First Class

Jessica Martonik

October 13, 1997

Paper #2

Prayer in Public Schools

America's founders envisioned a nation whose government would allow for freedoms and rights to be guaranteed to its citizens. The desire for religious freedom was prominent, sine it was not a right granted to the early colonists living under Briti sh rule. Because England's government forced all of its citizens to learn and practice the same religion, America's first legislators made certain that government intervention in religious matters was prohibited. Therefore, religious freedom was ensured in the First Amendment to the Constitution, as it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." (Whitehead, Rights 49). This statement allowed Americans to f reely express and practice or chose not to practice a religion. The two distinct parts of the religious freedom affirmation in the First Amendment became known as the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees religious expression, and the Establishment Clau se, which protects citizens from state sponsored religion (Whitehead, Rights 49). These two clauses are generally interpreted as being contradictory to each other. Often times, a right guaranteed by one clause contrasts with a right maintained by the other clause. Since the two clauses rae not black and white, there is an extensive amount of gray area. Due to the conflicting religious expression clauses stated under the First Amendment, the role of prayer in public schools is controversial and must be interpreted in such a way to accommodate all and restrain from violating the rights of any religious believers and nonbelievers.

The dispute over school prayer has stemmed from the government's views on the relationship between itself and the church. Even though the national government aimed to tolerate all religious affiliations in the era shortly after the Constitution wa s ratified, many state governments did not abide by this standard. Numerous state governments displayed favoritism and partiality towards different religions in the form of lonas and support. Therefore to further ensure that religion was independent of the government, a more precise interpretation of the first amendment was enacted. By completely making religion and the state unconnected, the new understanding became known as the separation of church and state.

Secularism, the term used to define the separation of church and state, has become an increasingly debatable issue, especially when dealing with the role of prayer in public schools. The antagonists argue that the total separation of church and st ate is extreme and that the writers of the Constitution would have allowed for more religious involvement in the schools (Whitehead, Freedom 5). Not only is the antagonist group comprised of common citizens, but government officials as well. For example, former Chief Justice Warren Burger explained in 1984, "The constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance of all religions, and forbids hostility toward an y" (Whitehead, Rights 49). On the same note, the Northwest ordinance, passed by the same congress that ratified the Consitution, stated that "religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind , schools and the means of learning shall forever be encouraged" (Whitehead, Freedom 5). This ordinance indicated that America's founders intended for religion to be part of school. Likewise, the primary books used in the first Washington D. C. schools were the Bible and the Watts Hymnal under the direction of their school board president, Thomas Jefferson (Whitehead, Freedom 8). Since Jefferson later went on to become the third President of the United States of America, his views con cerning religion in school were well respected. Likewise, the early American simply assumed that prayer, in the form of Puritan Christianity, would be taught in the public schools (Zwier 300). However, it is unconstitutional to promote prayer in schools , and it is equally unconstitutional not to permit it.

The interference between the guaranteed constitutional rights of some and the violation of other's rights often leads to controversy. Where is the line drawn? Congress proposes some basic guidelines to allow for religious expression without viola ting anyone's rights. For instance, students are allowed to individually pray, read the Bible, and invite others to join them, as long as they do not disrupt or offend other students. These activities may not be school or teacher sponsored and may not i nvolve the use of a classroom setting. Since the state policy mandates attendance for students, the use of his or her classmates as an audience while he or she prays is unconstitutuional. In contrast, teachers are never permitted to pray in the presence of a student, for it is their duty to protect the rights of all students, including those who are non-believers (Thomas 1). Congress's guidelines aimed to protect the rights of all students in the public school system.

Despite the religious expression guidelines and the First Amendment guarantee, the exact role of prayer in public schools is still controversial and is open to interpretation. A federal legislator commented, "Through excessive solicitude for religious exercise, government may run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Conversely, too stringent application of the nonestablishment mandate may violate the free exercise guarantee" (Whitehead, Rights 50). In other words, many conflicts h ave resulted due to the contradiction between the Establishment and the Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. In the 1962 court case, Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court voted 8:1 that the state sponsored prayer program of a New York schoo l was unconstitutuional, even though the mandated prayer was voluntary and nondenominational. Because prayer is a religious act and it involved the use of tax money, the Court ruled that the school sponsored prayer violated the Establishment Clause (Wood 31). Since the citizens' tax money finances public schools, the schools must govern by the First Amendment, even if a religious act is voluntary.

Similarily, students at Guilderland High School in New York requested their principal's permission to organize a program called Students for Voluntary Prayer. This program involved the use of a classroom, before the school day, to conduct communal prayer. Regardless of the fact that they were not seeking faculty supervision and that the activity was totally voluntary, the school refused. In turn, the students filed a lawsuit and ended up losing in the federal and appeals court to the argument th at their meeting was "too dangerous to permit" (Whitehead, Rights 33). Was this ruling fair? Other non-religious groups were permitted to gather in the school. The Supreme Court answered this questions in the 1990 ruling that the " ;free exercise clause does not require governments to accommodate religious conduct in conflict with laws that appear neutral . . ." (Gaffney 9). In other words, it is not the government's responsibility to compensate for secular laws that seem to i nterfere with a religious organization.

Along the same lines of the constitutionality issue of school prayer, another more recent case presented before the Supreme Court, Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School District, resulted in the banning of a prayer at a graduation ceremony . The school argued that the "nonsectarian" and "non-proselytized" prayer was not organized by adults and was initiated by the students (Thomas 2). In other words, the designated prayer was not affiliated with any specific religion a nd was not influential. In addition, a further argument stated that the students were not required to be in attendance. Accordingly, the Court fought back and won with the reasoning that the graduation prayer violated the Establishment Clause, since it was a school sponsored activity. Because the religious students "coerced" those who might have objected to the prayer to participate, the rights of the pressured students were violated (Thomas 2). The school did not take into consideration the rights of the nonbelievers.

Altogether, the court decisions seem to favor the rights of religious-nonbelievers. If the school denies students the right to religious expression, they are favoring those who believe in no religion at all. Some religious citizens believe that t he courts violate their right to freedom of expression. That is, they assume the need for religion in society. In fact, the number of Americans who "admit" to being religious has increased from 10 percent in 1776 to 43.5 percent in 1910, and t o 58.7 percent in 1989 (Zwier 302). More people are willing to admit to being religious, because, over time, society has become more open to ideas and expressions. The religious community argues that students need some sort of belief system to set their morals. Even if religious teaching can not be a part of public schooling, individualized prayer should be permitted.

In order to respect the rights of believers and the rights of nonbelievers, the schools must find a happy medium between ruling in favor of a religion and ruling for no religion at all. To accommodate all types of people, the government creates a neutral ground between free exercise and free establishment. Burger suggested "benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference" (Whitehead, Freedom 11). For example, many schools are giving religious groups equal access to the facilities. That is, the schools are granting students permission to meet before and after school hours, outside of the school building, to engage in non-sponsored, voluntary prayer. Also, various schools are resorting to using a moment of silence, which was previously ruled against by the courts. The government allows a moment of silence and considers the moment neutral if it is not used to promote prayer (Thomas 1). In addition, to compensate f or a prayer at graduation, schools are holding separate, nondenominational Baccalaureate services along with the actual commencement ceremony. All in all, these examples allow for religious expression without violating the rights of nonbelievers.

Over the course of American history, many controversies involving the role of prayer in the public school system have resulted in the shaping of the current views of secularism. Since the rights guaranteed in the Free Establishment and Free Exerci se clauses seem to clash, the issue of school prayer is more unsettled now than ever before. On one hand, the First Amendment warrants the right to religious expression, while at the same time, it protects the rights of others from being offended or infl uenced by state sponsored religion. Therefore, the two religious clauses of the First Amendment must be interpreted in such a way to accommodate all and restrain from violating the rights of any citizen.

Jessica Martonik

November 17, 1997

Paper #3

Prayer in the Public Schools

Early American colonists anticipated a country full of freedoms and opportunities. As the new government was beginning to develop, the Founders took into consideration the restrictions placed on them and their fellow immigrants in their former hom elands. One difficulty the colonists encountered back in Europe was the inability to practice a desired religion or not to practice one at all. Since the newly formed country was made up of people from more than one religious background, the government had to come up with a way to accommodate all of its citizens. Understanding the country's diversity, the writers of the Constitution of the United States of America included in the First Amendment the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting th e establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof . . ." (Alley, 24). The two parts of the religious freedom declaration became known as the Free Exercise Clause, which allows for religious expression, and the Establishment Clause, which protects citizens from state-imposed religion. To ensure that the government could not interfere with religious establishments, the American government mandated a more precise interpretation of the religious clauses, which commonly became known as secularism, or complete separation of the church and the government.

Secularism is the foundation underlying the issue of the role of prayer in the public school system. Due to the Establishment Clause, which protects Americans from state imposed religion; the role of prayer in the public schools is considered unco nstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor professed, "In my view, however, the principle underlying the Establishment Clause is that government may not make a person's religious belief relevant to his or her standing in the political c ommunity by conveying a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred" (O'Connor 2). Since the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protects the citizens from being influenced or offended by government sponsor ed religion, prayer in the public school system is intolerable. Accordingly, the idea of secularism was first proposed by James Madison in the religion clauses, because he wanted to avoid any sort of political influence on religious institutions (Alley 1 8). As a result of Madison's initiation of the concept of secularism, the role of religion in government institutions such as schools is now considered unconstitutional.

In defiance to the Court's separation of church and state ruling, many public school districts persist to support the exercise of prayer. Numerous cases have arisen reflecting the opposing views on the role of prayer, including the 1962 precedent setting court case Engel v. Vitale. The debate occurred because the children of a New York public school district were required to recite the following lines every morning: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg t hey blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country" (Sikorski xi). In response, the Supreme Court immediately reprimanded the school system by declaring the act unconstitutional and banning the prayer. The school and other advocates ar gued that the prayer was nondenominational and should be permitted. However, there is no such thing as a nondenominational prayer because different religions use different terms such as God, Abba, or Jehovah. School prayer advocates also argue that they have the right to free expression. Indeed, the Constitution does protect this right, but not at the expense of violating other's rights to the protection from religious establishments. Because the morning exercise was considered a school sponsored pray er and also directly displayed religious beliefs, it violated the Establishment Clause (Alley 28). Thereafter, similar acts that interfere with the First Amendment have been banned from other public schools as a result of the precedent school prayer case .

Despite the Establishment Clause and the ordinance of secularism in the United States, many Americans believe that prayer is an integral part of the day and belongs to the classroom. School prayer advocates take the old fashion stand that children need to pray in order to enhance moral and family values. Indeed, values are important, but they are to be established and practiced at home or in church, not in school. After all, the parents, not the teachers, must assume responsibility to organize a nd engage in prayer time with the children. Some advocates wish to blame society's crimes on the lace of prayer in the public school systems. However, the prayer supporters are incorrect in their assumption. That is, the country of Japan, where prayer is totally absent in the schools, has the lowest crime rate of any developed nation (Barker 4). Likewise, society's morals are not based on the lack of concise prayer sessions during the school day, but rather morals are based on family life and religiou s involvement outside of school. In addition to the prayer advocates' link between one' morals and school prayer, they also claim that those who pray earn better grades in school. Regardless of the importance of spirituality to some, it has no influence on a student's school performance. After all, a high mark is the result of studying, not praying. Although prayer and religion are important parts of many people's lives, they are to be practiced independently from school.

Furthermore, prayer is a personal act that is to be practiced in the privacy of one's own church or home. Nevertheless, there are still many opportunities for the children to silently pray or talk to his or her god(s) throughout the school day wit hout anyone knowing. The Engle v. Vitale court decision states that "the Supreme Court did not take prayer out of the school, it merely took government out of the business of prescribing religious exercises for students" (Farmer 249). I n other words, students are still permitted to pray in schools, as long as they are silent, not disruptive, and do not involve others. Even Jesus stressed the confidentiality of prayer and opposed the act of communal prayer in school or public places, as some scholars have pointed out, the Bible states, "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret" (Barker 6). Prayer is an intimate act that should be done in solitu de. Because the American government recognizes the privacy involved in the acts of prayer and religion, the policy of secularism is enforced.

Since public schools are government institutions, they must abide by the Constitution along with the First Amendment. The public school teachers are considered government employees; therefore the government mandates their opposition to any type of school-organized prayer or religious practice. The establishment of a prayer session is analogous to direct support of a religious activity (Farmer 248). Furthermore, the taxpayer's money goes to provide the school children with an education that is fr ee from and does not include religious intervention or pressures. The utilization of school time for authorized prayer violates the neutrality of the separation of the church and the government. To compensate for the unconstitutionality of organized pra yers in the public school systems, prayer advocates encourage the implementation of time set aside for school prayer. "What harm would that be?" they aruge. An allotted prayer time or moment of silence used to promote prayer illustrates that t he school supports and believes prayer to be an effective religious practice. A moment of silence promoting prayer at the beginning of the school day is an act of injustice to the many religions that pray at alternate times of the day or to the many Amer icans who do not pray at all. For example, there are two million Moslems in the United States who pray five times a day (Farmer 249). In order to be fair to them, the schools must allocate five particular prayer times per day. However, that would not b e practical or fair to other religions. By implementing particular times for prayer, the government is indirectly shaping the nature of prayer.

The admittance of prayer time in public schools also violates the constitutional right of nonbelievers to receive an education without being subjected to the influence of religious believers. Since school children are immature and naive, they are vulnerable to peer pressure to conform to a certain religion. The unwanted beliefs of those who engage in the act of open prayer during the school day will be unconsciously imposed on the susceptible non-religious children. In addition, the minority chi ldren who chose not to participate in the act of the recitation of an authorized prayer will be put in an uncomfortable position. Consequently, those who speak out to seek their constitutional right of freedome from state imposed religion, are later cond emned and looked down upon in society. As a result of having the courage to stand up for their freedoms, many students experience persecution. For example, many students generally do not respect the views of their fellow atheist students. Because athei sts are part of a small minority who does not believe in the existence of a higher being, one's classmates often times will tease him or her. The uncomfortable situation can be avoided altogether, if the religious pressures are not part of the school env ironment.

Because of the pluralistic nature of the religious beliefs and practices in the United States, the government has become completely detached from religion. Since public schools are considered government institutions, they must abide by the Constit ution. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment justifies the restriction of prayer in the public school system. Not only is it unconstitutional for the schools to establish an organized prayer, but it is equally unlawful to implement an official prayer time during the school day. Authorized prayers and moments of silence that support prayers give the impression that the government directly supports religious acts. Despite the fact that the lack of opportunity for organized prayer indicates tha t the government favors no religion at all, religious believers practicing their right to free expression may not violate the rights of religious nonbelievers to be protected from state imposed religion. To accommodate all of the various citizens who are religious believers and nonbelievers, the American government and its schools can not permit prayer as part of the school day.

Jessica Martonik

December 3, 1997

Paper #4

Prayer in the Public Schools

Over the past three decades, the issue of the role of prayer in the public school system has become increasingly controversial. The current debate juggles the opposing interpretations of the exact intentions of America's Founders, who came from an other country, England, in pursuite of expanded freedoms. The first colonists in the 17th century especially desired religious freedom, because their former British government forced them all to learn and practice a centralized religion. Consequently, A merica's first legislators made certain that their religiously pluralistic nation would not be the victim of government intervention in religious matters. Therefore, religious freedom was guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the Unite d States. The writers included as the very first sentence the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." (Alley 13). This statement alows Americans to freely exp ress and practice or chose not to practice a religion.

The two distinct terms of the religious freedom affirmation in the First Amendment to the Constitution became known as the Free Exercise Clause, which ensures religious expression, and the Establishment Clause, which protects citizens from state im posed religion. The two clauses are generally interpreted as being contradictory to each other. For instance, a right guaranteed to a particular group by one clause might directly violate the right of another group maintained by the other clause. Becau se of the conflicting religious expression clauses stated under the First Amendment, the role of prayer in public schools is controversial and must be interpreted in such a way as to accommodate all and restrain from violating the rights of any citizens. Accordingly, the role of prayer in the public school systems of the United States of America is considered unconstitutional and should be banned because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which protects Americans from state spon sored religion.

The dispute over school prayer has evolved from the government's uncertainty of the relationship between itself and the church. As included in the Constitution, the national government intended for the sanction of all religious affiliations, yet m any state governments did not support this regulation. For instance, a number of public schools displayed favoritism and partiality toward certain religions over others in the form of financial subsidy and religious accommodation. Therefore, to ensure t hat the national and state governments could not interfere with religious establishments, a more precise interpretation of the religious clauses of the First Amendment became known as secularism, or complete separation of the church and the government.

The concept of secularism seems to parallel the idea incorporated in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Because all Americans citizens, including minorities and nonbelievers hold equal inalienable rights to their religious beliefs, t he government must accommodate all of its citizens. The First Amendment maintains that the government needs to remain neutral, can not "coerce," and can not "prescribe" a faith (Alley 254). Since the Establishment Clause protects cit izens from being affected or offended by government sponsored religion, the role of prayer is unconstitutional and does not belong in the public school systems. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor explained, "In my view, however, the principle underlying the establishment clause is that the government may not make a person' religious belief relevant to his or her standing in the political community by conveying a message that religion or a particular religious beliefis favored or preferred&quo t; (O'Connor 2). Therefore, the government may not sponsor any sort of religious act, including prayer, because the state may not show preference towards religion.

In contrast, prayer advocates argue that the absence of prayer in schools gives the impression that the government favors no religion at all. Yet, the government must remain neutral. Supreme Court Justice Souter rejected the advocates' claim of f avoritism: "Thus on balance, history neither contradicts nor warrants reconsideration of the settled principle that the Establishment Clause forbids support for religion in general no less than support for one religion or some" (Alley 225). In other words, the government must simply obey the law of secularism by remaining neutral in religious issues and by not interceding with any religious practices. In addition, advocates also argue that the banning of school prayer violates their right to free expression. Truly, the Constitution does protect the citizens' free expression right, but not at the expense of violating others' rights. Despite the fact that the unconstitutionality of organized school prayer indicates that the government favors no religion at all, religious believers practicing their right to free expression may not violate the rights of religious nonbelievers to be protected from state imposed religion.

Since all public schools function as government institutions, they must maintain the Constitution along with the First Amendment. Therefore, teachers and other school-affiliated officials are considered government employees. Hence, the government commands their opposition to any type of school-sponsored prayer or religious act. That is, the organization of a prayer session in school implies that the school directly supports a religious activity (Farmer 248). Moreover, the schools' subsidies com e from local taxpayers' money, which intends to provide the school children with an academic education that acts independently of religious association. Finally, since the state policy requires students to be in attendance at school, organized prayer rem ains unconstitutional and forbidden. Hence, the schools and teachers must assume responsibility of protecting the rights of all of their students, including those who are non-believers.

Although the government clearly dictates that religious practices in the classrooms are unlawful, many public school districts persist in supporting the exercise of prayer. In defiance to the Court's concept of secularism, numerous cases have aris en, reflecting society's misconception between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The first school prayer case, Engel v. Vitale, occurred in 1962 and became a guide for future courts who would encounter similar issues. The debate result ed because the students of a New York public school district were required to recite the following lines every morning: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on thee, and we beg thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country " (Sikorsky xi). In turn, the Supreme Court admonished the school by declaring the act a violation of the Establishment Clause and, consequently, banned the prayer. The overshelming 8:1 vote that the state sponsored praer was unconstitutional, made the Engel v. Vitale court case a precedent for future debates (Wood 31). Thereafter, similar acts that interfered with the First Amendment of the Constitution have been banned from other public schools.

Since the Engel v. Vitale case, other debates have occurred involving analogous scenarios. For instance, students at Guilderland High School in New York requested permission to engage in a program that they entitled Students for Voluntary Prayer. This program involved the use of a classroom, before the school day, to conduct communal prayer. Despite the fact that they sought no faculty supervision and that the participating students would each voluntarily engage in the activity, the scho ol denied their request. Consequently, the students filed a lawsuit, which they lost in both the federal and appeals courts, as the judiciaries claimed that their congregation was "too dangerous to permit" (Whitehead, Rights 33). In res ponse, the students determined the ruling to be unfair, since other non-religious groups were permitted to gather in the school. Moreover, they felt that their organization deserved equal access. With this object, the Supreme Court addressed the student s' inquisition in the 1990 ruling that the "Free Exercise Clause does not require governments to accommodate religious conduct in conflict with laws that appear neutral . . .' (Gaffney 9). In other words, the government should not assume the respons ibility of compensating for secular laws that seem to interfere with a religious organization.

In spite of the Establishment Clause and the statute of secularism in the United States, many Americans believe that prayer should be included as part of the school day, because they believe that children need to pray in order to develop their mora ls and values. Certainly, children's morals and values are important to their development, but that is not to say that the teachers must assume this responsibility. After all, if parents wish to raise a religious conscious child, then they must provide the proper environment to organize and engage in prayer at home with their children. Conversely, some advocates even want to use the lack of prayer in the public schools as a scapegoat for society's crimes. However, evidence opposes the prayer' supporte rs' assumption. For example, the country of Japan, where prayer is totally absent in the schools, has the lowest crime rate of any developed nation (Barker 4). Therefore, one's morals are not based on the lack of concise prayer sessions during the schoo l day, but rather, morals are based on family life and religious involvement outside of school. In addition to the prayer advocate's false connection between one's morals and school prayer, they also claim that prayer enhances one's ability to achieve hi gh grades in school. This nonsequitor assumption is also inaccurate in that spirituality has nothing to do with ones' school achievements. In other words, one must study and prepare for a test, not just pray, in order to earn an ‘A'. After all, it has been proven that an average student who studies is more likely to do better in school than an average student who does not study. Even though religion and prayer are important aspects of many individuals' lives, these practices should occur outside of th e classroom setting.

The advocates argue that the total separation of church and state is extreme. At the present time, Congress upholds some rudimentary guidlines to sanction religious expression in the public schools. For example, the national government allows sch ools to tolerate students who individually pray, read the Bible, or even invite others to join them, as long as they do not disrupt or offend other students. These activities may not be school or teacher-sponsored or involve the use of a classroom settin g (Thomas 1). Congress's guidelines, although they violate the concept of secularism, aim to protect the rights of all students educated in the public school system.

Congress's guidelines are unfair and biased because their standards of prayer only apply to some religions. While many school students find fulfillment in the act of silent prayer, which is supported by the government, other individuals need to pr ay out loud or in a group. However, the government only allows the act of prayer in such a manner so that it does not draw attention and does not support organized prayer in school. Over the past 30 years, the act of prayer has successively decreased in the school systems from the allowed engagement of prayer, to only the use of nonsectarian and nondenominational prayer, to voluntary prayer, to silent prayer, to silent meditation prayer, to most recently, the moment of silence. Although, the constituti onality of each successive step has increased, all are unlawful in some way. Therefore, in order to fully abide by the constitution of the United States, school prayer in any way, shape, or form must be banned. After all, the constitutional rights of re ligious non-believers may not be violated through the religious believers' exercise of free expression.

To accommodate the rights of all American citizens, religion, including prayer must be abolished from the public school system. Not only does prayer in school violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but also the concept of the separa tion of the church and the state, as described as secularism. Therefore, to abide by the Constitution, prayer must be abolished all together in the public school systems. After all, recent studies of American Roman Catholic Parochial schools by the Univ ersity of Chicago have revealed that no detectable link exists between academic stimultion as a result of religious sanction (Alley 252). Nevertheless, those students who still feel the need to pray can do so silently without anyone even knowing or conse quently becoming offended. After all, the banning of prayer does not deny the right of religious expression; it merely restricts the time and place to outside of school. Specifically, the Engel v. Vitale court decision states that "the Supr eme Court did not take prayer out of the school, it merely took government out of the business of prescribing religious exercise for students" (Farmer 249). In other words, students encounter many opportunities during the day to silently pray in sch ool, as long as it goes unnoticed. Even Jesus stressed the privacy involved in the act of prayer and opposed the practice of communal prayer in school or public places, as some scholars, have pointed, out, the Bible states, "But thou, when thou pray est, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy father which is in secret . . .(Barker). To protect the right of privacy for some individuals and the right to the protection from state-imposed religion for others, the concept of secularism must be enforced by the abolishment of prayer in the public schools as a means to end the continual violation of the Establishment Clause.

The many other solutions to the school prayer issue proposed and applied thus far by the public school districts have all violated the Establishment Clause. First of all, as the public schools realized that forcing students to recite a routine pra yer was unconstitutional, many have resorted to the concept of voluntary prayer to accommodate all students. The concept seems quite simple: if one does not wish to participate in the prayer, then he or she does not have to while his or her other classm ates engage in the recitation. However, despite the fact that the prayer is not mandatory, the admittance of voluntary prayer time in public schools violates the constitutional right of nonbelievers to receive an education without being subjected to the influence of religion. That is, since school children are ingenuous, they are susceptible to the peer pressure to conform to a certain practiced religion. Oftentimes, the children unconsciously absorb the undesired faith of their fellow classmates. On the contrary, those who chose not to be involved in the voluntary prayer are put in an uncomfortable position. For exampls, those students that do not engage in the voluntary prayer are labeled as "weird." The uncomfortable circumstance can be avoided all together if religious pressures are not part of the school environment.

Besides voluntary prayer, numerous schools have implemented the use of non-sectarian or nondenominational prayer. Both of these methods also violate the rights of nonbelievers. Former Supreme Court Justice Souter stated, "the Establishment C lause forbids not only state practices that aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another, but also that aid all religions. Today we reaffirm that principle, holding that the Establishment Clause forbids state-sponsored prayers in public sch ool settings, no matter how nondenominational the prayers may be . . ." (Alley 252). In other words, the state must not permit even generic devotional prayers. Besides, there really is no such thing as a nondenominational prayer because different r eligions use different terms such as God, Abba, or Jehovah. Therefore, the use of nondenominational prayer as a substitute for the exercise of free prayer in school, violates the rights of many students.

Lastly, schools have integrated the moment of silence as a solution to the school prayer uncertainty. Once again, this most recent proposition violates the Establishment Clause. That is, an allotted devotional period insinuates that the governmen t intentionally supports prayer as an effective religious practice. A moment of silence at the beginning of the school day promotes prayer, therefore is an act of injustice to the many religions that pray at alternate times of the day and to the many peo ple who do not pray at all. For instance, there are two million Moslems in the United States who are required to pray five times a day (Farmer 249). For this reason, the schools would have to authorize five devotional periods each day, in order to be fa ir to the Moslems. Yet, this would not be sensible or fair to the numerous other religions. Furthermore, when the schools allot a particular time for acts of devotion, they are directly shaping the nature of prayer.

Because the previous proposals have confirmed to be unconstitutional, the abolishment of prayer in the public schools proves to be the most legitimate approach to the dilemma. In order to carry out the elimination of prayer in schools, the true de finition of secularism will have to be implemented. Meaning, the schools may not tolerate any religious acts during the school day. If one wishes to pray, he or she may do so silently, but verbal communication of prayer may not be admissible, for school is the site of academic enhancement, not religious promotion. Therefore, the state governments must enact an ordinance prohibiting all acts of prayer in their schools. In order to enforce the new rule, the public schools must implement a disciplinary c ode. Over time, the absence of prayer in the school day will become second nature to the students. Although some might argue that the total abolishment of prayer is radical, in no way does it violate anyone's constitutional rights. As stated earlier, t he Supreme Court confirmed, "the Free Exercise Clause does not require governments to accommodate religious conduct in conflict with laws that appear neutral . . .' (Gaffney 9). Therefore, the revoking of public school prayer not only abides by the Establishment Clause, but also refrains from violating the free Expression Clause.

Over the past thirty years, the writers' intentions in the First Amendment have been closely examined and questioned. Starting with the Engel v. Vitale case, the Supreme Court began to examine the controversy involving the Establishment Cl ause and the Free Expression Clause. Specifically, the issue of the role of prayer in the public school systems became an increasingly debatable topic as the Court declared school prayer unconstitutional. Because mandatory prayer expression in school vi olates the Establishment Clause, the schools proposed many alternatives including, voluntary prayer, nondenominational prayer, and a moment of silence. Nevertheless, all of these propositions proved to be unconstitutional in one way or another. Therefor e, the superlative solution has become the complete abolishment of prayer during the entire school day. Consequently, this idea righteously accommodates all religions and nonreligions. After all, America's Constitution was created for the advantage of a ll citizens, not just those who are religious.

Works Cited

Alley, Robert S. School Prayer. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1994.

Barker, Dan. "The Case Against School Prayer." Internet Infidels. Online. Internet. 21

October 1997. Available: http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/issues/pray.html

Farmer, Rod. "The School Prayer Issue." Education 104 (1984): 248-49.

Gaffney, Edward McGlynn. "A Church in Texas." Commonweal 124 (April 25, 1997): 9-10.

O'Connor, Sandra. "Forward: the Establishment Clause and Endorsement of Religion."

Journal of Law and Religion 8 (1990): 1-4.

Sikorski, Robert. Prayer in Public Schools and the Constitution 1961-1992. New York: Garland

Publishing Inc., 1993.

Thomas, Oliver. "Prayer and Speech." Finding Common Ground 12 (1996): 29 pars. Online.

Internetr. 1 October 1997.

Whitehead, John W. The Rights of Religious Persons in Public Education. Wheaton, Illinois:

Crossway Books, 1994: 33,49-50.