Religion and Education in the US

Foundations of American Education

Introduction The First Amendment The History of Prayer in Our Public

Schools Religion in Public Schools: A Joint

Statement of Current Law Pro School Prayer Position Anti School Prayer Position

The First Amendment The opening two clauses of the First Amendment deal precisely

with the issue of what the government can and cannot do with respect to religion.

The Establishment Clause, which reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

guarantees the separation of religion from government,

and the Free Exercise Clause:

“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

prohibits the government from interfering with individuals’ rights to worship as they choose.

Together these principles protect our freedom to practice any religion or no religion at all.

The First Amendment

Religious freedom is one of the most important traditions and constitutional rights we have.

This right, however, has been contested and clarified in our courts which to this day continue to define where to draw the line that separates church and state.

The body of law on the church/state relationship has been evolving since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

Yet it was not until the 1940s that the Supreme Court began interpreting whether a particular policy or law violated the First Amendment with respect to religion.

The Establishment Clause When the First Amendment was adopted, most of the original

thirteen colonies still had official “established” churches. In much of New England, the Congregational Church was established, and throughout the South, the Anglican.

With the power of the government behind them, these denominations often persecuted the members of various minority religions. Baptists, Quakers, Jews and others were denied the right to hold public office and were required to pay taxes to support the established church.

The Establishment Clause By the time the Constitution was framed, many of its authors had

come to believe strongly in “disestablishment.” For example, Thomas Jefferson wrote of the need for “a wall of separation between church and state,” and in 1785 James Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance that “[r]eligion is not helped by establishment, but is hurt by it.”

In 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, it reflected this view. More than a century and a half later, in 1971, the Supreme Court decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman established a three-part test for determining whether a law or government policy has breached the wall between church and state.

The Establishment Clause

The Lemon test, still used by the courts today, asks: (1) whether the government’s action has a religious purpose; (2) whether the primary effect of the government’s action is to

advance or endorse religion; and (3) whether the government’s action fosters excessive

government “entanglement” with religion.

If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” then the law or policy violates the Establishment Clause.

The Free Exercise Clause

The roots of the Free Exercise Clause reach back to the country’s early colonial history.

Roger Williams, who fled religious persecution in England and, in 1644, founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious minorities, said it was God’s command that “a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all Nations and Countries.”

The Free Exercise Clause

In spite of this sentiment, intolerance has occasionally threatened religious minorities’ freedom of worship. The Supreme Court, therefore, beginning in 1940, handed down a series of decisions that formed a bulwark of protection for religious liberty.

In 1940, the Court upheld the right of Jehovah’s Witnesses to proselytize on a street corner (Cantwell v. Connecticut).

In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah’s Witness children could not be forced to salute the flag in public schools (West Virginia v. Barnette).

The Free Exercise Clause

In 1963, the Court held that a Seventh Day Adventist could not be denied unemployment insurance because she refused to work on Saturdays (Sherbert v. Verner).

And in 1972, the Court overturned the conviction of an Amish parent who refused to send his children to school beyond eighth grade (Wisconsin v. Yoder).

Not all religious practice is protected, however, even though the freedom to believe is absolute.

The Free Exercise Clause To determine whether a particular religious ritual is covered by the

Free Exercise Clause, the Supreme Court developed a test: A person or group must show (1) that the ritual is motivated by “sincere religious belief,” and (2) that the state has imposed a “substantial burden” on the

practice.

If these two criteria are met, the government must accommodate the religious practice unless the government can show that it has a “compelling interest” in restricting the practice, and that its restriction is the most lenient way possible (the “least restrictive means”) of serving that interest.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools The controversy over officially sponsored prayer in public schools

did not begin in 1962, when the Supreme Court first ruled that such observances violate the Establishment Clause.

It began more than one hundred years earlier, in the 1830s, when waves of Italian and Irish Catholic immigrants came to this country and objected to compulsory readings of the Protestant King James Bible and the recitation of Protestant prayers in most public schools.

A bitter conflict erupted, including riots, the expulsion of Catholic children from public schools, the burning of convents, and even some deaths.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools 1947 - Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township At issue is a New Jersey statute that subsidizes transportation for

students attending parochial schools. The Supreme Court holds that the use of public funds to reimburse parents for the cost of sending children to parochial schools is not unconstitutional since bus transportation is clearly separate from the religious mission of the school. The decision is the Supreme Court’s first and most comprehensive statement about the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools

1948 - McCollum v. Board of Education

The Supreme Court considers an Illinois state plan whereby students are given “release time” for religious instruction during the school day. The plan allows for religious teachers to come into the schools and conduct religious classes for students with permission slips. The Court finds the plan unconstitutional in that allowing religious teachers into public schools gives them a “captive audience” for state-sponsored religious instruction in violation of the Establishment Clause.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools

In the 1950s, as the religious diversity of our society increased, school prayer became a divisive issue once again. Now Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and atheist parents objected to Christian practices in the public schools.

1952 - Zorach v. Clauson The Supreme Court finds that a New York State plan offering a

“release time” program to allow students to attend religious classes off school grounds during the day does not violate the Establishment Clause because the program is offered off school grounds.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools 1962 - Engel v. Vitale At issue is the classroom recitation of a prayer written by the New

York Board of Regents. In 1951, in an effort to strengthen moral education in the schools, the Board composed what they considered a non-denominational prayer and encouraged local schools to recite the following at the start of each day: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” The Supreme Court finds the required recitation of the prayer inconsistent with the Establishment Clause and rules that authorities may not compose official prayer to be said in public schools.

“We think,” wrote Justice Hugo L. Black for the court, “that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents” prayer [a nondenominational prayer created by the government], the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.”

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools 1963 - Abington School District v. Schempp

In a combination of the Schempp and Murray v. Curlett cases, the Supreme Court extends the school prayer decision by barring government-sponsored recitation of the Lord’s Prayer or Bible reading in public schools. In Schempp, a Pennsylvania law allowed for the reading of ten Bible verses in the beginning of class each day. In Murray v. Curlett a Maryland law required the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer or the reading of a passage from the Bible during the school’s opening exercises. The Supreme Court holds that neither program has a secular purpose, but both have the primary effect of advancing religion.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools President John F. Kennedy, the country’s first Catholic President,

urged respect for the court’s decision in Engel: “We have in this case a very easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves. And I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of our children.”

1968 - Epperson v. Arkansas An Arkansas law barring the teaching of evolution in public

schools is challenged by a biology teacher. The law is overturned by Supreme Court justices who unanimously hold the Arkansas statute unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. By prohibiting the teaching of evolution, the state advances a particular religious belief.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools 1971 - Lemon v. Kurtzman Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes provide for direct state

funding for teachers’ salaries at parochial schools with the restrictions that the money only be spent for secular instruction. The Supreme Court bars the state aid ruling that such plans cause excessive entanglement of civil authority and religion.

The decision established the Lemon test, for determining whether a law or a government policy violates the Establishment Clause. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools 1984 - Equal Access Act Congress passes the Equal Access Act requiring schools that

receive federal funding to give religious clubs equal rights with other student organizations to use school property and facilities. The Act is the framework for students’ religious rights on public school campuses.

1985 - Aguilar v. Felton A New York City school plan authorizes the distribution of federal

funds to pay the salaries of public school employees to teach supplemental special education to students in parochial schools. The program provides for supervisory visits to ensure no religion is being taught or advanced in the special education program.

The Supreme Court rules the plan unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, finding it advances the cause of the religious school and that the supervisory visits foster an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools 1985 - Wallace v. Jaffree The Supreme Court strikes down an Alabama law requiring a

moment of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer.” By his own admission, an author of the statute testified before the District Court that the legislation was solely an “effort to return voluntary prayer” to the public schools. The Court established that the purpose of the statute was to endorse religion - a violation of the first of the three Lemon tests.

1987 - Edwards v. Aguillard A Louisiana law requiring balanced treatment for the biblical

theory of creation science and theory of evolution is struck down by the Supreme Court. The Court finds the state law serves a particular religious purpose by advancing “the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind”.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools 1988 - Williamsburg Charter A broad range of religious and civic leaders and educators support

the Williamsburg Charter, a 23-page statement criticizing the “exclusion of teaching about the role of religion in society.” The charter recognizes the important role religion has played in history and literature and encourages schools to develop ways to teach students about the world’s major religions without advocating a particular religious belief.

1990 - Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens

Public high school students are denied permission to start an extra-curricular religious club by the School Board. The Supreme Court finds the school’s actions violate the Equal Access Act because the school allowed other extra-curricular groups to meet during non-instructional time.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools 1992 - Lee v. Weisman The Supreme Court bans school-sponsored prayers offered by

clergymen as part of official public school graduation ceremonies. The Court finds that because of the practical and symbolic importance of graduation ceremonies, attendance is “obligatory.” Therefore, prayers at graduation ceremonies are the equivalent of state endorsement of religious exercise, a violation of the second part of the Lemon test.

1994 - Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet The New York Legislature creates a new school district comprised

solely of a Hasidim village so that the Hasidim community can establish a “public” school for its special-needs students. The school is established with secular teachers and a secular curriculum, but the students and setting are Hasidic. The Supreme Court rules that the creation of the school district violates the Establishment Clause by fostering excessive government entanglement with religion.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools

1996 - Herdahl v. Pontotoc County School District

A Mississippi U.S. District Court rules that broadcasting student-led prayers over the school intercom system and conducting bible classes are unconstitutional.

A Brief History of Prayer in Our Schools 1997 - Agostini v. Felton

The Supreme Court overrules the 1985 case Aguilar v. Felton in which the Court held that special education public school teachers could not provide services to eligible students at parochial schools. The Court rejects three presumptions that it previously had relied on to support a number of rulings:

(1) that allowing public employees to work on the premises of religious schools inevitably results in the state-sponsored indoctrination of religion;

(2) that permitting public school employees to work in parochial schools necessarily constitutes a symbolic union between church and state; and

(3) that any government aid that enhances the educational function of religious schools violates the separation between church and state.

Real Life

Survey results are based on studies conducted by Barna Research Group from 1993 to 1996.

Source: Christian Coalition: “That Old Time Religion” by George Barna.

What This Means Pro School Prayer Position

Since the Engel decision in 1962, religious advocates have been assailing the Supreme Court for “taking God out of the classroom.” In an effort to reverse this trend, conservative religious groups have been fighting for the passage of a school prayer amendment to gain greater leeway for religious activities in schools. Clearly not all school prayer advocates agree as to what types of religious activities are permissible in public schools and why, but the following are some of the most frequently heard arguments.

What This Means (1) Our Government is based on Religious Principles

School prayer proponents maintain the United States was established as a Christian nation with religion playing a central role in guiding the nation’s destiny. Supporters of religion in school claim the founding fathers never intended a separation of church and state, evidenced by the fact that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. Signs of a church/state union can be seen regularly: Congress prays at the opening of every session; federal officials take their oaths upon a Bible; “In God we trust” is stamped on our national currency; and Moses and the Ten Commandments are featured prominently in the Supreme Court building. If religion is accepted in these government institutions, they reason, it should not be stopped at the schoolhouse door.

What This Means (2) The Free Exercise Clause Protects School Prayer

Despite decades of Supreme Court rulings, many religious advocates claim the Constitution protects school prayer. According to their interpretation, the First Amendment does not separate God and government, but actually encourages religion. Many supporters believe the Establishment Clause was intended to bar only the establishment of a state religion. They narrowly interpret the Free Exercise Clause as requiring the government to accommodate religious observances in public life. Many advocates believe the restriction on graduation and student-led school prayers violates their First Amendment right to practice religion without government interference.

What This Means

(3) Banning School Prayer Leads to Moral Decline

  Since the banning of organized prayer in public schools, the

nation has been in steady moral decline. Divorce rates, teen pregnancy, violent crime, and drug use have all increased. Many school prayer supporters believe there is a direct correlation between the removal of prayer from public schools and the decline of morality. Religious conservatives are convinced that religious influence in the schools is necessary to teach students morals and values.

What This Means (4) Majority Should Rule  Public opinion has remained strongly opposed to the court rulings

that barred classroom prayer and Bible readings in the 1960s. National polls repeatedly indicate that the majority of Americans favor organized prayer in public schools. School prayer advocates argue that to forbid the majority the right to pray because the minority objects is undemocratic. Supporters are generally committed to majority rule at a local level, and are favorable to laws that would allow local majorities to make decisions about religion in public forums.

What This Means

Anti School Prayer Position

Over fifty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence has maintained a “wall of separation between Church and State” based on the principles that public schools may not take sides in matters of religion and may not endorse a particular religious perspective or any religion at all. Opponents of a school prayer amendment believe its passage would breach the Church-State wall and diminish religious liberty in this country. Below are some of the most frequently heard arguments against state-sponsored prayer and responses to arguments by school prayer proponents.

What This Means

(1) State-Sponsored School Prayer is Unconstitutional

Opponents of a school prayer amendment contend that officially sponsored prayer in public schools undermines the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment. According to their interpretation, the Establishment Clause proscribes the establishment of religion in general—including religious practices. Since prayer is a religious exercise, state-supported prayer amounts to the establishment of a religious practice and is therefore unconstitutional. Additionally, they believe state-sponsored prayer violates the Free Exercise Clause by exposing students to prayer against their will or forcing them to absent themselves to avoid hearing prayers.

What This Means

(2) Prayer in School is Already Legal

Contrary to the assertions of school prayer advocates, those opposed to organized school prayer maintain that public schools are not hostile to students’ religious expression. The First Amendment guarantees every child the right to pray in school on a voluntary basis. Most religious activity is permitted in public schools, as long as the state plays no role in organizing it, and it does not disrupt the educational mission of the school.

What This Means

(3) State-Sponsored Prayer Will Lead to Religious Intolerance

Many opponents to a school prayer amendment believe that promoting organized school prayer will endanger religious diversity and breed intolerance. Students of minority religions may feel left out or uncomfortable praying with students of different beliefs. Others may feel pressure to participate or face the disdain of the teachers and peers. Although some school prayer lobbyists have proposed non-denominational prayers, opponents believe it is impossible to compose a prayer that will reflect the religious beliefs of all students. Even non-sectarian prayer infringes upon students who follow no religion.

What This Means (4) Moral Decline and School Prayer are Unrelated

Contrary to the assumptions of school prayer supporters, opponents of organized school prayer find no evidence that prayer will improve morality or challenge students to lead ethical lives. Separationists generally attribute the country’s social problems to poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity—issues which they believe should be addressed by serious analysis and sufficient resources, not by classroom prayers. In response to the presumption that the removal of organized prayers from public schools in the 1960s spurred the country’s moral decline, opponents are quick to point out that school prayer coexisted with the Jim Crow laws of the South, the official discrimination against women in education and employment, and the discrimination against minorities in political, cultural, and social institutions.

Real Life When asked which courses teens consider important:

Computer usage/programming 93% Mathematics 92% English 92% Science 87% Business/commercial 84% History/social studies 77% Sex education/health 77% Government 76% Family living/home economics 68% Vocational 66% Foreign languages 65% Physical education 57% Religion 44% Art 43% Music 39% Drama 27%

Source: “The State of Our Nation’s Youth,” report of a 1997 survey published by the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans.

Web Sites for Information ACLU

http://www.aclu.org

Family Research Councilhttp://www.frc.org

Intellectual Capital.com (bipartisan policy webzine)http://www.intellectualcapital.com/icarc.html

Parent’s rights movementhttp://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue67/item1252.asp

A Case in Point:Evolution-Creationism

The Scopes

Trial

A Case in Point:Evolution-Creationism

By 1925, states across the South had passed laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the classroom. Oklahoma, Florida, Mississippi,North Carolina and Kentucky. In Tennessee the Butler Law passed in early 1925, for although the governor was not a fundamentalist, many of his constituents were. As he said, "Nobody believes that it is going to be an active statute“

No one that is, but the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, which was becoming increasingly more wary of what they saw as an infringement on their constitutional rights. With an eye on Tennessee, the ACLU set out to initiate a court case to test the constitutionality of the Butler Law.

A Case in Point:Evolution-Creationism

Date: July 10-25, 1925 Setting: Dayton, Tennessee Cast: John Scopes - substitute biology

teacher accused of breaking the Butler Act.

Clarence Darrow - Leader of defense, known as one of the best lawyers of his era

William Jennings Bryan - Leader of prosecution, known fundamentalist and local hero.

A Case in Point:Evolution-Creationism

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/13/scopes.monkey.trial/

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/inherit/1925home.html

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/ The Creation Controversy and the Science

Classroom: http://www.nsta.org/store/default2g.asp