By: Shedwin Eliassin / Contributing Writer
Prayer in schools has not always been such a controversial topic. In fact, public schools had prayer for nearly 200 years before the Supreme Court ruled that state mandated class prayers were unconstitutional in the landmark case of Engle vs. Vital in June 1962. Religion aside, prayer should be implemented in schools simply because it has useful benefits on its own.
Our school systems aren’t doing any better since the removal of prayer in schools. In fact, some may say that the situation has gotten much worse, especially in terms of school violence. In 2007, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that 5.9 percent of students carry weapons to school with them, 7.8 percent have been threatened or injured on campuses nationwide and 12.4 percent of students have been in a physical fight on school grounds at least once. The most recent studies have found that 5.3 percent of students do not go to school because they do not feel safe.
Since the court outlawed prayer, the nation has been in steady moral decline. Former Secretary of Education, William Bennet, revealed in his cultural indexes that between 1960 and 1990 divorce doubled, teenage pregnancy went up 200 percent, teen suicide increased 300 percent, violent crime went up 500 percent and he maintains that there is a strong correlation between the expulsion of prayer from our schools and decline in morality.
It should be made clear that prayer has positive psychological, physical and emotional influences. Focusing on your emotions by praying can help relieve stress, calm fears and reduce anxiety. When cardiologist Randolph Byrd, did his famous study on the effects of prayer in April 1982 through May 1983, he found that praying on a regular basis can have an enormous effect on the psyche of an individual by stabilizing their mood, giving them a feeling of well-being, improving how they interact with others and positively changing the way they conduct themselves. When it comes to children and how they behave in school, prayer and all these positive effects that it holds can have enormous constructive effects on their outlook and those around them.
The establishment clause is a popular rebuttal for those who are against prayer in schools. It is the first of several pronouncements in the Constitution and it states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. When the families of New Hyde Park, New York, complained that the voluntary prayer in schools went against their religious beliefs, the prayer in question went as follows: “Almighty God we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings on our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.” They were most concern with who the God was that the children were praying to, who was never specified, nor was any distinction of religion ever made.
It is a paradox for the same government who has its grounds on religious principals from the very beginning to uphold prayer as being “unconstitutional.” The original purpose of the clause was to ensure that the government should not declare a state religion. If this is the case there should be no harm in leaving the decision to pray up to local districts rather than deeming it against the nature of the nation.
With all the data you bring up in your editorial, you don’t really connect it to the absence of prayer in school. Also, you need to consider where William Bennett is coming from. He’s shown contempt for multiculturalism and favors a Western-centric viewpoint in education, he opposes affirmative action and same-sex marriage, and he’s on record as complaining that drug dealers have the constitutional right to habeas corpus rights. This is someone with a very ideological viewpoint, and his words should not be taken at face value or be used to support this argument without any other data or relevant facts behind it.
And you’re wrong about non-denominational prayer, or at least about it being the only prayer used in schools. My mother was mandated to say the Pater Noster when she was attending public school, even though she was Jewish.
If students really want to pray in school, they can do so on their own time in their own way without schools mandating it.
My comment is a little off topic, but the US is majority “Christian”, thus implementing any type of religion into any type of federal system/program will lead to it being Christian and be discriminatory towards those who are not Christian or not religious.
“In fact, public schools had prayer for nearly 200 years before the Supreme Court ruled that state mandated class prayers were unconstitutional”
They also had segregation until the 1960s (and many point out that segregation still exists, especially in certain areas of the country). Not saying school prayer = segregation, but rather than doing something for a long time does not mean its a good thing.
“Our school systems aren’t doing any better since the removal of prayer in schools. In fact, some may say that the situation has gotten much worse, especially in terms of school violence.”
For starters, removing school prayer wasn’t about having our school systems do better, it was about separation of church and state. And as Barry points out above, you don’t forge a connection between your point (and the statistics that back it up) with school prayer. There is nothing here that says school violence is caused by lack of school prayer.This is a serious, serious flaw.
Did you look up statistics of school violence in religious schools? Or other signs of “moral decay” such as use of drugs, truancy, suspension, etc? If you are making the argument that lack of school prayer contributed to violence and other symptoms of moral decay, then religious schools should show a stark contrast to public schools. I doubt that they do. In fact, here in Miami, it was well known that religious schools were pretty big drug scenes, and not just for Marijuana, but more expensive drugs like cocaine.
“Since the court outlawed prayer, the nation has been in steady moral decline.”
Again, you have facts to support your point about moral decline, but not about the cause. None of what you wrote supports prayer being the cause, except the opinion of one guy. I am sure I could throw a dart randomly into a group of people on the Right and hit a Christian who would say something to this effect(half-kidding here). But where is the evidence? Just because he was Education Secretary, doesn’t on its own make his point valid.
“It should be made clear that prayer has positive psychological, physical and emotional influences.”
All your evidence and reasoning supporting this can also be attributed to meditation. In fact, some can say prayer is a form of meditation. In any case, a secular meditation provides the same benefits. To not point this out is misleading.
“The establishment clause is a popular rebuttal for those who are against prayer in schools.”
I was wondering when you were going to get to this. I know there are 3 main schools of thought on the establishment clause, but conventional wisdom has it meaning separation of church and state, and that is how the US Supreme Court has interpreted it.
Your example, saying that the complaint wasn’t about prayer in school but about specifying the God to whom one was praying, completely and totally ignores case history and totally misunderstands supreme court decisions. The problem is that not everyone believes in a God, or even has religious beliefs. The separation of church and state isn’t just for denominational reasons, it protects those who are agnostic, atheist, and those who don’t believe in a single god.
“It is a paradox for the same government who has its grounds on religious principals from the very beginning to uphold prayer as being “unconstitutional.” ”
This is a HUGE assumption. Our government does *not* have its grounds on religious principles from the very beginning. To make such a bold claim, and expect people to take it as a given, is ridiculous.
Our biggest principles, like liberty and equality, stem from natural law. To make this very, very clear: our government is secular. Is our Nation secular? Well, that is a whole other argument, and admittedly I have seen a good argument saying that it is.
The original purpose of the clause, was not only so that one religion wasn’t elevated over others, but so that religion be placed into the private sphere, away from public. Religion is a private thing. Religious freedom means the ability to choose what you believe, which includes not believing. Prayer in public schools goes completely against this. This being the case, there *is* harm in leaving the decision to pray up to local districts.
I would like to think that this great country of ours is home to people regardless of their beliefs, including those who don’t believe.
*Ahem*
The First Amendment didn’t go from James Madison’s pen straight to the National Archives. It was the product of legislative wrangling in the House and Senate of the first Congress. Here, without annotation, are the different drafts the lawmakers considered.
On June 8, 1789, James Madison proposed a religious freedom amendment to the Constitution:
“That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
On July 28, 1789, a select House Committee approved the following language instead:
ART. 1, SEC. 9 — Between PAR. 2 and 3 insert, “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.”
On August 20, after debating the measure, revised it further and instead approved this substitute amendment:
“Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.”
On August 24, the full House of Representatives approved this version:
“Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed. ”
On Septmber 3, the Senate met and considered several versions of the amendment..
This amendment was offered, and rejected:
“Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others.”
This amendment was offered, and rejected:
“Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.”
This amendment was offered and rejected:
“Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.”
This amendment was offered and accepted:
“Congress shall make no law establishing religion.”
On September 9, the Senate changed its view again and instead passed this amendment:
“Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”
A House-Senate conference committee met. Whilte the House agreed to numerous amendments suggested by the Senate, the Senate agreed to accept the House version of the religious freedom amendment.
On September 24 House accepted the language. Septmember 25, the Senate accepted the language that became our First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Mr. Anonymous, you sir are wrong. Look at the original intent of the founders of our nation. They wanted to make it as clear as they could that religious infringement was a huge problem and should be avoided at all costs. They say nothing about separation of church and state. That term is made up. The only time that subject is really talked about is in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson when he mentions a wall of seperation. Which, by the way, is grossly misused; considering the fact that it was in a letter talking about protecting religion – not separating it from it from government.
I pulled this info off of this website: http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/46/Drafts_of_the_First_Amendment_in_Congress_1.html
Also, the guy who wrote this didn’t actually write some of it. Norman L. Geisler wrote much of what you read up there. So instead of yelling at him about something you are wrong about, maybe help him to avoid plagiarism by reminding him to quote and site his sources.
[From the Charlotte Observer, Jan. 30, 1995]
10 Reasons for Voluntary School Prayer
(By Norman L. Geisler]
There are many good reasons for a constitutional amendment
to permit voluntary prayer in the public schools. Ten come to
mind.
1. Our government was based on religious principles from
the very beginning: The Declaration of Independence says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by God with certain
unalienable rights . . . .” Indeed, it speaks of God,
creation, God-given moral rights, the providence of God, and
a final Day of Judgment–all of which are religious
teachings. Indeed, the Supreme Court affirmed (Zorach, 1952)
that “We are a religious people whose institutions
presuppose a Supreme Being.” And school prayer has been an
important part of our religious experience from the very
beginning.
2. The First Amendment does not separate God and government
but actually encourages religion. It reads: “Congress shall
make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first clause
merely declares that the federal government cannot establish
one religion for all the people. It says nothing about
“separation of church and state.” In fact, five of the 13
states that ratified it had their own state religions at the
time. The second clause insists that the government should do
nothing to discourage religion. But forbidding prayer in
schools discourages religion.
3. Early congressional actions encouraged religion in
public schools. For example, the Northwest Treaty (1787 and
1789) declared: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being
necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind,
schools and the means of learning shall forever be
encouraged.” Thus, religion, which includes prayer, was
deemed to be necessary.
presidents encouraged prayer
4. Early presidents, with congressional approval, made
proclamations encouraging public prayer. President Washington
on Oct. 3, 1789, declared: “Whereas it is the duty of all
nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to
obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to
implore His protection and favour, and Whereas both Houses of
Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me `to
recommend to the people of the United States a day of public
thanksgiving and prayer. . . .”’
5. Congress has prayed at the opening of every session
since the very beginning. Indeed, in a moment of crisis at
the very first Continental Congress Benjamin Franklin urged
prayer and observed that “In the beginning of the Contest
with G. Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had
daily prayer in this room for Divine protection.–Our
prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. .
. . And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we
imagine we no longer need His assistance? . . . I therefore
beg leave to move–that henceforth prayer imploring the
assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations,
be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to
business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be
requested to officiate in that service.” Congress has begun
with prayer ever since. If the government can pray in their
session, why can’t the governed pray in their (school)
sessions?
6. Public schools had prayer for nearly 200 years before
the Supreme Court ruled that state-mandated class prayers
were unconstitutional (Engel, 1962). The fact that prayer was
practiced for nearly 200 years establishes it by precedent as
a valid and beneficial practice in our schools.
7. Since the court outlawed prayer, the nation has been in
steady moral decline. Former Secretary of Education William
Bennett revealed in his cultural indexes that between 1960
and 1990 there was a steady moral decline. During this period
divorce doubled, teenage pregnancy went up 200%, teen suicide
increased 300%, child abuse reached an all-time high, violent
crime went up 500% and abortion increased 1000%. There is a
strong correlation between the expulsion of prayer from our
schools and the decline in morality.
8. Morals must be taught, and they cannot properly be
taught without religion. There cannot be a moral law without
a moral Law Giver. And there is no motivation for keeping the
moral law unless there is a moral Law Giver who can enforce
it by rewards and punishments.
secular humanism established
9. Forbidding prayer and other religious expressions in
public schools establishes, in effect, the religion of
secularism.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that there are religions,
such as “secular humanism,” which do not believe in God
(Torcaso, 1961). Justice Potter (Abington, 1963) rightly
feared that purging the schools of all religious beliefs and
practices would lead to the “establishment of a religion of
secularism.” In fact, the beliefs of secular humanism are
just the opposite of the Declaration of Independence. By not
allowing theistic religious expressions, the courts have
favored the religious beliefs of secular humanism, namely, no
belief in God, God-given moral laws, prayer and a Day of
Judgment.
10. To forbid the majority the right to pray because the
minority object, is to impose the irreligion of the minority
on the religious majority. Forbidding prayer in schools,
which a three-quarters majority of Americans favors, is the
tyranny of the minority. It is minority rule, not democracy.
Why should an irreligious minority dictate what the majority
can do? The majority wishes to preserve our moral and
spiritual values and, thus, our good nation.
I found this in a transcription of a session of congress. Found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-02-06/html/CREC-1995-02-06-pt1-PgS2151.htm
Have a good day.
I have born in 1928 and watched the effect of moral decay since I graduated from high school in 1947. I learned to question anything taught to me and search for “missing facts”. Example – Morality. The Bible teaches that it will punish those that commit adultery. A fact that is missing is that those who commit adultery may become infected with Socially Transmitted Diseases. Many states have made adultery illegal witch is now considered wrong. So we end up ignoring the responsablity for STDs and unnecessary abortions. Food for thought? A supreme being must have existed long before it created the universe and life and the rules we should live by. Study the Bible and learned by studding nature.