Part One
My religion�or, as I like to put it, my faith�is a huge part of my life. The avoidance of any mention of religion in school often offends me. It does not matter what religion it is; what matters is that the schools have made it taboo to mention them when this was not intended by our founding fathers.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Constitution that the government would not establish a national religion, endorse only one particular religion, or restrict the rituals and practices of any religion. The Constitution does not say anything about the complete rejection of any religion in public establishments, such as schools. The phrase �separation of church and state� comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend, and is therefore not an actual governmental clause that must be followed.
The issue of prayer in schools is, as it seems to me, a technicality for most. One such case was when a parent sued to get the word �pray� out of a phrase that said something to the nature of, �there will be a moment of silence where students and staff may meditate, pray, or think.� While students were not required to pray, people still found a problem with letting students who did pray have that allowed in their school rules. Another case was when a young Muslim girl requested that she be allowed a room to pray before lunch. The Constitution demands that the government does not restrict the practice of any religion, so this should be followed. In that particular case it was, but not without some grumbling and complaining along the way.
I would like to know through this I-Search the extent to which schools should allow students to practice religion, or the extent to which religion should be taught in the public schools. I personally believe that students should not be ignorant to the viewpoints of those around them, since there are so many beliefs present in our world of over 6 billion people. I do not know, however, how we could approach this without causing chaos (which it already has done). I am sad to see how ignorant some people are of not only my faith, but also the religions of others. For example, there are people who believe that Muslims are taught to be terrorists, and this is definitely not the case.
I want to get the opinions of people from as many sides of this argument as I can. I plan to talk to my pastor at my church, as well as science teachers and students of Christian faith, Jewish faith, and even agnostic or atheistic people. It is important for me to know what people really think about this. I also particularly want to talk to the atheistic/agnostic parent of my Christian friend; I think I could really get an important opinion from her. I want to know why it seems that everyone is opposed to religion in schools when many of the people I talk to really do not care either way.
Part Two
When I first heard about the I-Search, I instantly knew that I wanted to do something about religion in schools. I�ve heard so much about it that I wanted to tell the world all about it.
The first thing I did when my topic was approved was look up the First Amendment. I read it carefully and tried to interpret it in as many ways as possible. I figured it would be important to know all the different ways people could see that their religious freedoms were being violated.
I then began looking up articles on the databases provided by the school. They were my main source of knowledge, and if I hadn�t had the databases, I would have been looking through every newspaper, magazine, and book I could find. Luckily for me, I didn�t have to do that, and it really helped me along while I was searching.
Mr. Blackburn suggested a book about church and state to me that had just been added to the school library. I found it, and I�m very grateful I did, because it was the best source out of all the ones that I found. It was also the only tangible source I had, as the others were all online. However, they were not all websites, but newspaper and magazine articles reprinted online.
When the time came to begin setting up interviews, I at first wanted to interview my pastor. Luckily, I realized that since I knew him, it would be an awkward interview, and possibly not the best choice since I wanted more about the schools than I wanted about Christianity. I wanted to reflect more than just the Christian point of view. I decided on the superintendent, Dr. Michael Wilhelm. He was very nice and helpful. When I called and left a message to set up the interview, he called me back only an hour or two later to set up a time. We agreed on Friday during my study hall, which gave me about half and hour to ask questions.
The only problem with the interview was probably my fault. My tape, which had worked perfectly fine before, skipped sections of the interview that I had recorded. I was distressed, but I used what I had. I was lucky in the fact that what I considered to be the most useful information had not been cut out. One problem that almost arose as well was my ability to get to Dr. Wilhelm�s office during school. On the night before my interview, I e-mailed Mr. Blackburn, requesting a pass to leave the school during second period. I had to wait until I got to my study hall that day to receive my pass, and I ran all the way to the administrative offices. Somehow, I managed to still look put-together and the interview was successful.
The most frustrating thing for me in the I-Search process was my inability to find good government documents for my research. The best I could find was obviously the First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. I had found an excellent speech before my topic was approved, but unfortunately, I couldn�t find it again once I began taking notes for the project. I wanted more government laws and such in my I-Search, but I think I did a good job with only two.
In the library, I looked through at least five books to find some that could help me with my search. The only one that really helped me was the book that Mr. Blackburn had suggested, Engel vs. Vitale. It was very intriguing and I read it straight through, then again to take notes. I got 15 note cards from the book, as it was what I considered to be my best source.
Some of the time, I had a problem meeting the checkpoints. I believe I missed at least one of them. I got a low grade of the first checkpoint because I didn�t look at the website. I learned to use what was given to help me after that. Fortunately, I got to redo the first checkpoint and I averaged a D on the checkpoint. It wasn�t a very exciting way to begin a half semester long project. I also lost some note cards with source citations on them the day they were due, which was very disheartening. Overall, I was very happy with my project, but since I am a procrastinator, the deadlines were a little hard for me. Without them, though, I would have still been researching and writing note cards the week before the entire project was due. I�m very grateful for the checkpoints.
Through the I-Search, I learned how to actually take good notes and how to take advantage of the resources that were made available to me. I think this project will help me with future projects, even if they�re over a shorter time span or don�t require at least 2500 words. I also learned a lot about source citation, which I didn�t know a lot about before. I am very glad for the entire I-Search experience, and I would even want to do another one on another topic sometime, but only if the school made me. Six to eight weeks is a long time to work on one project for a sophomore in high school.
Part Three
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says the following: �Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.� This one sentence has been at the center of controversial decisions about education for over 100 years. Not only has it caused strife between the theist and the atheist; it has caused strife between the Hindu and the Christian, the Protestant and the Catholic, even the Baptist and the Presbyterian.
Before one can look at how people deal with this phrase in everyday life, one has to understand the phrase itself. The first part��Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion��is called the Establishment Clause. In its loosest form, it is interpreted to mean that the government will not establish a national religion. In its most severe form, it can be interpreted to mean the government will not be involved with religion whatsoever. The second part���or prohibiting the free exercise thereof��is known as the Free Exercise Clause. It is widely accepted that this means the government has no right to pass any law that keeps a citizen from practicing his or her religion (MacLeod).
Currently, several religion-related practices are not allowed. Schools do not allow teachers to lead a class in prayer or teach from a religious or Biblical viewpoint. Teachers are also not allowed to read the Bible to students. Students cannot lead prayer for the school at a sports game. Religious classes or services cannot be held on school grounds during school hours. Law prohibits anything that endorses religion, unless it has been overlooked or ignored.
At the same time, students are allowed to �pray, to say Grace, to join Bible clubs, or to simply follow the dictates of their conscience� (Riley). There is no restriction on students wearing religious symbols, as is the case in France. Students may pray on their own and read their holy texts on their own time, such as a study hall. In addition, there are no laws restricting the freedom of religious speech by students, as long as it is not in a form such as an assembly or a PA announcement.
Many people consider these rules fair, but some of them believe that these rules are not followed. For example, the American Atheist Newsletter said the following: �We have been saying all along that the difference between religious clubs and secular clubs in the public schools is that the Christian, and it is always the Christian clubs, don�t follow the rules. They can�t. Their main reason to be in the schools is to proselytize you and you can�t do that very well from inside a classroom(10).� The underlying belief of the atheist who wrote this article seems to be that religious school clubs should be banned because their only reason is to �proselytize�.
Teachers are often afraid of lawsuits that arise from parents abusing their power to sue. As a result, they often try to avoid any mention of religion in school. At Mt. Ararat High School around the time of Christmas, a student was wearing a hoodie bearing the title of a popular movie, Nightmare before Christmas. Since Christmas is a religious holiday, a teacher insisted that the student cover up the word �Christmas� on his shirt. When the superintendent, Dr. Michael Wilhelm, heard of the incident, he was shocked and even had a hard time believing the incident had actually occurred.
�It never should have happened,� he said. He implied that freedom of speech and religion was important, and that students should be allowed to wear shirts bearing the name of a religious holiday. This shines some light on the possibility that sometimes teachers can even go too far, restricting too much in the area of religion. Dr. Wilhelm also said that students should be allowed to evangelize to their friends, such as a friendly �Hey, want to come to church with me?� but that doing things like handing out pamphlets about religion to peers in the hallways and being aggressive in schools was not acceptable. Most importantly, he said that schools should be able to teach about religion, in order to give students a better understanding of what is going on in the world around them.
One major issue associated with religion in schools is the subject of prayer. What brought up this issue at a national level was the court case Engel vs. Vitale. In this case, five parents united against the school board to abolish the daily prayer that took place in most schools: �Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.� The Pledge of Allegiance and daily announcements followed this prayer. It was not required to say the prayer, though pressure most likely arose when the rest of the class said it. Out of the five parents opposed to school prayer in Engel vs. Vitale, two were Jewish, one was Unitarian Universalist, one was from the Ethical Culture Society, and one was an atheist (Haas).
In the famous case, the federal Supreme Court ruled 6 to 1 against teacher-led school prayer. One reason was that they felt having school prayer was singling out a certain religious practice and putting a �stamp of approval� on it. They also felt that prayer is a religious activity and should be done at the discretion of the people not the government. One more reason was that they decided that a government employee should not recited prayer over the intercom, as this would classify as an endorsement of religion (Haas).
Many people were outraged at the decision made by the court. Eight thousand letters were sent to Congress that favored a Constitutional amendment that allowed prayer in schools (Haas). However, five thousand people sent letters opposing an amendment. John F. Kennedy tried to cool tempers by saying that we should �pray ourselves,� and that he �would think it would be a welcome reminder to ever American family that we can pray a good deal more at home and attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity.� He suggested that even though teachers were not allowed to lead prayer at public schools, prayer could still take place in a church or at home.
The outrage at the Supreme Court�s decision was most likely due to the exaggeration that no prayer was allowed in school at all. This is not the case. Joan DelFattore, author of The Fourth R, asserts readers that prayer has not been banned completely in her book by saying this: �Contrary to popular belief, God has certainly not been kicked out of public schools. What is banned is state-sponsored prayer, not the religious speech of the students themselves.�
In addition, people should be relieved to know that according to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Section 9524, Schools will not be governmentally financed unless the local educational agency (LEA) �certifies in writing� to the state educational agency (SEA) that it is not supporting or hindering religion and religious expression, especially regarding prayer (Guidance).
Schools can and usually do adhere to these rules. Superintendent Dr. Michael Wilhelm said, �Prayer is a personal thing.� He agrees with the governmentally set standards, and believes that prayer is not to be forced upon students; they have a right to their own religion. People in higher power have deemed the standards as appropriate.
In another situation concerning prayer, a young Muslim girl wished to do her daily prayers in a separate, empty room before lunch. This request was granted, and the girl was allowed a room for her prayers. Things do not always work this way, but it is a good model for other schools to follow.
The one debate that has been the most hostile between groups is the fight between Creation and evolution in today�s schools. Scientists argue that Creation is not a scientific theory, but a religious event and therefore has no place in an elementary or secondary school science class. Creationists, on the other hand, argue that nothing in science contradicts the Biblical Genesis, and it is a legitimate explanation for the universe.
Evolutionists claim that all they want to do is expose students to current knowledge and theories about the origin of the universe. However, this does not include Creation. Most schools wish to avoid Creation because in a sense, it is treating it as a scientific fact (ironically, just as they teach evolution). The real problem is that teaching Creation is seen as an endorsement of religion by some, and this is considered unconstitutional.
Some creationists even go as far as to say that teaching evolution is a violation of freedom of religion because it casts a shadow of doubt on the mind of a student about his or her religion (Griggs, �Religion of Evolution�). Jolly Griggs, author of the Evolution 101 pamphlet series, said, �Since� [Evolutionists] deny the role of God in the creation of the universe and Christianity affirms it, both systems of belief are metaphysical and equally religious.� She also says �the preferred solution would be simply teaching all of the scientific evidence, both positive and negative, about [evolution].� (Griggs, �Schools Pick Winners.�)
One alternative to introducing Creation in the school setting is called Intelligent Design, or ID. ID is the theory that evolution took place, but its spark was not the improbable and spontaneous Big Bang but the prompting of a divine being. The religion this divine being is the God/gods of is not mentioned, and therefore considered as not endorsing religion. Teachers and parents are still not too fond of it, as it still implies that there is a divine being, and therefore rules out atheists. Note that the denial of a divine being excludes only agnostics and atheists, while atheists make up only 4% of the United States population (MacLeod).
State and federal courts have been hit with �religion in schools� cases constantly, some of them important and some of them dismissed as superfluous worries about �separation of church and state�, which will be discussed later. The most famous is Engel vs. Vitale, which has already been mentioned. Some other important cases that shaped America�s schools are presented in several paragraphs below.
The famous case, which finally admitted that there could not be a complete �wall of separation� between church and state, produced what is called the �Lemon Test,� which is still occasionally used in cases concerning religion. The Lemon Test says that to ensure that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has not been violated, three things must be done: the government action must not have a religious governmental function; it must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and it must not support the government being excessively entangled with religion and religious matters. The Lemon case claimed that there could not be a complete �wall of separation� because certain federal laws apply to places such as church buildings and religious schools, such as fire inspections and school attendance laws (MacLeod).
The case that prompted the Supreme Court to thoroughly look over the First Amendment is known as Everson vs. Ewing Board of Education. The result of the case was the decision that the state nor federal government can set up a church, pass laws that aid one religion, all religions or prefer one to the other, or force a person to go or refrain from going to church or to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. They also could not punish an individual for his religious beliefs, levy a tax to support any religious activity, or openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organization or group (Haas).
Coming back around to the issue of the Creation versus evolution debate, the case Epperson vs. Arkansas ruled that it was unconstitutional to require the teaching of Creation in public schools. It was also deemed unconstitutional to ban the teaching of evolution theory solely because it conflicts with Creation.
There were also many cases, some that reached the federal Supreme Court, that were not as significant to young American lives, yet still managed to make an impact. Two such cases that are closely related are McCollum vs. Board of Education and Zorach vs. Clauson. In the former, the federal Supreme Court ruled that providing religious instruction during school hours on school grounds is unconstitutional. In the latter, the same court ruled that providing religious instruction during school hours off school grounds is constitutional. The distinction was that the taxpayers were not paying for the building use or the teachers who taught the religion. (Haas.)
On a more patriotic subject, a Federal District judge ruled that requiring students to recite the pledge is unconstitutional for two reasons. The first was that it could be considered an endorsement of religion because of the phrase �Under God,� which was added by former president Ronald Reagan in 1954. It was also ruled in such a way because some religions, such as Jehovah�s Witness, claimed that saying the pledge and saluting the American Flag was putting the country above God, or that it was idolatry. (Murphy, A25.) Dr. Michael Wilhelm, superintendent of schools in Topsham, Maine, agreed with the ruling under yet another clause of the First Amendment�freedom of speech. He said that schools could not force students to speak against their beliefs.
Some cases were more worries about technicalities than actual infringement of Constitutional rights. One such case was Cochran vs. Board of Education. An adult in the community felt that loaning textbooks to religious schools was endorsing religion. The state Supreme Court ruled that textbooks paid for by the government can be loaned to private religious schools because only the students and the state benefited from then, not that particular religious school. This is not an infringement of the Establishment Clause. (Haas.)
Proof that the avoidance of religion can lead to problems is evident in the case against the University of California by the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, CA. The school sued the university because it did not accept credits for certain courses taught at the Christian school because of their �God-over-science� stand. Ken Smitherman, president of the Association of Christian Schools International, said, �We�re not teaching that water boils at a different temperature, or that the periodic table of elements doesn�t have some of [the elements].� (Kasindorf, 03A.) The avoidance of religion cost the college money and time that could have been better spent somewhere else.
Now that you understand the opposition between the side of �separation of church and state� and the side that opposes it, it is time to understand the meaning of the phrase �separation of church and state� itself. Thomas Jefferson created the phrase in a letter to a friend about why he could not declare a national day of religious fasting during his presidency. The letter said, ��Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach action only, and not opinions. He also said, ���Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,� therefore building a wall of separation between Church and State.� This one sentence has led many to believe that the actual phrase appeared in the Constitution, which it did not. In fact, Thomas Jefferson did not intend that there be absolutely no religion mentioned in the public setting. In the pamphlet for the University of Virginia, which he founded, Thomas Jefferson allowed each denomination to send a clergyman to conduct daily prayers and Sunday Service for two weeks while on campus. This is not a man who embraced the common idea of �separation of church and state,� but one who believed that the government should not tell people what to believe (MacLeod).
In the original draft of the Bill of Rights, James Madison worded the First Amendment quite differently. Instead of being vague and confusing, it read very clearly. It said, �The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.� It is obvious when reading this that none of the Founding Fathers of our country intended people to be afraid of wearing a sweater that said �Christmas� on it, or that students could not be taught about religion in public schools. Perhaps the Supreme Court should consider this version of the clause when ruling against certain religious practices in the public school system (MacLeod).
After looking over the Constitution, federal and state laws, and court cases over what is appropriate and what is not, I have concluded that religion is acceptable in today�s public schools. The First Amendment does not require schools to take absolutely no standing on religion whatsoever. All they require is that a national religion not be established, forcing people to convert to a religion they do not believe in. Schools should be able to teach about religion without worrying about a lawsuit, as students need to know about the world around them and not be sheltered just because Dad doesn�t want little Susie to know that there�s a such thing as Islam out there.
We live in the United States of America, where freedom of religion is guaranteed; therefore, school-sponsored prayer should not be allowed currently. Where it might have been acceptable even fifty years ago, the United States is too diverse and people�s opinions are too strong to allow prayer. It would either offend an atheist, who believes that there is no God to pray to, or someone of another religion, who could be offended that their specific God is not prayed to, or that He has been prayed to in a sacrilegious manner. The same applies to Bible-reading over an intercom, as this is �endorsing religion� by singling out one particular faith. I do not mean that students cannot do these things themselves; in fact, parents and teachers should encourage children to practice their beliefs, no matter where they are.
In my last statement, I would like to inform those who did not know of the following: people who follow a certain religion are usually commanded by their religion to obey their government. Religious groups, while desiring to convert people to their religions, are also required to submit themselves to governing authorities. The most opposed religion in schools, Christianity, says the following regarding such:
�1Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves.� �Romans 13:1-2
Part Four�Works Cited
�Alaska.� American Atheist Newsletter. June 2004:10. Student Resource Center. Mt. Ararat High School Lib., Topsham, ME. 30 Jan. 2006. <http://www.galenet.galegropu.com/servlet/SRC>.
DelFattore, Joan. The Fourth R: Conflicts over Religion in America�s Public Schools.� Qtd. In Neil Thomas. �New Book Debunks Myths about Religion in Public Schools.� University of Delaware Daily. <http://www.udel.edu/PR/Udaily/2004/delfattore032404.html>.
Griggs, Jolly. �Religion of Evolution Debases Christian Children.� Evolution 101. 04 Mar. 2006. <http://www.creationism.org/griggs/Evol_L17.zip>.
Griggs, Jolly. �Schools Pick Winners in Religion.� Evolution 101. 04 Mar. 2006. <http://www.creationism.org/griggs/Evol_02.zip>.
Haas, Carol. Engel vs. Vitale: Separation of Church and State. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1994.
Kasindorf, Martin. �Christian School Suing UC over College Credits.� USA Today. 13 Jan 2006: 03A. Student Resource Center. Mt. Ararat High School Lib., Topsham, ME. 11 Feb. 2006. <http://www.galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/SRC>.
MacLeod, Laurel. �Prohibiting School Prayer Threatens Religious Liberty.� Civil Liberties. September 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Mt. Ararat High School Lib., Topsham, ME. 1 Feb. 2006. <http://www.galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>.
Murphy, Dean. �Judge Rules Reciting Pledge in Schools is Unconstitutional.� The New York Times. 15 Sept. 2005: A25(L). Student Resource Center. Mt. Ararat High School Lib., Topsham, ME. 11 Feb. 2006. <http://www.galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/SRC>.
Riley, Richard. Press briefing. 30 May 1998. <http://www.clinton6.nara.gov/1998/05/1998-05-29-press-briefing-by-education-secretary-riley.html>.
United States Dept. of Education. �Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.� 07 Feb. 2003.
Wilhelm, Michael. Personal Interview. 17 Feb. 2006.
All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version�. Copyright �1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.