Debate About The School Prayer Amendment example essay topic

America. One nation under God. The United states has a history of supporting freedom ofreligion. Does this also mean freedom from religion Does prayer in public schools violate the US Constitution And is the constitution right or wrong on this conflicting topic.

Furthermore, can it even address such a topic Church and State, the relationship between the organized church and the government. At root is the tension between different authorities, one representing claims made in the name of political regimes, the other representing claims by religious institutions. (ENCARTA-98) The most important thing about the discussion of a school prayer amendment is not school prayer as such. People of good sense and religious conviction can disagree about whether there should be prayer in public schools, what kind of prayer, and who should be in charge of it. Those decisions should be made by thousands of communities and local school boards across the country. This is called democracy.

An amendment is needed not to encourage school prayer; but to restore to the people their right and responsibility to decide a question that bears upon the kind of education they want for their children. Parents who are serious about the moral and religious formation of their children should have no misconceptions that adding a prayer at the beginning of the school day will achieve that goal. Public policy should help such parents send their children to schools that meet not just their educational goals, but spiritual ones as well. This means school vouchers, education tax credits, flexible charter schools, or other instruments that can enable parents to exercise real choice in education. The appropriate place for prayer is church and not in school. Was a statement made by Judge Shirley M Huftedler, former Secretary Department of Education.

But for 170 years students read and prayed daily in school with no apparent problems. Voluntary schoo prayer is not a constitutionally forbidden establishment of religion, unless on believes that government policies that DOTSIKAS-2 favor religion constitute an establishment of religion. Regrettably, the Supreme Court hasa t times indicated that it believes just that. The court has said that, between religion and irreligious, the state must be neutral.

Sometimes it has gone further, suggesting religion, unlike irreligion, poses a threat to society and deserves, at most legal protection as an individual choice or private eccentricity. That was not the view of those who wrote and ratified the constitution, and it is not the view of the overwhelming majority of Americans today. The constitution, as in many other guidelines is much to vague. As Amendment I of the constitution states; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment ofreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or ofthe press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (WISE A-9) You can interpret this amendment in multiple ways. But it contradicts itself with Amendment XIV.

Which states, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. (WISE A-11) But doesn t liberty have to do with your choice to pray or worship wherever or whatever you choose It ist he court that has promulgated an eccentric view of religion, and it is the Constitution that provides the means for preventing the courtroom imposing that view on society. President Clinton expressed support Saturday for religious freedom and expression in U. S public schools, saying there was no constitutional requirement that theyre religion-free zones. (CNN 5-30-98) There are at present several versions of a proposed amendment, and it is not clear which will be favored by the congressional majority. The best wording for the amendment will be the wording that best addresses the needs of the majority of citizens. In my opinion the constitution overlooked a very important area.

Even in the days when it was written, religion played a big role in society. And in this way I have concluded it to be a poorly written document. But even after an DOTSIKAS-3 amendment is passed and ratified by the states, we will still have to debate about the rightness, or wrongness, the prudence or mischief, of school prayer can begin in earnest. Those who want that debate now, whether they are pro or con school prayer, are entirely premature. Having the debate now assumes that this is a question for the federal government to decide. It is not.

The debate about the school prayer amendment, then, i snot about school prayer. It is about returning to the people a right and responsibility that was arrogantly usurped by an imperial judiciary. It is about the restoration of democratic self-governance. DOTSIKAS-4 WORK CITED CNN Online. May 30, 1998. Clinton Calls for Religious Freedom in Public Schools. web 19980604. html The Constitution: That Delicate Balance.

School Prayer, Produced by: Media and Society Seminars; in association with WNET / Thirteen, New York. Encarta Encyclopedia. (1998). CD-ROM Version. Microsoft Corp. Wise, David. (1997).

Democracy Under Pressure. Harcourt Brace Publishers.