Abstract This paper presents a discussion about schoolprayer. The author of this paper believes that prayer in school is a direct violation of the constitutional mandate that church and state remain separated, and discusses the intent of the founding fathers when implementing such a separation.
From the Paper "For many years now, the issue of school prayer has made the forefront to the news. We hear that students defy direct orders from school officials and stand to recite the Lord's Prayer at graduation. We hear about principals being hauled into court by the ACLU for allowing students to pray on campus. It is a volatile issue that remains close to the heart on both sides of the argument. The bottom line, however, is that America proudly waves its diversity banner to the rest of the world. We brag about the fact that we welcome and encourage diversity and we are founded on the premise that freedom of religion should be a right of every person."
Abstract The writer explains that the issue of schoolprayer is not one of religious freedom, as it is already legal for children to pray in school, either individually or in groups. The paper explains that to forbid this prayer would violate both freedom of speech and religion. The paper explains that, despite this fact, there are factions that wish to instate specific, or mandated prayer in public schools. The paper explores whether it is necessary to modify the constitution to secure a very basic right that is already protected. In conclusion, the writer expresses the opinion that no constitutional amendment is necessary to protect the right of children to pray in school. The writer feels that people of faith should consider that the personal issue of prayer, when manipulated by government, can lead to dangerous consequences, including exclusion, ostracization and even violence. The writer states the belief that the right of teaching children the basic truths of each child's chosen religion should be reserved for the parents and that a constitutional amendment would turn this right over to the government.
Table of Contents:
To Restore State-Written Prayers Allow Group Prayers in the Public Schools Allow for Voluntary Prayer Works Cited
From the Paper "The fate of a school prayer-religious liberties amendment has always rested in the hands of the Congress. And yes, there are those who will always campaign hard against this issue. There will be warnings that the argument for school prayer is limited to the extreme religious right and that to be associated with the issue would hurt those looking for re-election or that school prayer is too politically divisive and should be left alone. Even more strongly, there will be those that will argue that the issue is simply un-American since it would undermine the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. The rhetoric will always flow hard and freely on this issue."
Abstract This paper presents a detailed examination of the controversy surrounding schoolprayers in public schools in the United States. The paper examines wording in the Constitution to determine whether schoolprayers should be allowed. The writer presents the argument that schoolprayer is the right of the individual student and it should not be banned from schools.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
The Opposition
Conclusion
From the Paper "The opposing side of the issue point to the clause in the constitution that refers to the separation of church and state. They believe this is a forefather mandate not to allow anything religious to enter a public school setting. This is incorrect. The mandate is to not have the public school system turn to a religious body for its rules, regulations and decisions. This has nothing to do with the fact that the constitution allows freedom of speech."
"In addition, those who oppose allowing school prayers point to the fact that there are many different faiths within public school systems. They believe that the minority of students who are not Christian by faith will feel left out or singled out when they choose not to take part in prayer. This can be easily regulated by treating the school prayer rights the same as any other freedom of speech rights."
Abstract In this paper, the writer presents an uncompromising stance against religions who are lobbying for a Constitutional Amendment making it permissible to pray in schools. The writer contends that the purpose of school is education, with the home and church set aside for religious education and furthermore, schoolprayer violates the concept of 'separation of church and state'. The writer therefore argues that public schools must remain neutral on the issue of religion since it is patently illegal and unfair to those parents who want to teach their child a different way.
From the Paper "Any religious question becomes an issue when one sect feels they are being put upon and the question of praying in schools is no exception. Our founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us a form of government which guaranteed that the state would stay out of everyone's religion. So the American people are allowed the freedom to express their beliefs in virtually any way they wish, so long as it harms no one and is not government sanctioned. Even the perception of religious interference must be avoided and schools are quasi-government institutions. Therefore, morality and other issues aside, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional to have school-sponsored prayer in a public school."
Abstract Throughout our nation's history ,there has been much disagreement over the role of religion in our country, primarily in the government and in our public school system. In recent years, the controversy over the role of religion in our public schools has been refreshed by various Supreme Court cases, such as Lemon vs. Kurtzman 1971, Engle vs. Vitale 1962, Abingdon Township vs. Schempp 1963, and McCollum vs. Champaign Board of Education 1948. After examining the rulings of these cases, this paper argues that a schoolprayer amendment is absolutely unnecessary and repetitive; it would only conflict with the long-established, constitutional policy to separate church and state and would interfere with student's rights to have no religious pressure.
From the Paper "According to the Analysis of Supreme Court Cases by the Library of Congress, students maintain the right to engage in daily prayer rituals at anytime, distribute religious literature, talk to students about religious belief, wear religious clothing and symbols, and discuss religion in class and in reports (974). By allowing student initiated school prayer, the government is not imposing on a student's right to free speech in any way. Government supported school prayer, however, is unconstitutional because it inhibits students rights to have any type of religious or non-religious beliefs. Such activity should not be allowed in a state-funded environment such as a public school."
Abstract This paper examines the issue of holding prayers in public schools, whether they are mandatory or not. It examines the legal and moral aspects of this issue from the point of view of the three major religions. It details the First Amendment and several cases dealing with this matter and their outcomes. It details different ways of dealing with this problem and ways that are legal to implement it.
From the Paper "In 1947, when the Supreme Court was debating the issue of the separation of church and state, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black remarked, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable." With the case of Lee v. Weisman, the Court drew a distinct line between what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. The case involved the practice in Providence, Rhode Island, of having a short prayer at the beginning and end of public school graduation ceremonies (an invocation and a benediction). The audience at these ceremonies was made up primarily of students and parents. The Court had to decide whether this short prayer was like the prayers recited to open legislative sessions, or like the daily prayers in public school in front of impressionable schoolchildren. This was not an easy decision to make. Four justices thought that the prayers at public school graduation ceremonies were more in the nature of a formality at a public event. These justices believed that the prayers were part of a long tradition, like prayers at legislative sessions, and could not be seen as an attempt to indoctrinate children in a particular religious belief. The other five justices did not agree and ruled that such prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, held that while attendance at public school graduation ceremonies is not required, few students would want to miss the ceremony. While the children could absent themselves from the part of the ceremony that contained the prayer, that would be difficult for them because of the very nature of the graduation process. There would also be peer pressure to participate and to not "make a fuss" about the prayer. The Court ruled that because the graduation ceremony is part of an official public school event, prayers cannot be allowed. (CARELLI 2000)."
Abstract This paper argues that, although the framers of the Constitution may have written clauses to protect the Church from the State, it has been decided by the Supreme Court that, in order to accomplish this, the State also must be protected from the Church. The author points out that advocates of schoolprayer counter that, since in a democracy the majority must be satisfied, a majority of Americans desire prayer in public schools; however, this statistic has never been proven. The paper stresses that, when teachers or other authority figures organize or lead a prayer, there is an obvious element of coercion involved for students who might not wish to pray. The author concludes that the government must protect the rights of all citizens to practice whatever religion they believe is the right faith for them or to practice no religion at all.
From the Paper "Prayer divides children into two groups: the group that goes along, and the usually considerably smaller group of children who don't. Those who do not participate in "voluntary" prayers can be made the victims of ostracism, threats and other exclusionary practices. Schoolchildren have enough reasons to exclude each other without the help of a highly controversial issue such as religious belief inserting itself into the public classroom setting. ... Religion is such an emotional topic for so many people that it is irresponsible to allow it to be introduced into schools..."
Abstract A discussion on the history of prayer in American schools. This paper presents arguments for and against the issue and also examines legal implications of these arguments. Current legal battles are discussed and legislative conclusions are presented. This paper also addresses the issue of church vs. state in America as a whole and schools in particular.
From the Paper "Prayer in schools is one of the most debated topics in U.S. history. Debate didn?t begin in the 1960s as some people believe. Debate began more than 100 years ago when Italian and Irish Catholic immigrants were forced to read the King James Bible and pray in schools. At that time, during the 1830s, the first prayer in school conflicts erupted. Riots, fires at convents and school expulsions were commonplace in the name of the school prayer debate. In 1962, as the United States became a more diverse nation, the court ruled against school prayer in the case of Engel v. Vitale (Grunberg and Crane: This History par 1)."
Abstract This paper discusses how prayers in schools have mostly been touted as activities that violate the rights to religious freedom. According to the paper, many parents feel that since they do not believe in God, their children must not be asked to recite the name of God in schools. The paper further discusses whether the name of God should be removed from schools and if not what would be the benefits of keeping this tradition in the schools.
From the Paper "Every child needs something greater than himself to hold on to. They need to understand that when they are being asked to do something good and avoid evil, there are rewards waiting for them from that highest power. I feel there is nothing wrong with reciting prayers and pledge in schools because it leads to the creation of a better and more responsible society where caste and creed differences can be minimized since everyone is looking up to the same power i.e. God and pledging allegiance to the same country i.e. America. The opponents however feel that the law should be secular in nature, it should not seek to support of 'advance' any one religion and thirdly it must not give evidence of government's intervention in religious matters. They feel that Pledge of Allegiance does not sound secular because of the word God in it; secondly it does seem to promote the belief that God is present and He is one. This means that even if no particular religion is being promoted, the pledge does contain words which make it religious in nature and give everyone an impression that government endorses and agree with Christian religious beliefs of monotheism. The law also violates the establishment clause, which calls for separation of church and state. (Ostling, 2001)"
Abstract This paper addresses three potential new amendments to the constitution. The first of the amendments discussed addresses schoolprayer. The second and third amendments discussed address term limits for both members of Congress and for the United States president. The final amendment proposed seeks to overturn Amendment 22 that limits a president to two terms of four years in office. It also proposes that a president be elected of one term of 9 years, with a provision that congress may remove the president and call for a new election after the president has served at least three years in office.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Amendment Number 28 Congressional Term Limits
Discussion
Amendment -33
Conclusion
From the Paper "This amendment attempts to satisfy two very different groups of people who have conflicting ideas about school prayer. On one hand, it allows individuals and groups to conduct public prayer in a public school setting. On the other hand, it still protects the separation of church and State that is part of the first Constitutional Amendment in the Bill of Rights. (Bill of Rights) It appears that the majority of people want prayer returned to public school. A survey by the Pittsburgh Courier received a significantly large positive response to the question "Should prayer be returned to public schools.""
Abstract This paper is a brief discussion about the possible advantages that introducing prayer in a school assembly could provide. Included are considerations such as tolerance, added spirituality and lowering of violence levels in schools.
From the Paper "The Supreme Court decided against prayer in school in the case of Engel vs. Vitale on Jun 25th, 1962. Mr. Justice Stewart was the only vote against the court's decision which he remarked: ?I cannot see how an 'official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.? (religioustolerance.org, sect. 3). In this particular time in America, I feel it is important to extend religious tolerance into the schools and establish school prayer for those students whose faith require prayer throughout the day, or feel compelled to join in a voluntary school assembly."
Abstract The paper discusses the debate around the issues relating to religion in today's public schools and provides an explanation for all sides of the concern. The paper firstly outlines the ethical issues that are most prevalent followed by an examination of how the schools have addressed them in terms of what is successful and what is not successful. The paper concludes with what might be done to address these issues.
Outline:
Objective
Introduction To The Debate
School Voucher Debate
Pledge Of Allegiance Debate
Public Prayer In Schools Debate
Pew Research Forum Report On Today's Schools Discussion
Conclusion
From the Paper "Because of the diversity of religion in the United States in today's world and due to the various choices of education available to American citizens, perhaps it is time that the reality of democracy be reconciled to the reality of the American diversity existing in the United States today. It is not realistic that public schools remain within the 'traditional' framework when students today are so very diverse and yet it is not practical to believe that the American people will simply relinquish their history and tradition in terms of their religious belief and its function in their daily lives. However, it is possible that reconciliation of the 'freedom' that is vested in the U.S. Constitution and the Democratic base of the United States with 'freedom' for all, regardless of religion may be realized through public educational institutions that allow religious express without mandating the form in which this religious expression occurs."
Abstract This paper analyzes enforcement measures of religious practices in schools and their relevance. Included us a description of important decisions about issues such as prayers and a look at how this effects students.
From the Paper "Our nation was founded on the beliefs of the Christian religion. This is apparent in the constitution, pledge of allegiance, and all of our monetary units. Although this was the case when the nation was founded, our society has changed in many ways. We are no longer a single religion society, but rather a diverse community of many backgrounds and religions. "
Abstract This paper explains that the court case of "Tinker verses Des Moines Independent Community School" (1969) stated that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house doors; therefore, a student's freedom of expression in school must be protected unless it would seriously interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline. The author points out that advocates for school uniforms base their need on the rationales that uniforms save money, time and undue stress to both students and parents, prevent students from wearing gang related clothing hiding the ability to conceal weapons and identify students who belong to the school and prepare students for the conservative dress of the real work-world. The paper relates that the opponents against required student uniforms base their arguments on the fact that there is no supporting evidence that uniforms improve school success, the uniforms are expensive and uniforms do not cut down on school violence.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Pro Uniforms
Con Uniforms
My Neutral Voice
From the Paper "Because of the lack of statistical data, both sides of the uniform issue have strong points and are correct. There is no right answer and the debate will continue on forever unless both sides agree on a mutual acceptable consensus. Some possible solutions would be for both sides to agree to disagree and develop a dress code that highlights the needs of both sides, for example respects human rights but at the same time teaches students to dress for success. Both sides of the debate will gain in the long run, as well as the student. Parents will teach their children the art and skill of collaboration, working together, and reach consensus to achieve a common goal."
