Clearly written in the Constitution is the right to freely practice and exercise religion. In contrast, nowhere in the Constitution is protection from religion. It has become common practice for some in our society to deem those things felt entitled to as “rights,” protected, no less, by the defining document of our nation. Some claim it is their “Constitutional Right” not to be exposed to the prayers of others. There is no evidence of such a right in the document and requires a very creative interpretation of the literature to assert that there is. Far too often, the rights claimed to be protected by the Constitution are not written in it and the actual protected Constitutional rights are eroded away. I intend to illustrate through law and theory, that disallowing prayer in public schools is a clear violation of the constitutionally protected right to freely practice religion.
Article I of the Bill of Rights, reads: “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.” These words are the foundation of American Democracy, the rights by which our country is defined. Though beautifully written, the language is direct and requires no “creative interpretation” of its meaning. However, several rights clearly stated in Article I have been violated. For example, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” this statement, hereafter will be referred to as the “Establishment Clause”. The cases that ultimately eradicated public school prayer was Murray v Curlett & Arbington School District v Shrempp (both were seen at the same time by the Supreme Court). Shempp involved the Abington School District in Pennsylvania’s purchase of only Kings James Version bibles and requiring that teachers start each day with prayer. Though the district did not require a specific prayer; the school officials only purchased one version of the religious text. The teachers instructed the children to join them in the recitation of biblical scriptures every morning. The Shrempp’s children attended school in the district. They were of Unitarian faith and believed only some books of the bible and objected to others being taught to their children at the school they attended. In the case of Murray v Curlett; Madalyn Murray O’Hair, an atheist, objected to the 1905 Baltimore school board rule requiring that each day be started with a scripture or the Lord’s Prayer. The decision from the Supreme Court in both cases was that each of the acts violated the “Establishment Clause” of the Constitution. Attorneys for the school boards argued the prayers were not religious in nature and were only designed to “provide a proper moral climate for the students”. In both these cases, the school mandated a specific prayer which was obviously religious in nature. But these cases have been used as precedent to remove religion altogether from the public schools, deeming it unlawful for students to pray even on their own accord. The schools violated the Establishment Cause by making a specific prayer mandatory and forcing teachers to administer it.
- The decision of the Justices in this case gave the Establishment Clause precedent over the “Free Exercise Clause” and justified the decision by attempting to redefine the perimeters of State jurisdiction. The Justices, “state machinery,” and all forms of Government exist to serve the people, American citizens. On the issue of school prayer and separation of church and state, government has failed to serve the people. Instead, in the name of “neutrality,” the Free Exercise Clause has been diminished. The Justices should have set perimeters under which religion could be practiced in public school. Their purpose is to protect the rights of citizens. Instead, they placed strict limitations of exercise of religion by banning it. Justice Potter offered the dissenting opinion. He said the deciding factor should have been whether the stated mandated the prayer or coerced students into participating. He also disagreed with the Justices that the Establishment Clause should take precedent over the Free Exercise Clause.
In the case of Wisconsin v Yoder, the court decided in favor of the Amish against mandatory attendance to public school through age seventeen. The court asserted that the Amish practice an established and valid religion and that for the lifestyle led by the Amish, secondary school was not necessary and therefore could not be forced on Amish children. If the courts could recognize that the written law came in conflict with Amish faith, why then is the faith of other religious sects ignored? The courts should reconsider this case and give restore the freedoms of speech, and freedom of religion to its citizens. The case should be re-examined and the Justices should stick to the written law and the original intent and avoid redefining the literature based a stance of pseudo-neutrality. The courts decided in a way that was hostile to people of faith and did not even bring into consideration the possibility that some forms of meditation do aid in behavior. The objection to any form of religious practice was so strong that the careful consideration of the facts of the case and the repercussions of such a decision overlooked. I disagree with Justice Clark’s decision in this case and claim that it is his duty as a Justice of the courts and servant of the people, to reverse his decision and overturn all laws prohibiting the free exercise of faith in the public schools and any “machinery of the state”. This is not an appeal to special privilege, the state has no obligation to make special accommodations for people to practice their faith but no law should prohibit it.
