in response to a friend's journal entry
my sociology of education professor is a wonderful man who happens to be a devout Christian. he presented this at a conference, and used it as an introduction for discussion in class. i saw an entry in amber's journal about a paul harvey radio address about prayer in schools. we just talked about this yesterday in class, so i thought i'd share yet another perspective on the issue. it's a little long for a post, so i'm cutting it, but i'd like to especially draw your attention to the part toward the end headed, "the Christian practice of prayer." (i've included his references for those of you who might be interested.) yay for freedom of speech!
Introduction
In my conversations with many individuals and groups I am always shocked by their lack of knowledge about the historic Supreme Court cases that address religious expression and public education. For this reason, I have two objectives for this paper. First, we will briefly examine the following Supreme Court cases: Engel v. Vitale (1962), Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Zorach v. Clauson (1952), Lee v. Weisman (1992), Santa Fe v. Doe, (2000) and the Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001). Yet, our purpose is to move beyond the mere decision by the Court to an understanding of how the Justices formed their opinions in order to reach a decision in each case. In other words, why did the Court declare state-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional? I believe that as educators and informed citizens we should understand the rationale of the Court in these cases. Only then, can we agree or disagree from an informed point of view.
Second, we will examine the practice of prayer in the context of Christianity. When and where are Christians instructed to pray? In order to answer these questions, I will refer to the writings of Paul and the Gospels with text attributed to our Lord.
I am keenly aware of the difficulty of my task as I try to address the legal as well as the religious aspects of this issue. I ask for your patience as I make this attempt.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
First, let us examine the opinion of the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale (1962) in which the Supreme Court declared state mandated prayer in the public school classroom unconstitutional. In this case, the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York directed the School District’s principal to have the following prayer said aloud by each class in the presence of the teacher at the beginning of each school day: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country”(p. 1).
The parents of ten students in the district brought action in New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of them and their children. The petitioners contended that the use of this prayer “…must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because the prayer was composed by government officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs” (p. 2). The Court agreed with their contention. The Justices wrote,
…(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. (p. 2)
The Court used a divisive religious and political situation in 16th Century England as support for its opinion. In England the Book of Common Prayer was approved by Acts of Parliament in 1548 and 1549. It established the accepted form and content of prayer and other religious ceremonies to be used in the established, tax supported Church of England. Not only did controversy over the Book disrupt the peace of the country, but also the accepted forms of prayer in the established church changed with the views of the particular ruler that happened to be in power at the time. Powerful groups representing some of the different religious views of the people struggled among themselves to get their views accepted by the government. Other religious groups that lacked the power to influence the government decided to leave England and its state established church and seek religious freedom in America. (p. 2)
Let us not forget that, when some of the very groups that had so vigorously opposed the established Church of England found themselves in control of colonial governments, they passed laws that made their religion the official tax supported religion of their respective colonies. “Indeed, as late as the time of the Revolutionary War, there were established churches in at least eight of the thirteen former colonies and established religions in at least four of the other five” (p. 3).
After the colonies won their independence in the American Revolution, opposition to the practice of establishing religion by law began to mount. In Virginia minority religious groups such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Quakers, and Baptists gained more political strength than the established Episcopal Church. Uniting with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, these groups pressured the Virginia legislature to pass the “Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty.” This bill ensured that all religious groups would be treated equally before state government. (p. 3)
“By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of church and state” (p. 3). The greatest danger to the freedom of an individual to worship in his own way was the government placing its stamp of approval on the accepted form of prayer or worship. Although the Constitution put the government in the hands of the people, it was not enough to leave the fate of religious liberty to the ballot box.
The Court reminded us,
The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee
that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be
used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer that American people
can say-that the people’s religions must not be subjected to the pressures of
government for change each time a new political administration is elected to
office. (p. 3)
Indeed, our government does not have the authority to prescribe religious belief or practice, including prayer. As the Court stated,
Under the Amendment’s prohibition against governmental establishment of
religion…government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power
to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an
official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored
religious activity. (p. 3)
The Court concluded, “There can be no doubt that New York’s state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regent’s prayer” (p. 3).
In this case the Court was concerned with the violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It is violated when the state enacts laws which establish an official religion whether these laws directly coerce non-observing individuals or not.
When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed
behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon
religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion
is plain. But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much
further than that. Its first most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a
union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade
religion. (p. 4)
The history of state-sponsored religion has most often resulted in hatred, disrespect and contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. Moreover, how can one respect a religion that uses the government to spread its faith.
The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its “unhallowed perversion” by a civil magistrate. (p. 4)
Then the Court turned its attention to persecution. The Founders of our government were “aware of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand” (p. 4). In England soon after the Book of Common Prayer was adopted, the Act of Uniformity was passed. The Act made it a criminal offense to conduct or attend religious meetings of another kind. Individuals such as John Bunyan persisted in holding unlawful religious meetings, and they were often placed in prison. The Court concluded, “It was in large part to get completely away from this sort of systematic religious persecution that the Founders brought into being our Nation, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights, with its prohibition against any governmental establishment of religion” (p. 4).
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
Our second case is Abington School District v. Schempp (1963). As most of you know, it was in this case that the Supreme Court declared devotional reading of the Bible in public schools unconstitutional. Again, I urge you to note that the arguments of the Court were similar to those expressed in Engel v. Vitale in that the Court upheld the importance of personal religious devotion and practice while rejecting state sponsored religious practice. This case focused on a statute in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dating from 1959 that stated, “At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day. Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon written request from his parent or guardian” (p. 2). The Schempp family, husband and wife and two of three children, brought suit to enjoin enforcement of the statute. Subsequently, the Supreme Court found that these exercises and the statute requiring them were in violation of the Establishment Clause.
However, in its opinion the Court acknowledged that religion has been closely identified with our history and government. “The fact that the Founding Fathers believed that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself” (p. 5). Yet, religious freedom has likewise been strongly imbedded in our public and private life. It was the personal experiences in religious persecution suffered by our forebears that deeply instilled our belief in liberty of religious thought in our heritage. This belief in liberty of religious thought so clearly expressed by Roger Williams, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson came to be incorporated not only in the Bill of Rights but likewise in the constitutions of most of our states. “This freedom to worship was indispensable in a country whose people came from the four quarters of the earth and brought with them a diversity of religious opinion” (p. 6).
As one carefully reads through this case, the position of the Court becomes quite clear. The First Amendment did not simply bar a Congressional enactment establishing a church, rather it forbade all laws respecting an establishment of religion. The First Amendment reflects the philosophy that church and state should be separated. Therefore, the position of the state is that of neutrality in regard to religious practice and devotion. Yet, the Court was clear that by taking this position it was not attacking the preeminent place of religion in our society. The Court concluded,
The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long
tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the
individual hear and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience
that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its
purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship
between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of
neutrality. (p. 12)
However, as most of you know the actions taken by schools, curriculum specialists and textbook publishers in response to this and similar cases were unfortunate. Teachers were often told that they could not mention religion in their classrooms, and textbooks simply avoided the subject. It was as if religion had never been a significant part of the American experience. Yet, even after teaching for several years, I was surprised when I first discovered that this was not the intention of the Court. Justice Tom Clark actually wrote,
It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of
comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the
advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy
of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates
that such a study of the Bible or religion, when presented objectively as part of a
secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First
Amendment. (p. 11)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
I want to take a brief look at the Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) ruling in which the Supreme Court further clarified the position of neutrality to be taken by the state in regard to religion. The main issue of this case revolved around questions about Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes that provided state aid to church-related elementary and secondary schools. The Rhode Island statute supplemented the salaries of teachers of secular subjects in these schools, and the Pennsylvania statute authorized the state to reimburse these schools for their actual expenditures that were used for secular courses. The Court struck down these statutes as unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they created an excessive entanglement between government and religion. The test that was developed from this case is that a statute or other governmental policy
1) must have a secular legislative purpose,
2) must have the primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion,
3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
Conclusion to Part I
For the past thirty years we have been trying to correctly apply these rulings in the day-to-day operation of public schools. I will concede that school boards and school administrators have issued incorrect prohibitions and taken inappropriate actions during this time. Moreover, a fine line exists between freedom of religious expression and state sponsored religious practice in a public school. Yet, the rulings of the Court have been quite consistent. For example, in Lee v. Weisman (1992) the Court ruled that invocations or benedictions led by clergy at official public school graduation ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In addition, in Santa Fe v. Doe (2000) the Court ruled that student-initiated prayer on the public address system at football games also violate the Establishment Clause.
On the other hand, the Court has historically accommodated the exercise of religious practice by students that do not involve state-sponsorship. In Zorach v. Clauson (1952) students were permitted to leave the school for a period of religious instruction at another site. For providing this “released time” the Court ruled that the state had not acted counter to the First Amendment. In addition, on June 11, 2001, the Supreme Court handed down the ruling on the Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001). The Good News Club, a private Christian organization for children ages 6 to 12, submitted a request to hold the Clubs’ weekly after school meetings in the school. Milford denied the request on the ground that the proposed use-to sing songs, hear Bible lessons, memorize scripture, and pray-was the equivalent of religious worship prohibited by the community use policy. The Court ruled that permitting the Club to meet on the schools’ premises would not have violated the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause argument was rejected because the Club met after school hours; there was no realistic danger that the community would think that the district was endorsing religion. (pp. 1-3)
The Supreme Court has never sought to oppose individual and group religious exercises as long as they do not disrupt the school day. Yes, students may voluntarily gather around the flag and pray before the school day begins. They may gather just outside the end zone and pray before the football game. They may pray and read Holy Scripture at meetings of Young Life and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Nothing the Court has said even hints of opposition to students bowing their heads and saying grace before lunch. These are pure expressions of religious devotion protected by the First Amendment. What the Court has struck down is any religion using the machinery of the state, including public schools, to advance its particular beliefs.
I can only conclude, based on the religious diversity found in our nation’s pluralistic society, that these decisions by the Supreme Court were fair to the parties involved and correct for the entire nation. In my opinion, if one rejects this position, the only alternative is to advocate that the United States should be a Christian state much like Iran is governed as an Islamic state. I am aware that certain groups in this country advocate this position; however, I do not believe that the majority of American citizens want to go down this road.
The Christian Practice of Prayer
I have lost count of the sermons and personal tirades that I have heard concerning the Supreme Court rulings regarding prayer in the public schools (and it seems that few individuals have read the actual cases). In most of these sermons and conversations these Court decisions are described as evil attacks against religious liberty. Seldom in sermons and never in conversations have I heard discussed the nature of the Christian practice of prayer.
I must confess that these next few lines are expressed from the core beliefs of my Baptist heritage. Consequently, I have a high regard for the authority of Holy Scripture; it is my guide to daily living. The supreme example in Holy Scripture is that of our Lord, and His example in prayer should influence our discussion on this issue.
“Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed.” (Mark 1:35 NIV)
“After leaving them, he went into the hills to pray.” (Mark 6:46 NIV)
“But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.” (Luke 5:16 NIV)
“ One of those days Jesus went out into the hills to pray, and spent the night praying to God.” (Luke 6:12 NIV)
“Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, ‘Who do men say that I am?’” (Luke 9:18 NIV)
Second, in words attributed to our Lord, His instructions concerning prayer are precisely to the point.
But when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing
in the synagogues and on street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth,
they have received their reward in full. When you pray go into your room, close
the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees
what is done in secret, will reward you openly. (Matthew 6: 5-6 NIV)
Finally, the words of the Apostle Paul to the Church at Rome reveal the intense, personal nature of prayer.
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we
ought to pray, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words
cannot express. And He who searches our heart knows the mind of the Spirit,
because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with the will of God.
(Romans 8: 26-27 NIV)
I must be perfectly honest with you. These instructions about and descriptions of prayer in the New Testament do not describe public prayers and formal invocations. Neither do they describe nondenominational prayers at graduation ceremonies or the prayer of the local youth minister asking God to help the referees to be impartial before the football game with the rival county school. However, this intense, personal nature of prayer described in Holy Scripture has been fully acknowledged and held in the highest regard by the Supreme Court in each case dealing directly or indirectly with prayer that I have cited in this paper.
Conclusion
The intent of the Supreme Court in these cases is quite clear. The Court has declared state-mandated prayer and religious practice in public schools unconstitutional. The Court has never said or implied that Christians or individuals in other religious groups cannot pray. However, I am concerned about the lack of understanding on two issues related to this topic. First, too many individuals have a limited understanding of our democratic form of government and the tension between the concept of majority rule and the rights of the minority. The argument goes something like this: If evangelical Christians are in the majority in a school district and want their children to repeat a Christian prayer at the local public school, then they have the right to elect likeminded school board members who will in turn establish policy that official prayers be repeated each day in the public schools. (However, I am not certain that evangelical Christians would demand the same privilege and political power for members of other religious groups.) This argument misses the purpose of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. The Court in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) quoted Mr. Justice Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities
and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the Courts.
One’s right to …freedom of worship…and other fundamental rights may not be
submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. (p. 12)
Yes, one important purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority against the unchecked power of the majority, and maybe that is difficult to comprehend unless I am a member of the minority.
Second, I am concerned with the lack of knowledge about the dark side of Christian history-the attempts to unite a particular Christian Church and the state. Whether it was Constantine in Rome, Calvin in Geneva, Cromwell in England, the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay, or the Anglicans in Colonial Virginia, the results have always been hypocrisy in Christian commitment, lack of religious freedom for minority viewpoints, and outright persecution. I am well aware that my religious forefathers-the Anabaptists and Mennonites in Europe and Baptists in Colonial America-often experienced persecution. Just because Baptists are now in the majority in many communities across the United States, does not mean that I should forget this history, lest I become the persecutor.
Finally, in my experience as a middle school teacher, high school teacher, community college instructor, and college professor and all the while attempting to live a life of faith, I have often been concerned about faith in the lives of my students. Yet, if I had required my students to repeat a prayer each morning simply because I was the teacher and had the state mandated authority to do so, what would I really know about their Christian commitment and what have they learned about their own personal faith? The liberty to believe is not meaningful unless one has the liberty not to believe. The Supreme Court has sought to establish this very climate for liberty in our public schools and in our society.
References Cited
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). http://www.tourolaw.
edu/patch/Abington/index.html (1-14).
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). http://ww2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi/
exe/historic/query=[group+370+u!2Es!…/hits_only (1-4).
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 202 U.S. 502 (2001).
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZS.html (1-3).
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S/ Ct. 2649 (1992). In Zirkel. P.A., Richardson, S.N., & Goldberg,
S. S. (1995). A digest of Supreme Court decisions affecting education
(42). Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). In Zirkel, P.A.,
Richardson, S.N., & Goldberb, S.S. (1995). A digest of Supreme Court
cases affecting education (24-25). Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 168 U.S. 806 (2000). http://supct.law.
cornell.edu/supct/html/99-62.ZS.html.
Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952). In Zirkel, P.A., Richardson, S.N. &
Goldberg, S.S. (1995). A digest of Supreme Court cases affecting education
(21-22). Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Introduction
In my conversations with many individuals and groups I am always shocked by their lack of knowledge about the historic Supreme Court cases that address religious expression and public education. For this reason, I have two objectives for this paper. First, we will briefly examine the following Supreme Court cases: Engel v. Vitale (1962), Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Zorach v. Clauson (1952), Lee v. Weisman (1992), Santa Fe v. Doe, (2000) and the Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001). Yet, our purpose is to move beyond the mere decision by the Court to an understanding of how the Justices formed their opinions in order to reach a decision in each case. In other words, why did the Court declare state-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional? I believe that as educators and informed citizens we should understand the rationale of the Court in these cases. Only then, can we agree or disagree from an informed point of view.
Second, we will examine the practice of prayer in the context of Christianity. When and where are Christians instructed to pray? In order to answer these questions, I will refer to the writings of Paul and the Gospels with text attributed to our Lord.
I am keenly aware of the difficulty of my task as I try to address the legal as well as the religious aspects of this issue. I ask for your patience as I make this attempt.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
First, let us examine the opinion of the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale (1962) in which the Supreme Court declared state mandated prayer in the public school classroom unconstitutional. In this case, the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York directed the School District’s principal to have the following prayer said aloud by each class in the presence of the teacher at the beginning of each school day: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country”(p. 1).
The parents of ten students in the district brought action in New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of them and their children. The petitioners contended that the use of this prayer “…must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because the prayer was composed by government officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs” (p. 2). The Court agreed with their contention. The Justices wrote,
…(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. (p. 2)
The Court used a divisive religious and political situation in 16th Century England as support for its opinion. In England the Book of Common Prayer was approved by Acts of Parliament in 1548 and 1549. It established the accepted form and content of prayer and other religious ceremonies to be used in the established, tax supported Church of England. Not only did controversy over the Book disrupt the peace of the country, but also the accepted forms of prayer in the established church changed with the views of the particular ruler that happened to be in power at the time. Powerful groups representing some of the different religious views of the people struggled among themselves to get their views accepted by the government. Other religious groups that lacked the power to influence the government decided to leave England and its state established church and seek religious freedom in America. (p. 2)
Let us not forget that, when some of the very groups that had so vigorously opposed the established Church of England found themselves in control of colonial governments, they passed laws that made their religion the official tax supported religion of their respective colonies. “Indeed, as late as the time of the Revolutionary War, there were established churches in at least eight of the thirteen former colonies and established religions in at least four of the other five” (p. 3).
After the colonies won their independence in the American Revolution, opposition to the practice of establishing religion by law began to mount. In Virginia minority religious groups such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Quakers, and Baptists gained more political strength than the established Episcopal Church. Uniting with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, these groups pressured the Virginia legislature to pass the “Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty.” This bill ensured that all religious groups would be treated equally before state government. (p. 3)
“By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of church and state” (p. 3). The greatest danger to the freedom of an individual to worship in his own way was the government placing its stamp of approval on the accepted form of prayer or worship. Although the Constitution put the government in the hands of the people, it was not enough to leave the fate of religious liberty to the ballot box.
The Court reminded us,
The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee
that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be
used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer that American people
can say-that the people’s religions must not be subjected to the pressures of
government for change each time a new political administration is elected to
office. (p. 3)
Indeed, our government does not have the authority to prescribe religious belief or practice, including prayer. As the Court stated,
Under the Amendment’s prohibition against governmental establishment of
religion…government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power
to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an
official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored
religious activity. (p. 3)
The Court concluded, “There can be no doubt that New York’s state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regent’s prayer” (p. 3).
In this case the Court was concerned with the violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It is violated when the state enacts laws which establish an official religion whether these laws directly coerce non-observing individuals or not.
When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed
behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon
religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion
is plain. But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much
further than that. Its first most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a
union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade
religion. (p. 4)
The history of state-sponsored religion has most often resulted in hatred, disrespect and contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. Moreover, how can one respect a religion that uses the government to spread its faith.
The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its “unhallowed perversion” by a civil magistrate. (p. 4)
Then the Court turned its attention to persecution. The Founders of our government were “aware of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand” (p. 4). In England soon after the Book of Common Prayer was adopted, the Act of Uniformity was passed. The Act made it a criminal offense to conduct or attend religious meetings of another kind. Individuals such as John Bunyan persisted in holding unlawful religious meetings, and they were often placed in prison. The Court concluded, “It was in large part to get completely away from this sort of systematic religious persecution that the Founders brought into being our Nation, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights, with its prohibition against any governmental establishment of religion” (p. 4).
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
Our second case is Abington School District v. Schempp (1963). As most of you know, it was in this case that the Supreme Court declared devotional reading of the Bible in public schools unconstitutional. Again, I urge you to note that the arguments of the Court were similar to those expressed in Engel v. Vitale in that the Court upheld the importance of personal religious devotion and practice while rejecting state sponsored religious practice. This case focused on a statute in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dating from 1959 that stated, “At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day. Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon written request from his parent or guardian” (p. 2). The Schempp family, husband and wife and two of three children, brought suit to enjoin enforcement of the statute. Subsequently, the Supreme Court found that these exercises and the statute requiring them were in violation of the Establishment Clause.
However, in its opinion the Court acknowledged that religion has been closely identified with our history and government. “The fact that the Founding Fathers believed that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself” (p. 5). Yet, religious freedom has likewise been strongly imbedded in our public and private life. It was the personal experiences in religious persecution suffered by our forebears that deeply instilled our belief in liberty of religious thought in our heritage. This belief in liberty of religious thought so clearly expressed by Roger Williams, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson came to be incorporated not only in the Bill of Rights but likewise in the constitutions of most of our states. “This freedom to worship was indispensable in a country whose people came from the four quarters of the earth and brought with them a diversity of religious opinion” (p. 6).
As one carefully reads through this case, the position of the Court becomes quite clear. The First Amendment did not simply bar a Congressional enactment establishing a church, rather it forbade all laws respecting an establishment of religion. The First Amendment reflects the philosophy that church and state should be separated. Therefore, the position of the state is that of neutrality in regard to religious practice and devotion. Yet, the Court was clear that by taking this position it was not attacking the preeminent place of religion in our society. The Court concluded,
The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long
tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the
individual hear and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience
that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its
purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship
between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of
neutrality. (p. 12)
However, as most of you know the actions taken by schools, curriculum specialists and textbook publishers in response to this and similar cases were unfortunate. Teachers were often told that they could not mention religion in their classrooms, and textbooks simply avoided the subject. It was as if religion had never been a significant part of the American experience. Yet, even after teaching for several years, I was surprised when I first discovered that this was not the intention of the Court. Justice Tom Clark actually wrote,
It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of
comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the
advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy
of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates
that such a study of the Bible or religion, when presented objectively as part of a
secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First
Amendment. (p. 11)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
I want to take a brief look at the Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) ruling in which the Supreme Court further clarified the position of neutrality to be taken by the state in regard to religion. The main issue of this case revolved around questions about Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes that provided state aid to church-related elementary and secondary schools. The Rhode Island statute supplemented the salaries of teachers of secular subjects in these schools, and the Pennsylvania statute authorized the state to reimburse these schools for their actual expenditures that were used for secular courses. The Court struck down these statutes as unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they created an excessive entanglement between government and religion. The test that was developed from this case is that a statute or other governmental policy
1) must have a secular legislative purpose,
2) must have the primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion,
3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
Conclusion to Part I
For the past thirty years we have been trying to correctly apply these rulings in the day-to-day operation of public schools. I will concede that school boards and school administrators have issued incorrect prohibitions and taken inappropriate actions during this time. Moreover, a fine line exists between freedom of religious expression and state sponsored religious practice in a public school. Yet, the rulings of the Court have been quite consistent. For example, in Lee v. Weisman (1992) the Court ruled that invocations or benedictions led by clergy at official public school graduation ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In addition, in Santa Fe v. Doe (2000) the Court ruled that student-initiated prayer on the public address system at football games also violate the Establishment Clause.
On the other hand, the Court has historically accommodated the exercise of religious practice by students that do not involve state-sponsorship. In Zorach v. Clauson (1952) students were permitted to leave the school for a period of religious instruction at another site. For providing this “released time” the Court ruled that the state had not acted counter to the First Amendment. In addition, on June 11, 2001, the Supreme Court handed down the ruling on the Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001). The Good News Club, a private Christian organization for children ages 6 to 12, submitted a request to hold the Clubs’ weekly after school meetings in the school. Milford denied the request on the ground that the proposed use-to sing songs, hear Bible lessons, memorize scripture, and pray-was the equivalent of religious worship prohibited by the community use policy. The Court ruled that permitting the Club to meet on the schools’ premises would not have violated the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause argument was rejected because the Club met after school hours; there was no realistic danger that the community would think that the district was endorsing religion. (pp. 1-3)
The Supreme Court has never sought to oppose individual and group religious exercises as long as they do not disrupt the school day. Yes, students may voluntarily gather around the flag and pray before the school day begins. They may gather just outside the end zone and pray before the football game. They may pray and read Holy Scripture at meetings of Young Life and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Nothing the Court has said even hints of opposition to students bowing their heads and saying grace before lunch. These are pure expressions of religious devotion protected by the First Amendment. What the Court has struck down is any religion using the machinery of the state, including public schools, to advance its particular beliefs.
I can only conclude, based on the religious diversity found in our nation’s pluralistic society, that these decisions by the Supreme Court were fair to the parties involved and correct for the entire nation. In my opinion, if one rejects this position, the only alternative is to advocate that the United States should be a Christian state much like Iran is governed as an Islamic state. I am aware that certain groups in this country advocate this position; however, I do not believe that the majority of American citizens want to go down this road.
The Christian Practice of Prayer
I have lost count of the sermons and personal tirades that I have heard concerning the Supreme Court rulings regarding prayer in the public schools (and it seems that few individuals have read the actual cases). In most of these sermons and conversations these Court decisions are described as evil attacks against religious liberty. Seldom in sermons and never in conversations have I heard discussed the nature of the Christian practice of prayer.
I must confess that these next few lines are expressed from the core beliefs of my Baptist heritage. Consequently, I have a high regard for the authority of Holy Scripture; it is my guide to daily living. The supreme example in Holy Scripture is that of our Lord, and His example in prayer should influence our discussion on this issue.
“Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed.” (Mark 1:35 NIV)
“After leaving them, he went into the hills to pray.” (Mark 6:46 NIV)
“But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.” (Luke 5:16 NIV)
“ One of those days Jesus went out into the hills to pray, and spent the night praying to God.” (Luke 6:12 NIV)
“Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, ‘Who do men say that I am?’” (Luke 9:18 NIV)
Second, in words attributed to our Lord, His instructions concerning prayer are precisely to the point.
But when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing
in the synagogues and on street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth,
they have received their reward in full. When you pray go into your room, close
the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees
what is done in secret, will reward you openly. (Matthew 6: 5-6 NIV)
Finally, the words of the Apostle Paul to the Church at Rome reveal the intense, personal nature of prayer.
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we
ought to pray, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words
cannot express. And He who searches our heart knows the mind of the Spirit,
because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with the will of God.
(Romans 8: 26-27 NIV)
I must be perfectly honest with you. These instructions about and descriptions of prayer in the New Testament do not describe public prayers and formal invocations. Neither do they describe nondenominational prayers at graduation ceremonies or the prayer of the local youth minister asking God to help the referees to be impartial before the football game with the rival county school. However, this intense, personal nature of prayer described in Holy Scripture has been fully acknowledged and held in the highest regard by the Supreme Court in each case dealing directly or indirectly with prayer that I have cited in this paper.
Conclusion
The intent of the Supreme Court in these cases is quite clear. The Court has declared state-mandated prayer and religious practice in public schools unconstitutional. The Court has never said or implied that Christians or individuals in other religious groups cannot pray. However, I am concerned about the lack of understanding on two issues related to this topic. First, too many individuals have a limited understanding of our democratic form of government and the tension between the concept of majority rule and the rights of the minority. The argument goes something like this: If evangelical Christians are in the majority in a school district and want their children to repeat a Christian prayer at the local public school, then they have the right to elect likeminded school board members who will in turn establish policy that official prayers be repeated each day in the public schools. (However, I am not certain that evangelical Christians would demand the same privilege and political power for members of other religious groups.) This argument misses the purpose of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. The Court in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) quoted Mr. Justice Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities
and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the Courts.
One’s right to …freedom of worship…and other fundamental rights may not be
submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. (p. 12)
Yes, one important purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority against the unchecked power of the majority, and maybe that is difficult to comprehend unless I am a member of the minority.
Second, I am concerned with the lack of knowledge about the dark side of Christian history-the attempts to unite a particular Christian Church and the state. Whether it was Constantine in Rome, Calvin in Geneva, Cromwell in England, the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay, or the Anglicans in Colonial Virginia, the results have always been hypocrisy in Christian commitment, lack of religious freedom for minority viewpoints, and outright persecution. I am well aware that my religious forefathers-the Anabaptists and Mennonites in Europe and Baptists in Colonial America-often experienced persecution. Just because Baptists are now in the majority in many communities across the United States, does not mean that I should forget this history, lest I become the persecutor.
Finally, in my experience as a middle school teacher, high school teacher, community college instructor, and college professor and all the while attempting to live a life of faith, I have often been concerned about faith in the lives of my students. Yet, if I had required my students to repeat a prayer each morning simply because I was the teacher and had the state mandated authority to do so, what would I really know about their Christian commitment and what have they learned about their own personal faith? The liberty to believe is not meaningful unless one has the liberty not to believe. The Supreme Court has sought to establish this very climate for liberty in our public schools and in our society.
References Cited
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). http://www.tourolaw.
edu/patch/Abington/index.html (1-14).
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). http://ww2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi/
exe/historic/query=[group+370+u!2Es!…/hits_only (1-4).
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 202 U.S. 502 (2001).
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZS.html (1-3).
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S/ Ct. 2649 (1992). In Zirkel. P.A., Richardson, S.N., & Goldberg,
S. S. (1995). A digest of Supreme Court decisions affecting education
(42). Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). In Zirkel, P.A.,
Richardson, S.N., & Goldberb, S.S. (1995). A digest of Supreme Court
cases affecting education (24-25). Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 168 U.S. 806 (2000). http://supct.law.
cornell.edu/supct/html/99-62.ZS.html.
Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952). In Zirkel, P.A., Richardson, S.N. &
Goldberg, S.S. (1995). A digest of Supreme Court cases affecting education
(21-22). Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.