.Religion In Public Schools: Is It Unconstitutional?
The separation of church and state has been around since the forming of the Constitution, and it has been causing controversy to this day. The major issues discussed are the public funding of religious institutions and school prayer. For example school sponsored prayer could be considered praying during classes or assemblies. The first amendment to the Constitution somewhat explains this separation “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Kraft 362). This means that congress cannot stop people from practicing religion in public places but will not favor it either. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause derived from the first amendment and they cause quite the fair share of conflict in our society today. It seems everyday in the media there is a new case regarding religion or a school district is banning a holiday such as Halloween from being celebrated in schools due to establishment. A lot of cases have gone to the supreme court ranging from a person or group against the school district, to an overall upset about actions of publicly funded establishments. Congress and the supreme court deal with the separation of church and state as well as the president, but congress has the final say about what is allowed in public run establishments. The government cannot stop people from practicing religion, but it does not mean that those in office agree with the religions being practiced, nor is it constitutional to ban religion outright.
Perhaps the most quoted viewpoint on the government's involvement in the state would be Thomas Jefferson. In 1802 Thomas Jefferson received a letter shortly after his election as president, from a Connecticut baptist church expressing their concern for the way religious practices have been treated in congress and in legislation. President Jefferson responded in a way that shaped the way the country would view religion and state coinciding for centuries, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ ” (Hayden). This letter, quoting The Constitution has been cited multiple times in the supreme court when it has been thought that the church and state were not separated to someone's liking. Jefferson shaped the way the court handled cases of church and state, while still stirring up controversy. To this day we use the term “separation of church and state” due to Jefferson's 1802 letter.
A good example of what the state can’t tell you to do in terms of religious practice is divorce. If a couple of two different religions or beliefs separate, the judge cannot tell them whether or not to teach their child religion, or if the child should follow moms religion or dads religion. This is due to the establishment clause as well as simply put, as many have heard “separating church and state” the church being whatever religion(s) the divorcing couple practice, and the state being the judge who is dealing with the separation of the two parties. Jefferson had stated in agreement with the Baptist church “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions” (Hayden). What Jefferson said means that the state should not and cannot tell a person what religion to practice or what religion one should raise their children under. What an individual follows under their roof is completely up to them, the government cannot stop them. This is a classic example of where the state cannot interfere with your religion or what you choose to do in your own home regarding the practice. If they tried to tell someone they had to practice a certain religion it would be against The Constitution
Many schools have been under scrutiny for their use or nonuse of religion in their curriculum and extra curriculars. In January 2004 Covington High in New Orleans found themselves in the midst of a controversy. The drama department attempted to put on a production of the off broadway musical Godspell and it was shut down by the principal due to “religious themes.” The main question spawning here is are school productions government controlled or the views of the government? While Godspell touches on religious themes, it is already quite censored itself according to the playwright “it focuses upon the teachings of jesus instead of his miracles” (Reeves 563). This incident had teachers taking a step back to make sure their curriculum and materials did not violate the first amendment.
Going further into the battle between religious or anti-religious themes, we come across how the court handles such cases. The Establishment Clause was created to prevent a nationwide religion or more specifically, school promoted prayer. This means that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion” (Richmond 73). The federal government cannot decree a national religion, according to law. In the case of the production of Godspell it is unclear if the performance meant the public run school was endorsing a certain church. There is a fine line between warranting a religion and accepting them.
Multiple problems can arise if an organization, school, or business outright bans plays or literature with a religious theme in it. Here is where this issue can become unconstitutional if not handled right. Dealing with freedom of speech, the first amendment not only discusses religion, but free speech as well. The Constitution states that the American people shall have freedom to express whatever religion they may like, as well as having freedom to speak of those things. With such strict rules on what can and cannot be said, some may see these rights as being taken away. “Some make the radical argument that American public schools as they currently exist are actually unconstitutional because they exclude religious organizations or are hostile towards them” (Justice 438). While this may be an extreme way of thinking about the situation, it is a believable claim if you think about it. Those who attempt to display a religion are sometimes excluded from activities and groups, or face repercussions in schools. On the other hand, Those who would like their child to attend a better school via a voucher program, or a system for low income families to get their children into a petter school, can indeed include religious schools in the options available. “In the case of Zelman v Simmons-Harris a majority of the supreme court agreed that a Cleveland voucher program did not violate any establishment prohibitions” (Justice 438). Some people believe this ruling, part of a bigger picture, public funding for religious schools, “Should be buried now”(Justice 439). While both sides are entitled to their own opinions, in the case of choosing a better education for children, I believe we should let the parents of that child choose the best fit, according to their beliefs.
Thomas Jefferson agreed that the State and Church shall remain separate for a good reason. While society has changed, the main points Jefferson and others have made still stand today. Although the founders were quite different than our leaders today what they said should still be applied today, due to its constitutional meaning behind it. With the freedom of religion and speech being in the first amendment, anyone in America should have the freedom to practice any religion anyplace, anytime. As someone who does not practice a religion has freedoms, those deeply involved with a religion should not be banned from doing the thing that makes them happy, as long as there is no direct threat or harm to society.
Staying on the topic of what is unconstitutional, many cases where national monuments or statues have been taken down because of their background or association to certain religions or events have emerged. In May of 2009 a ten commandments statue in oklahoma was deemed unconstitutional after the monument was placed onto state capitol grounds. In 2013 the supreme court ruled that the monument was unconstitutional due to “‘forbidden use of public property’ and called for its removal”(Harvard 1084). This case went back and forth between the district judge and the supreme court, with focus on article II section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution “No public money or property should be used directly for the support of any church or system of religion” (Harvard 1803). I understand where those upset are coming from, I see how seeing a symbol of religion on a state building would seem like the state was pushing this religion to those living there. I also see how this could be a part of the state's history, and how the state believed that it was the safest and most secure place to display the monument.
The argument on whether religious practices in public or within a public establishment are unconstitutional or not bring up a multitude of issues across the country, and it doesn't seem to be slowing down any in recent news. While things like the statue of the ten commandments on state property have a religious origin, it does not necessarily mean that the state is establishing a religion, nor would it be legal for them to establish an official religion, if you are following the constitutional establishment clause. Harvard’s law review agrees, saying that “all religious texts or symbols on public grounds are per se unconstitutional” (Harvard 1810). More simply put, if a state or public run facility like a school or business, displays something with religious symbols or speech on it, they are not following the Constitution. What is needed here is more balance, and a better approach of the separation of church and state when it comes to a historical monument.
Recently across the news there has been stories of more historical monuments being deemed “offensive” or unconstitutional, states where this has caused uproar have removed the monuments regardless of historical context to avoid further turmoil. Context is an important word when dealing with separation of church and state and deeming monuments unconstitutional. For example if a statue of a historical figure is on a landmark, and has been for hundreds of years, is it causing a problem at a level that is so awful that you feel the need to remove it?
The struggle to separate state involvement in the church, or separating religion from the state has become a problem within the political system. Separating the church from state divides the republican and democratic party even further than it always was. Considering that typically republicans tend to be more religious and conservative in their thoughts and opinions on topics. The political divide causes there to be a lot of misinterpretation of religion and what religion is. Religion to most people is a lifestyle, much more than a book or a set of rules. The media has portrayed religion as something to keep quiet about, as they cannot establish a religion without having repercussions from the public.
All of the recognized religions are different from one another, so to be able to adopt one religion or denomination, you would be excluding or discriminating against all other religions. Fear of discrimination is one of the reasons why it is best to leave the state and church separated. Letting the church do what they please and keeping the government completely uninvolved is the easiest possible solution to the policy issue of where to draw the line between separating religion and state is. Keeping churches private and states public are the best possible solution, everyone shall be free to express their religion, thoughts, ideas and mind while not interfering with one’s right to do so.
I do not feel that congress will come up with any solution in the near future to solve the problems that come along with the statues or religious oriented monuments on state property anytime soon. After research it comes down to what the Constitution states. Although some argue that the document is outdated and needs to be changed the process to change the Constitution would be long and the outcomes are unknown or possible dangerous. If congress would be inclined to change the Constitution, it could cause protest across the nation and this can put the public in danger from what I have seen happen recently whenever the government does anything remotely large. Overall I feel that what Thomas jefferson has said regarding the separation of church and state still stands today, and there is a reason it has made such an impact in congress’ decision to keep the church separate from the state’s hand. With any possible solution to this problem is the possibility of encroaching on the freedom of speech and freedom to practice religion.
Fundamentally the line where the state can interfere with the church has been blurred recently. The Establishment Clause was put in place to keep state regulations out of the church and private (religious) organizations, but as discussed it is becoming a larger issue in the United States and across the world. Across the news in recent months there have been more cases of historical monuments, on state grounds being disfigured or removed altogether, whether that is orchestrated by the state or not it is happening. The issue of separating church and state has come from the state not controlling the church, to removal of historical monuments and other artifacts from our very divergent past. Where do we begin to draw the line with what is okay to be on state property, and what is not. A monument is not as large of an issue as a religious group pushing their agenda through the government and to the people. So the questions that get raised are when and where should the state interfere with the church and what should the circumstances be? Everyone has the right to practice whatever they may like, it has always been that way. It seems that the roles the government can play in religion and what is a part of history has been blurred and there is upset around the subject. It has been said that the government must stay out of religion and it should remain that way, as well as religion staying out of the government.
It is easy to keep the church and state separated. As long as the government doesn't interfere in what religion the people of the US practice, and religion doesnt work its way into the government, there should not be an issue. The Constitution clearly states that citizens have as much right to speak their religion as they do to speak about other things. The first amendment also goes into detail about what the government cannot do involving the church. In conclusion the separation of church and state is manageable if both parties respect the Constitution.