School Prayer Amendment Essay, Research Paper
Pundits and editorial writers pounced on Newt Gingrichwhen he suggested, soon after the election, that Republicansin the House would take up a school prayer amendment afteracting on the agenda outlined in the Contract With America.Most insisted the proposal was a major political blunder.But then most of them had previously decried the contractitself as a major political blunder, sure to lose votes forRepublican candidates. The school prayer amendment is an excellent idea, butan ambitious version of the proposal, one that tries toremove most or all current restrictions on statelegislatures and local school boards, might not secureadoption by the required three-quarters of the states. Evenseemingly popular general proposals can founder on emotionalobjections to particular details, as the failure of theEqual Rights Amendment ought to remind us. Almost anyversion of a prayer amendment will trigger an extensivedebate, and such a debate will be helpful for Republicansand healthy for the nation. The prayer amendment is something that is well overdue.In order to prosper into the next century we, as Americans,need to go back to the fundamentals of our moral beliefs.The placement of a time where students are allowed toperform a voluntary silent prayer can help us reinstateethics and pure ideals back into our children. Withoutprayer in school the American education system will continueits downward spiral into a black hole of corruption andgreed. Public opinion polls over the last thirty years havecontinually shown that roughly three-quarters of theelectorate already supports prayer in the schools (Dyckman).President Clinton seemed to acknowledge this when heexpressed openness to a prayer amendment soon afterGingrich’s statement (Van Biema). But the Democratic Partyis deeply committed, both financially and culturally, toconstituents demanding perpetual allegiance to their ownversion of “civil liberties.” The White House staffdemonstrated as much when it hastily disclaimed thepresident’s statement on this issue. It is not a bad thingfor the majority party to align itself with the overwhelmingmajority of voters, and to leave Democrats to do the biddingof their fearful, angry little pressure groups (Garvey).However, without both parties agreeing to push for this, itwill be more than difficult to see it through. Prayer inschool needs to be an issue that becomes less about partiesand more about the views of the each Congressperson?sconstituents. The importance of the school prayer issue goes beyondboth prayer and the schools, for there is no direct mentionin the Constitution of either. Ever since its 1962 rulingagainst prayer and Bible-reading in public schools, theSupreme Court has used the supposed menace of religion inpublic schools as a doctrinal and political launching padfor broader attacks on religious references oraccommodations to religion in public life (Kaminer). TheCourt is wrong in this aspect, and its decisions over thepast thirty-five years have been misleading and troublesome.The court progressed from banning prayers in schools tobanning the display of the Ten Commandments in public schoolhallways (Blummer). It held that state aid to parochialschools violates the Constitution. It ruled that the displayof a Christmas tree in a public building was also aconstitutional violation. Some justices have even arguedthat laws restricting access to abortion manifest animproper “establishment of religion” by imposing a religiousopinion on legislative policy reasoning. In other words,that the Constitution requires religious opinion not only tobe hidden, but also to be disenfranchised (Garvey).Unfortunately these are some of the mild decisions made byour federal court system. It is understandable to see whythe Ten Commandments should not be posted in a public schoolor why parochial schools should not receive federal funding. Nonetheless, the court has not dared to carry thislogic through to its full conclusion. The courtunaccountably ruled in the mid-1980s that prayers at theopening of state legislative sessions were constitutionallypermissible, even when delivered by sectarian chaplainsremunerated with taxpayer funds. Even liberal justices haveacknowledged that the national motto, “In God We Trust,” mayremain on American money, and that the reference to “onenation under God” may remain in the Pledge of Allegiance.Justice Brennan, in a widely cited opinion, argued that suchconcessions to tradition were constitutionally acceptablebecause they were merely “ceremonial” and “solemnizing”gestures no longer conveying a serious “religious”connotation. So who draws the line between ritual andreligious? The Court has been most insistent, however, aboutsuppressing concessions to religion in public schools. In1985 it ruled that even a state-mandated “moment of silence”at the beginning of the school day was an affront to theConstitution, because some students might take it asencouragement to use that moment for silent prayer (Garvey).This was a severe blow to the school prayer side because itdisallowed the most important part of our fight, a standardtime set aside to pray. The Court continued and in a seriesof decisions between them and the lower courts almost allreligious freedom was stripped in schools. In 1992, theCourt held that a brief convocation statement at a highschool graduation ceremony was unconstitutional because itmentioned the word “God.”(Gorov) Just the mentioning of theword has sent parents screaming to their administration.Have we really become so paranoid that just the mention ofthe word ?God? makes us think our children are beingbrainwashed? Unfortunately, lower courts have enforced thespirit of such rulings with a vengeance. Evenstudent-initiated prayer and Bible-study sessions outsideregular classrooms (given only for those who desire them)have been disallowed by lower court judges, who ruled thatsuch activities suggest impermissible endorsement of prayerby public authorities if held on school grounds (Gorov). Onelower court even held that a public school was acting inaccord with the Constitution in preventing a teacher fromdisplaying a copy of the Bible on his desk and including abook of Bible stories among the books made available forfree-time reading by students in his class (Gorov). In acase now on appeal to the Supreme Court, lower courts haveheld that the University of Virginia acted properly indenying financial subsidies to a student Christian magazine,while allowing subsidies to a range of other studentpublications (including publications by Jewish and Islamicstudent groups): aid to a Christian publication might appearto be government endorsement of religion, and thus inviolation of the First Amendment (Blummer). The most common rationale for such religio-phobicrulings is unconvincing but nonetheless revealing. Childrenand adolescents, it is said, are particularly vulnerable topsychological coercion and the sting of exclusion; so thecourts must be vigilant against religion in school settings.There is certainly some awkwardness in asking non-Christiansto participate in, or remove themselves from, explicitlyChristian devotion, which public schools have sometimessponsored explicitly. But from the time of PresidentWashington onward, public figures, public proclamations, andpublic rituals have invoked divine authority while steeringclear of sectarian references. The New York state prayerstruck down by the Supreme Court was itself entirelynon-sectarian. Where there are any sizable numbers ofnon-Christians among the students, it seems unlikely in thefuture that school officials will insist on religiousformulas that are bound to offend many people. The truth, however, is that while schools may usuallytry to avoid giving offense, no one seriously pretends thatschools have a constitutional duty, or even a practicalhope, of making every student feel equally comfortable atall times. Many public schools put a great deal of emphasison competitive sports. Students with physical handicaps maynot be able to participate in these sporting contests, butno one argues that schools must therefore abolish theirsports programs. Many schools sponsor patriotic ritualscentered around flag-raising ceremonies or the singing ofpatriotic songs. Students who are citizens of othercountries, or who have been raised to think that America isnot a land of “liberty and justice for all,” may find suchceremonies alien or repellent. Few would then maintain thatthese ceremonies be abolished. The Supreme Court itself, ina celebrated 1943 case, ruled that school children could notbe required to say the Pledge of Allegiance if it violatedtheir conscience to do so; but the court did not concludethat because some children have conscientious objections tothe flag salute, schools must discontinue the practice forall children. Only those who object to religious displaysare given veto rights under current constitutional law. The point is worth stressing. Lots of things go on inpublic schools these days that offend ordinary Americanparents. The New York City Board of Education provoked aruckus when it proposed to teach tolerance of gays bygetting elementary school students to read works like”Heather Has Two Mommies” (which contains a rather graphicdescription of how one of those mommies conceived Heather byartificial insemination)(Lewis). But parents who object tothis sort of thing are confined to political channels ofprotest; no court doctrine establishes a general right toprotest offensive material in public schools. Similarly,white parents in Prince George’s County, Maryland protestedthe excesses of the public school system’s “AfrocentricCurriculum,” in which some texts degenerate into anti-whiteracism. They could not get a day in court for suchobjections. The federal courts have not been content with thisone-sided vigilance against affronts arising from actualreligious expression. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled inPico v. School Board that schools could not even voluntarilyaccommodate objections from religious parents to schoolpractices that offended them. In this case, the court heldthat removing “offensive” books from school libraries was animpermissible form of censorship (Dyckman). In a 1968 case,the court held that schools could not omit the teaching ofevolution theory, since this would endorse the “religious”objections of Bible-believers to evolution theory. When aschool board this past October withdrew books on voodoo andwitchcraft from school libraries in response to parentalcomplaints, including books explaining how to cast love”spells” or killing “spells”, a federal court ruled thisaction unconstitutional. A lower court even ruled that oneschool district had violated the Constitution by banningschool dances, since the court found grounds to suspect thatthe objection to dances was “religious.” So as you can seethe court has been trying to stop unconstitutional behaviorthat has been implemented by severe right wingconservatives. The Court has tried to be far, and in manycases it has, but without full Congressional support theJudicial system can not see the errors of its ways. After all, then, the issue is not really one ofassuring accommodation of differing viewpoints and trying tolimit wounded feeling. The issue is essentially one ofassuring that public schools remain in the hands of theappropriate people. The question is not protectedminorities, in most communities, for example, conservativeChristians who object to books on witchcraft in schoollibraries are probably minorities themselves. The issue isassuring that certain privileged minorities get their way,and that others, even when they are the majority, are deniedany control of school practices. It may not always be possible to satisfy everyone. If aschool prayer amendment removes the federal judiciary fromits current role as umpire of cultural etiquette in thisarea, some families are sure to find the consequencesdisturbing to their sensibilities. If the most insistentlyliberal or secularist students find their schools to beintolerably religious or conservative or whatever, they arefree to attend private schools more to their liking; whichis exactly the advice given to students who sought someacknowledgment of religion in their schools over the pastthirty years. Indeed, many and perhaps most conservativeswould support some form of government aid to these privateliberal havens, as long as the courts would also allow aidto private schools operated under religious auspices.
Due to all the debating that goes on between all thesides of this argument the main objective at hand may belost. Parents, Congressman, and school board administratorsmay be so concerned about winning votes for their side thatthey lose track of the most important issue of all, theeducation of our nation?s children. With or without prayerin school children will these institutions in order to learnand to seek direction in life. Even if a voluntary silentprayer was permitted in our public schools, shouldn?t thestudents (and parents for that matter) be more focused onthe learning experience rather than the religious one? Ifthe people who run our nation today overlook the true lifelessons our children must learn then we are headed forcertain disaster. If we don?t take care of our childrennow, who will be there to take care of us in the autumn ofour years?
Even if not finally adopted, a prayer amendment wouldsend a strong signal to the Supreme Court to leave difficultissues such as accommodation of religion to the good senseof accountable officials at the state and local levels.Whatever those officials might do, they are unlikely tooffend more people than the federal courts have done. It is time for us to see each other as Americans, not aroom full of individuals. If we never fight together theynone of us will ever win.