Religion Vs. Rights: Which one Belongs in Schools?

Religion Vs. Rights: Which one Belongs in Schools?

Religion vs. Rights: Which One Belongs In Schools?

Before the government provided formal schools and programs of education, religion had been a major part of every person's education. As public schools started, this teaching of faiths continued with the practice of prayer before class and bible reading sessions (Burstein, 26). Were those actions taken in these classes constitutional, or did the practicing of religious activities deny people the freedom of religion guaranteed in the constitution? Many of those who find prayer and religion in school offensive say that it is a violation of their rights. Mr. Justice Black of the United States Supreme Court, once said, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between the Church and State which must be keep high and impregnable" (Bosmajian, 7). Those in support of religious teachings in public schools see participation in theological activities as a chance to teach morals, community ethics, and peace over violence. Nevertheless, the achievement of those goals through the denial of basic rights is wrong. Today's society is, fast paced, competitive, and based totally on equality. Consequently, religion, whether it be denominational or not, has no place in the classrooms of today's public schools. The reasons for this position are the establishment clause, the rulings of the Supreme Court, and the role that a school has in a community.

What is stopping this process of allowing prayer and schools to combine? The establishment clause is the main cause of this roadblock. The American public seems to think that the establishment clause, or religious freedom, means that personal beliefs can be instituted any place at any time. They feel that the courts interpretation of the clause not only takes God out of the lives of the students, but that the removal of religion also removes basic ethics and the teaching of morals (Gay, 65). This removal of ethics seems to have possibly caused the lack of respect for teachers and education as a whole. The courts say that this right's purpose is to create a wall that will separate the church from the state and that it will not and can not fall. This clause is the rock, on which they base all their decisions on, where they turn to figure out whether a violation of rights had occurred. To put this idea into more simple terms, the purpose of the anti-prayer position is that the government does not want to specifically support, show preference of, or exclude and particular religion or denominational sect (Burstein, 28).

The United States Judicial system is the basic battleground for all constitutional matters. These judges interpret the rules and laws of the constitution in what they view to be meaning of the laws. The debate of religion in public schools, government, and communities is no stranger to these courtrooms. In the past 50 years there has been over twenty separate court cases dealing with a different aspect of religion in schools. One of the earliest cases of religion and school reached the Supreme Court in 1948. While Ms. McCullum was starting her case against the Champaign Board of Education, it was in her interest to bring to attention that the taxpayers' were paying religious leaders to teach their beliefs in school classrooms. However, the taxpayers' money was not being used as payment for the services of religious leaders, but only for the running of the school during these teachings (Gay, 65). McCullum's whole argument was that even if parents consented to the teaching of religion, that school funds were still supporting the religion classes. Kids who did not take theology took an extra class. These extra classes, plus the religion classes, used tax payers' money. The Supreme Courts decision made it clear that the use of school time and property to educate students in religious worship was strictly forbidden (Bosmajian, 7). Another landmark case occurred in 1962. The Regents board in New York instituted a formal prayer that was to be said at the beginning of every school day (Alley, 108). The Supreme Court found this type of prayer to be a denial in religious rights and it failed to comply with the establishment clause. The Engel decision posed as a landmark ruling and a huge step for people against prayer in public schools. The prayer set up by the Board of Regents restricted students to worship a specified god, and forced them to believe that each child was dependent on this god. The courts have ruled that verse, or sayings, that mention a god, or type of higher being, are unconstitutional in public classrooms. However, some courts have also ruled that a period of silence, instituted by the school, is also in conflict with the establishment clause. The courts had designed a three-part test to decide if any particular statue was constitutional or not. First, the law had to have some