray and discuss religion with each other (www.ed). One way in which stud ents can pray while at school is the "moment of silence." During this time, students can pray, meditate, or do nothing at all. As long as teachers and administration are not leading or organizing formal prayer, the "moment of silence" ; does not conflict with the ruling of Engel v. Vitale.

The highly emotional conflicts regarding religion in public schools involve two sides with extremely persuasive arguments. Opponents of religion in school contend that the most critical area concerning the freedom of religion is the distinct s eparation of the church from the government. These people insist that this separation is essential to protect the diverse religions in the United States and to provide an environment for these religions to thrive. However, promoters of religion in schoo l argue that the First Amendment provides for the freedom of religious expression even in the public school. These people make the assertion that religion plays the fundamental role in creating morally healthy and spiritually satisfied students who ultim ately make up society. These controversies regarding the role of religion in public schools will continue to arise as long as people have differences of values and beliefs.

Works Cited

Brandt, Ron. "On Finding Common Ground with Religious Conservatives: A Conversation with

Charles Haynes." Educational Leadership 53.7 (1996): 73.

Gaddy, Barbara, and T. William Marzano. School Wars: Re2solving Our Conflicts Over Religion

and Values. San Francisco: Jassey-Bass, 1996. 169, 182, 187.

Haynes, Charles C.. "Finding Common Ground: Teaching about religion the right way is

important." Gannett News Service 30 June 1997, sec. 3:2.

Riley, Richard W. United States Department of Education. Religious Expression in Public

Schools (1995). Online. Internet. 8 Oct. 1997. Available

http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html.

Tekano, Mark. "Separation Anxiety." A. Magazine. 31 May 1995: 2.

Amanda Leon

December 10, 1996

Paper #4

Maintaining the Separation of the Church and State

The separation of the church and the state has been debated since the birth of this nation. In 1789 when the Constitution was adopted, the separation of church and state issue focused on preventing a government mandated religion (Davis 245). The framers of the Constitution knew first hand the harmful consequences of a government that has complete control over religion. Protecting the religious freedoms of the various religions seeking refuge in America also raised great concern. Each religion s hould be given the same rights when practicing their beliefs. For these reasons, the First Amendment of hte Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. This amendment denies the government any involvement with religion and allows complete religious fr eedom for all denominations. Over the last one-hundred years, the most debated issue regarding the church and the state has been religion in the public schools. The religion clause of the First Amendment has been repeatedly interpreted in an attempt to draw the line between religion and education. Many court cases have been won in favor of keeping government initiated religion out of the school. However, the issue has yet to be resolved. If religious freedoms are to remain protected, the courts must strictly rule in favor of the separation of church and state in public schools.

Most clauses of the Constitution and the First Amendment were written in a vague manner to allow for their expansion as new issues arose. The religion clause of the First Amendment was composed in a similar manner. Indeed, the religion clause mus t be capable of stretching to cover new situations just like all other clauses. However, the underlying meaning of the religion clause cannot be altered in this expansion. Religious freedom is an essential right of the American people that cannot be jeo pardized through the lessening of the power of the religion clause. The First Amendment clearly establishes that there exists "a wall of separation between the church and state" (Leinwand 296A). A loose interpretation that would permit cracks in this "wall" cannot be tolerated. Any attempt of the government to either favor or discourage a religion should be found unconstitutional by the court system.

Over the years the Supreme Court has contributed a long list of precedents for cases dealing with religion in the public school system. These decisions have more clearly defined religion's limitations within the boundaries of the school. One of t he earliest cases which effectively maintained the separation of church and state was Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. The case questioned the right of the state of New Jersey to use tax funds to bus children to both public schools and priv ate religious schools (Gay 27). The ruling found any involvement of the government with religiously oriented activities or institutions in direct violation of the First Amendment. In his majority ruling, Justice Hugo Black emphasized that the First Amen dment prohibited the government from passing laws that would promote or support with tax funds any or all religions (Gaddy 182). In this case, the court system clearly saw the threat to religious freedom that could arise if the government is capable of f inancially supporting or avidly promoting any religion.

The courts have also ruled on the issue of government initiated prayer in public school. One of the most influential cases involving the issue was the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale. This case originated in New York and concerned a prayer be ing used in the New York Hyde Park public school. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which struck down the prayer on the basis that prayer in school is a violation of the separation mandate of the First Amendment (Gaddy 187). T he case of Engel v. Vitale banned state-sponsored prayer in public schools. However, the matter of prayer at graduation was still questionable. A ruling was not made on this issue until 1992 in the case of Lee v. Weisman. Originating in Rhode Island, this landmark case extended the prohibion of school prayer to include prayers or invocations composed or read by local religious or government leaders (Gaddy 188). This ruling should not be interpreted to mean that there can be absolutely n o prayer at graduation. Prayers at graduation are Constitutional under the conditions that the prayer is voluntary, student-initiated, and nonsectarian. This court decision, as with all court decisions involving religion in school, was not made to preve nt students from utilizing their religious rights. The courts are, in fact, protecting the students' freedom of religion from being influenced or controlled by the government.

The Supreme Court has practically the sole responsibility of maintaining the separation of church and state through their court decisions. The religion clause must be interpreted and utilized in the manner that it was intended, which is to allow f or complete religious freedom. To aid the Supreme Court in deciding whether a law violates the First Amendment religion clause, a test was developed. This test, consisting of three parts, was outlined in the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. First , to comply with the religion clause, the law or government practice must have a secular purpose. Second, the primary effect cannot be to support, aid, or inhibit religion. And third, the law or practice must not bring about excessive government involve ment with religion (Gay 29). These criteria are an attempt to define the line between religion and the government. By using this test, the Supreme Court can prevent any government action that would infringe on the freedom of religion.

The First Amendment's purpose is to protect religion and religious practices. But with the First Amendment so powerfully limiting the practice of religion in the school, many people believe that students are being neglected of a religious upbringi ng. The belief is that students' morals and values benefit from having religion in the school, but to allow the public school to instruct religion would be a direct violation of the First Amendment (Lynn 23). There is no denying that students will benef it from exposure to religion. However, there are ways of religiously educating children while still conforming to the First Amendment.

Prayer is something that should be taught and practiced in a house of worship and in the home. Students can receive their morals and belief system from their families and can be instructed in religion through churches, temples, and parochial schoo ls ("A Matter . . ."). The religious community offers a variety of activities, such as youth groups, for students to become involved with their religion and learn about their faith. The church and the family provide a sufficient religious educ ation. The government does not have the authority nor the responsibility to mandate religion in the public school. Any advantages that can be gained by having religion in the school are of minimal importance when compared to maintaining the First Amendm ent's guarantee of religious freedom.

The main responsibility of teaching religion may take place at home or at church, but there are ways in which students can take part in their religion even during classtime. The First Amendment prevents teachers and school officials from promoting religion, but it does not prevent students from expressing their faith (Davis 250). Students can pray in any non-disruptive manner, such as before a meal or a test. The only restrictions are that the students may not try to force their religion on othe rs and that the prayers are not led by teachers, who must remain neutral towards religion.

Some public schools, in an attempt at neutrality, utilize the "moment of silence." This time is set aside each morning for silent meditation and prayer (Comeaux 49). However, by making it a structured activity initiated by teachers, the "moment of silence" is an attempt by the government to incorporate religion into the school. Students are capable of deciding for themselves when to withdraw for a moment of silent reflection. They do not need a government mandated time for p rayer. The courts have already ruled that morning exercises, such as Bible readings, are a violation of the First Amendment (Griffiths 46). The "moment of silence" should be seen as an attempt to destory the separation of church and state and, therefore, should not be included by the courts among the prohibited morning exercises.

A program that can be included in the school day without conflicting with the First Amendment is the released-time program. The program calls for public school students to be excused from class for one-half hour to an hour to attend religious inst ruction off school premises. Students would be involved in this program voluntarily and with parental permission (Griffiths 130). As long as the released-time program receives no government funding, takes place off the school grounds, and is not instruc ted by school officials it is perfectly acceptable under the religion clause. In the Zorach decision of 1952, the Court ruled that releasing students to attend religious classes off the public school premises is Constitutional, since the public s chool had no involvement in the program (Gay 165). This program is another example of how religion can be sufficiently acquired by students without violating the religious rights of the First Amendment.

The majority of Americans selsom even think about their religious rights. These people usually take their liberties for granted because they belong to a dominant Christian religion. The idea of religious freedom is, however, well respected by tho se Americans belonging to a minority religion such as Buddhism. The practices of these religious minorities are often deemed insignificant in light of the practices of the popular religions. Providing the same religious rights to all denominations was o ne of the reasons the religion clause was included in the First Amendment. Demographics show that our society is a multicultural one with varying nationalities, customs, and religions (McEwan 71). However, many people grow up in families and live within communities that share similar religious beliefs. If people are not exposed to other points of view or do not learn about religions other than their own, they are likely to be convinced that their religious belief, traditions, and values are the absolut e. This ignorance frequently leads to stereotyping and prejudice. The court systems can help prevent some of this harmful discrimination by upholding the religion clause of the First Amendment and by making clear that all religions are equal in the eyes of the law.

Restricting religion in public schools is critical when religious diversity is taken into consideration. The religions practiced by students in a single school are as varied as the religions practiced throughout the country. Discrimination toward s the minority religions often occurs in the classroom because of the ignorance of the teacher. Some teachers mistakenly assume that all of their students practice the dominant religion of that community (Griffiths 217). This assumption commonly arises during the holidays. Teachers often decorate the classroom with symbols of the dominant celebration. An example would be Christmas decorations which often contain the Christian nativity scene. A major problem with decorating for Christmas is the fact t hat many religions do no celebrate this holiday. When concentrating only on the Christmas celebration, holidays near this time of year, such as Chanuka and Kwanza, receive minimal attention (McEwan 73). A neutral way of celebrating religious holidays in the classrooms does not exist, which is why the restriction of teacher led religious activities should be strictly enforced.

When teachers favor one religion in the classroom they discriminate against many of their students. Students not affiliated with the dominant religion experience a sense of isolation. The alienation due to their religion can be very detrimental t o a child's development. Psychological and physiological research on human development indicates that young people need to feel they are accepted in their learning environment in order to achieve their maximum potential (McEwan 71). When a religious hol iday is celebrated in the classroom, children must decide if they are going to participate. This decision can be very difficult. The child wants to join in with the rest of the class, yet he will feel guilty by going against his parents and the religion that he has been taught. The teacher's authority over the student could also cause the child to unwillingly participate in fear of getting scolded ("A Matter . . ."). Also harmful to children whose families practice a minority religion is see ing their holiday treated as less significant than the dominant religion. These minority students could begin to feel inferior to those children belonging to the popular religion. On a whole, the favoring of one religion in a classroom by an educator cr eates an unhealthy learning environment for many children. Children need to be protected from the discrimination that can accompany belonging to a minority religion. The courts can eliminate the discrimination by ruling in favor of separating the church from the public school which prevents teachers from promoting religion.

Protecting religious groups from prejudice can also be done through education. Most people, including students, are only aware of their own religious practices. Students will only show respect for other religions if they are educated about them. Richard P. McBrien a theologian and syndicated columnist once said, "A person totally ignorant of religion is only partially educated" (Gay 78). Students need to know about religion in order to understand history and the development of civiliz ation. Often times educators ignore the role of religion in world history and current events. This lack of acknowledgement is primarily because of the fact that school official believe that religion cannot be discussed in the curriculum without violatin g the First Amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, religion can be incorporated into the curriculum as long as it is in a nonpromoting manner. A difference exists between providing religious instruction and teaching about religion. Public schools can teach about religi ous scripture, the history of religion, comparative religion, and the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries. Similarily, educators can discuss religion's influence on art, music, literature, and social studies (Riley 3) . Religious holidays can also be taught, but celebrating the holiday does violate the religion clause. Teachers should be aware that they cannot promote a religion, but they also should not avoid discussing religion's role in the past and present. &quo t;Superficial treatment of religion in the curriculum sends a false and dangerous message to students that religion isn't important . . ." (Haynes 2). However, using religion in the curriculum raises the question of how to incorporate it in a neutra l and Consitutional manner.

When religion is utilized in the curriculum correctly it creates a school culture in which no one imposes religious beliefs or practices on others. Before teachers can begin to educate their students about religion, they must be educated themselve s. Guidelines have been published to aid public school officials in their attempts to incorporate religion into the curriculum. One such set of guidelines has been published by a group of fourteen national organizations. The group advises public school s to approach religion as an academic subject, not as a devotional practice (Brandt 73). They also advise that students be educated about all religions but not pressured to accept any one religious view. Also, the role of religion in history and society should be presented without promoting or belittling any belief. Finally, the group points out that the study of religion is important "if students are to value religious liberty, the first freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights" (Brandt 74). With the education of public school teachers, religion can be incorporated into the school curriculum in a manner that benefits the students and also acknowledges the students' personal religious rights.

Religion plays a major role in today's society and has influenced many events in world history. In fact, the United States was founded by people searching for religious freedom. With the writing of the First Amendment, an environment was created were all religions could flourish without persecution. The religion clause built a wall between the government and the church to safeguard religious freedom. This wall must stand firm especially in public schools where varying religions are often groupe d together in a single classroom. By restricting religion in the public schools, students can continue to develop their faith while being shielded from any government interference. Numerous Supreme Court rulings have helped to protect students' religiou s freedoms by strenghening the wall of separation. The courts systems should continue to maintain the basic principle of the First Amendment religion clause which is the complete separation of the church and the state. Any exceptions to the clause would endanger the religious liberty that it was designed to protect.

Works Cited

"A Matter of Conscience: Why Faith Groups Oppose Government-Sponsored Prayers in Public

Schools." Online. Internet. 4 Nov. 1997. Available

http://205.139.193.2/americansunited/momocc.htm.

Brandt, Ron. "On Finding Common Ground with Religious Conservatives: A Conversation with

Charles Haynes." Educational Leadership 53.7 (1996): 73-74.

Comeaux, Connie. "Should school begin with a moment of silence?" National Education

Association of the United States 14.2 (1995): 49.

Davis, Derek H. "Resolving not to resolve the tension between the free exercise clause."

Journal of Church of State 38.2 (1996): 245, 150.

Gaddy, Barbara, and T. William Marzano. School Wars: Resolving Our Conflicts Over Religion

and Values. San Francisco: Jassey-Bass, 1996. 182, 187-188.

Gay, Kathlyn. Church and State. Brookfield: The Millbrook Press, 1992. 27, 29, 65, 78.

Griffiths, William E. Religion, the Courts, and the Public Schools. Cincinatti: W.H. Anderson,

1996. 46, 130, 217.

Haynes, Charles C. "Finding Common Ground: Teaching about religion the right way is

importnat." Gannett News Service 30 June 1997, sec. 3:2

Leinwand, Gerald. The American Constitution. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964. 296A.

Lynn, Barry W. "Need to maintain a constant vigil on church-state separation." Church and State

50.1 (1997): 71, 73.

Riley, Richard W. United States Department of Education. Religious Expression in Public

Schools (1995). Online. Internet. 8 Oct. 1997. Available

http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html.