School Prayer

The separation of church and state debate

One major historical aim of secularists has been to ensure the protection of the individual against popular beliefs. This principle guided the framing of the first amendment of the US Constitution, and applied specifically to the position of religious belief within the new society. The first amendment contains the foundations for the doctrine of the separation of church and state, a concept that seeks to remove religious belief from the policies and actions of government. The line through which 'church' and 'state' is drawn has never been clear, and twentieth century America witnessed controversies over such hot-topics as evolution versus creationism and prayer in public schools. This post will look at the issue of school prayer, and the legal dynamics that have shaped its place in American education. I will argue that the current position is unfortunate, not because of a personal belief in the progressive nature of prayer, but because the current state of affairs is inconsistent with the notion of freedom for religion, the equally important twin pillar of the first amendment.

Brief legal history of school prayer

In order to hold the reader's attention, I will not draw out at length the entire history of the how, why, where and when of school prayer in the American education system. Suffice it to say, it was generally prevalent until a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1962 which ruled that daily Biblical readings and recitations were unconstitutional. The case had been brought before the court by a mother and son who were passioniate athiests, who felt such mandatory requirements violated the boy's constitutional rights, namely that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' (the first amendment). Needless to say, the Justices construed that such practices as Bible readings and audible prayers did amount to the 'establishment of religion'.

The rest, as they say, is history. The Supreme Court proceeded with the basig logic of this case, and developed the precedent so as to continally erode the place of prayer in public schools. The 1962 decision was followed, amoungst others, in 1980 by the banning of ten commandments displays, in 1985 by a prohibition on daily moments of silence, in 1992 by the banning of clergy-led prayers at graduation ceremonies and in 2000 by the declaration that student-led pre-sports match prayers were 'unconstitutional'. Such is the current state of affairs. Other channels of school prayer have been tipped for judicial action.

Constitutional justifications?

All these developments have taken place in the name of the Constitution. The judgements explain how each of these practices violated the establishment clause as the activities in question amounted to the promotion of religion within schools. Yet this is only one interpretation of the first amendment, and one that would discard America’s long-established religious heritage in the name of strict secularism.

The Constitution is far from clear that such activities as Bible reading, student-led prayer and especially silent prayer must necessarily amount to the ‘establishment of religion’. Constitutionalists argue, quite rightly, that the government must never be able to set the agenda, religiously speaking, and monopolise a particular belief system over any other. But the practices the Supreme Court have banned have not been government attempts to impose religion on its school children. They are generally moderate instances which reflect the country’s culture and religious foundation, which are supported by the great majority of Americans. The Bible is the spiritual sourcebook for Christians of many different denominations, and needless to say, for Jews, at least in respect of the Old Testament. The religious reference book for the overwhelming majority of Americans, it is quite feasible that the Bible could be read in schools without any corollary sectarianism.

The founding fathers understood the absolute importance of religious freedom in a just and tolerant society, but did they intend the Supreme Court to ensure that governments withdraw tooth-and-nail from the ‘promotion of religion’? I don’t believe that they did. The ‘promotion of religion’ does not amount to the ‘establishment of religion’, and this seems to be a principle lost on many of the well-meaning Supreme Court Justices. It has been argued that the intentions of the founding fathers were far from clear, yet George Washington said "What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." This is not of course cause for the teaching of a particular creed at the expense of any other - this would clearly violate the establishment clause, but it reflects the belief that religion, and prayer, were to be part of the the upbringing of children in public schools, and not separated from it.


School prayer and freedom for religion

If we are to accept the notion that the Constitution promotes both freedom from religion and freedom of religion, then the Supreme Court decisions are questionable. It is the manner in which schools address religious practices that determine their constitutionality. If a school child was told, against his or her wishes, to believe in Christianity, then this would of course be unconstitutional, because the aim would have been to impose religion on that child. Likewise, there should be no religious discrimination in the classroom, or an atmosphere in which a child feels uncomfortable for thinking differently. Freedom of thought is the highest of treasures.

But should all manifestations of religion be ousted from the classroom? The problem of mandatory school prayer could be solved by allowing children to remain silent if they so wished at points where others prayed or read aloud. I cannot emphase the importance of Constitutional rights concerning the minority. But voluntary Bible readings, audible prayers, and certainly moments-of-silence, do not in themselves amount to the ‘establishment of religion’, and are within the constitutional boundaries, as well as being democratic.