Essay: School-sponsored prayers – the establishment clause

The debates regarding school-sponsored prayers have significantly fueled controversy among parents, school administration and the Supreme Court in the United States. While the Court ruled that allowing student-initiated prayers in public schools violates the Establishment Clause, it indicates that regardless of the student’s influence to conduct prayers during public events such as sporting and graduation is a violation of the law. In particular, the clause is violated when schools indirectly persuade religious minorities to conform to prayers officially approved by the school administration. The paper provides arguments against student initiative requested by Santa Fe Independent School District to offer prayer during sporting events resting on the claim that allowing student-initiated and student-led invocations at public schools violate the Establishment Clause.
The school’s law endorsing student-reinforced and student-led prayer at sporting events infringe the Establishment Clause considering that the event prayers were public statements sanctioned by the government policy thus occurring on government property at a public institution. In particular, the policy involves both actual and perceived authorization of delivery of invocations during important school events. Therefore, schools ought to harmonize the interests of the learners in expressing their doctrines as well as ensuring that they do not authorize religion in general. The conclusion of the case is substantiated by the framework endorsed in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U S. 577 in which it was affirmed that offering prayers by a rabbi during graduation events breach the Establishment Clause which prohibits delivery of supplication during public events.
It is one of the primary principles of the Establishment Clause jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that the establishment prohibits federal actions that reinforce one religion as well as preferring one doctrine at the expense of others and practices that allow all religions in the school thus forcing non-religious individuals to conform to the beliefs. Furthermore, the right to belong to specific belief or not believe at all is protected by the First Amendment advocating for a citizens freedom of conscience. I refute the claims that inability to conduct prayers during public events violates the freedom of speech and expression of religious faith among students considering that the invocations were taking place at school-sponsored ceremonies that used school resources including public address system which would be ascertained by observers and the public that the prayers are authorized by the school administration (Oyez).
The Lemon Test asserts that actions of the government infringe the Constitution Clause except if it has an important general purpose, lacks the principal influence of reinforcing or prohibiting religious beliefs and does not nurture, excessive predicament between religion and the government. Therefore, if the school administration permits prayers during public events on government property as well as using the school facilities, then the school has a primary influence on fostering religion thereby infringing the Establishment Clause stipulated by the First Amendment. In particular, whether the government or public school compelled directly or indirectly the declaration of beliefs disobeys the law considering that the invocations are not appropriately attributed to privacy. Therefore, it is evident that the student’s initiative towards conducting student-led prayers during public events including football games and graduation ceremonies breach the Establishment Clause of the Supreme Court (The Lemon Test).
The main focus of the Establishment Clause is to create a platform of separation between religion and church ascertaining that the government shall make no law permitting or declaring a policy of specific belief. The law is absolute and does not allow any law regardless of the circumstances. In particular, the Establishment Clause develops a line of demarcation between the operations and functions of the government and religion in the community or state. The creators of the law argue that when the function of the state and doctrines are harmonized oppression and turmoil occur due to increased diversity of religion in the United States of American. Consequently, respecting or declaring one religion over others signify inequality and inhibit freedom of conscience whether to observe certain religious practices or not to belong to any beliefs. The school’s policy allowing student-initiated and student-led prayers during sporting games infringe the Establishment Clause because by doing so signify passing the law that favors one religion over the other or is instead preferring individuals who belong to religion over the atheists. Consequently, the school administration cannot allow the occurrence of student-led and student-initiated invocations during sporting events (Oyez).
In conclusion, the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing policies that endorse specific beliefs thus violating the freedom to the conscience of deciding not to belong to any religion. The school’s actions are invalid if they create a perception in the mind of observers and political activists that the government is permitting or endorsing religion. Insofar as the school does not appoint a person to lead prayers but rather allow the students themselves to voluntarily participate in prayers during football games and other public ceremonies. Allowing the invocations to take place reinforces the respect and preference of doctrine over atheist thus violating the freedom of conscience regarding the individuals that don’t belong to any faith practices. By allowing non-religious students to sit when invocation being delivered, it is unrealistic for such students to violate the religion law under such circumstances forcing them to participate against their will. Therefore, it is evident that permitting prayers will signify violating the law.