Discussion Of A School Prayer Amendment example essay topic

"Our father which art in heaven hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, for Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever, Amen". About thirty-nine years ago children in the public schools prayed this prayer every morning and read Scripture aloud before the start of class. Why are students not allowed to do this today?

On June 17, 1963, the Supreme Court of the United States "kicked reverential Bible reading and prayer recitation out of schools" ("School Prayer Decision"). A woman by the name of Madelyn Murray O'Hair began legal proceedings in 1959 (Murray vs. Curlett) to obtain justice for her son who was enrolled in a public school that participated in Bible reading and unison prayers. The removal of prayer from the public school system has raised a lot of controversy in the past thirty or so years, especially in the last decade. This issue has not just caused an argument among Christians and Atheists; it has sparked attention throughout all religious groups in the United States.

There are many more arguments against school prayer than there are for it. However, even though the anti-prayer group has a greater quantity of arguments, the pro-prayer group has better quality arguments. Therefore, pro-prayer has a stronger claim but it has yet to influence the Supreme Court justices. Advocating school prayer can be done in a variety of ways including first amendment rights, the nation's history, and supporting a new amendment. This country was built on the foundation of a Supreme Being by its Founding Fathers. However, over the years, specifically in the 1990's, it has become unpopular to advocate traditional Christian values.

Some school districts in some states are trying to defend these values while the Supreme Court is infringing on people's rights as citizens issued to them by the First Amendment. A court case that exhibits the Supreme Court's violation of religious rights is the Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe in Texas. In the summer of 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that prayer does not belong in the public schools, even if the students initiate and lead the prayers. The panel of nine judges decided that public schools cannot allow student-led prayer before high school football games. The Court claims that the decision reinforces the wall between church and state constructed by the First Amendment. Obviously, they have forgotten that the First Amendment also includes rights to freedom of religion and speech.

They have taken these freedoms from high schools students as if they are not really citizens. Justice John Paul Stevens made a statement for the majority vote in the case. He said: We recognize the importance that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions's ignificance. But such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment. (Chebium) This may be true, but the First Amendment holds contradictions within itself. As mentioned above, disallowing student-led prayer is a violation of the students' freedom of religion and speech while, at the same time; it is enforcing the church and state clause.

High school students are getting involved with these cases and some are standing up for their rights without fear. Langston Hughes talks about this in his poem "Freedom's Plow". He emphasizes the struggle to enjoy the freedoms that he knows are rightfully his. He reflects the American desire for freedom when he says, 'I do not need my freedom when I'm dead. I cannot live on tomorrow's bread. ' He recognizes the need for freedom in it entirety without compromise or fear.

(Pahl) Students are connecting with what Hughes has written and they are butting heads with the Supreme Court, without fear, about allowing them to pray in their schools. Hughes shares his desire to be totally "free" with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who spoke for those that were in disagreement with the majority vote in the case. But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court's opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, Rehnquist wrote, noting that the nation's first president, George Washington, himself had called for a day of 'public thanksgiving and prayer. ' (Chebium) The facts surrounding the nation's history are good points to make in favor of prayer in schools.

Religion and prayer were a big part of the lives of this country's ancestors. "The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooting in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself" ("School Prayer Decision"). The text from the Mayflower Compact proves the Founding Fathers ideas: "In ye name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God... ". Another aspect that proves that the government was built on God and Christianity is shown through the nation's early laws: "In the 17th century, most American colonies supported official religions with public revenues, and laws required residents to attend church services" ("School Prayer Decision").

Prayer in school is not allowed and yet in almost every aspect of government Christianity is exercised in the belief of a Supreme Being. The background is evidenced today in our public life through the continuance in our oaths of office from the Presidency to the Alderman of the final supplication, 'So help me God. ' Likewise each House of Congress provides through its Chaplain an opening prayer, and the sessions of this Court are declared open by the crier in a short ceremony, the final phrase of which invokes the grace of God. Again there are such manifestations in our military forces, where those of our citizens are under the restrictions of military service wish to engage in voluntary worship. (The Debate). The government runs the school systems, so why should schools not have the same privileges that they have?

The majority of people living in this country are living with some type of faith in a higher being as proved by a survey conducted last year by the Bureau of the Census, US Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States. The survey's outcome totaled 64% of the American people having church membership, 33% having no membership but having religious background, and only 3% professed no religion whatsoever (Clemens). Another way to advocate school prayer would be to support a new amendment. The issues of prayer in the school system used to be on the back burner but now it has been moved upstage, front and center. The discussion of a school prayer amendment is not so much about prayer itself but more about what kind of prayer should be allowed and who should be in charge of it. The American people in communities and local school boards across the country should make these decisions.

Do U.S. citizens not live in a democracy? An amendment is not needed to require or to encourage school prayer but to restore the right and responsibility to the people who decide what kind of education they want for their children. Parents should have real choices in education. The schools across this nation should share their education goals. Richard Brookhiser said it best in his essay, "Let Us Pray", when he wrote: Will it do little hellions any good to be exposed to such sentiments in homeroom?

Maybe not. Congress begins each day with a prayer, and look how it behaves. But a society should know where the things it holds dear come from, and why there are limits to its own actions. School is one place to learn such things, and one way of learning is to repeat the lesson daily. (Brookhiser) Basically, an amendment is needed for three reasons. "First, it is necessary to check upon the overreach of the imperial judiciary" (The Debate).

The Constitution neither rules nor prohibits prayer in schools. The Constitution says nothing about prayer in the schools; therefore, it does not say it is unconstitutional. Two centuries passed with no thought that school prayer was a constitutional question. It should be this way once again.

Those who claim that the American people are incapable of deciding the question in a civil and respectful manner reveal contempt for our democratic process. One may argue that it is unfair but it is not unconstitutional and it will apparently take an amendment to make that clear. Along with the constitution stating nothing for or against school prayer, there is also a second reason for an amendment. "The second reason for an amendment is that it will challenge the judicial advancement of the pernicious ideology of the naked public square, of American public life denuded of religion and religiously grounded values" (The Debate). Those who supported the school prayer decisions of the 1960's sent a powerful message that America is a secular society and that a secular society is one in which religion must be separated from "any sphere from that is designated as 'public' " (Pahl). This message combined with the notion that "public" is another word for "governmental" and the conclusion is "inescapable that religion must retreat wherever government advances-and government advances almost everywhere" (Constitutional Amendment).

Does this mean that religion should not exist? Of course not, but that is one of the purposes of a new amendment-to reverse the pattern of collision between the government and religion. Paralleling the first two reasons, a third controversial issue is also supportive of the basis for the amendment. "The third reason for an amendment, closely connected to the first two, is that the incoherence of church-state jurisprudence over the last three decades is tied up with the school prayer decisions" (The Debate). Many of the justices of the Supreme Court have at one time or another publicly admitted that Congress has contradicted itself when it comes to the religion clause of the First Amendment. Prayer in school would not be such a problem if the Supreme Court believed that voluntary prayer is not constitutionally forbidden.

However, because the courts have said that it is an "establishment" of religion, the states must remain neutral. The Courts have even gone further to say that religion poses a threat to society and "deserves at most, legal protection as an individual choice or a private eccentricity" (Constitutional Amendment). What does society need protecting from? An amendment is not going to change what people believe nor will it change the way they live their lives. However, it will restore the rights to those who are unable to practice their religious freedoms freely. (The Debate) This issue of prayer in the public school system has caused controversy not only among the American people but also in the court system.

The removal of prayer from the schools sparked a lingering conflict over the positive and negative effects of school prayer. There were many court cases that argued these sides. Eventually the court case, Murray vs. Curlett, snatched this form of communication with the Creator out of the nation's schools. As the lack of prayer in the schools began, so did the hate and violence. So, now as the years pass and students become less aware that prayer in school used to be a requirement, what can be done to move this issue in a positive direction? For the time being, an alternative to Christian prayer could be a moment of silence, not to take up time but to let students have a moment of silence to pray however they wish.

Meanwhile, for those who wish not to pray, this moment would provide a quiet opportunity to collect their thoughts and mentally prepare them for the day ahead.