Are Church and State Already Separate?
From the beginning of its existence religion has spawned numerous conflicts, controversies and differences of opinion. For every sect, faction, element and denomination there exists multiple issues that lead to arguments. There are organizations as well as individuals who are staunch supporters of having religion involved with aspects of public life. These proponents fight for their beliefs on a daily basis. Some of the parents and religious officials who share these views fight arduously to have the bible be readmitted into public school curriculums. These people also struggle to allow- as well as encourage- prayer in school. Those who see little hope for prevailing opt for creating a slight alternative to allowing religion into public schools. They argue that they should be given vouchers that would help subsidize the cost of sending their child to a religious school. Other more politically minded people who possess similar beliefs see nothing wrong with federally funded faith based initiatives. These people support programs like abstinence only education and battle for the right to keep the federal funding coming.
Those who support the intermingling of matters of the church with matters of public life seem to completely disregard a fundamental part of the document on which this country is built. The proponents of having bibles along with prayer in schools allow their religious views to cloud their ability to respect the rules and regulations that were set fourth in the Constitution.
Another issue that consistently brings about intense arguments from both sides is the possible institution of vouchers that would allow parents to remove their child from the religiously neutral public school system and send them to a parochial school at a subsidized cost. Those who encourage the initialization of this program believe it to be a positive alternative that will appease those who want religion and wont have any affect on those who don’t. Supporters of vouchers believe that this will make it more financially feasible for a family to send their child to a religious school if they so please. These people fail to see the enormous amount of repercussions that will occur across the nation. These consequences will affect both those children who remain in the public schools and those who enter the parochial ones.
The members of society who believe in the issues of prayer in school and school vouchers are either directly or indirectly supporting federal funding for faith based operations. Some, like Tom Baxter of The Atlanta Journal, maintain that by enacting laws to permit such activities merely “bolster the legality of handing over state tax dollars to local religious institutions that provide needed social services.” However, allowing the government to fund any initiative or program that is based in any particular faith blatantly violates the separation of church and state. Not only does it violate the words penned in the Constitution but it also affords powers to the government over religions that the Founders intended to deny them.
There are two clauses of the First Amendment that are concerned with the relationship between government and religion. These clauses are The Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause. The Establishment Clause was intended to be clear-cut and absolute as to what it allowed and disallowed. The clause states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” therefore it forbids the government to establish a religion and also respecting the establishment of a religion. Originally this clause was set up to prevent the federal government from establishing, funding and declaring a national religion. Up until the twentieth century there was not much reference made to this clause because until then it was not applied to anything but the federal government and congress.
As chronicled by those at the First Amendment Center in the article “Religious Liberty in Public Life”, in 1947 the Supreme Court heard the case of Everson v. Board of Education; in this case by a 5 to 4 ruling the court upheld a state law that reimbursed the parents of parochial school students for the cost of busing their children to school. In conjunction with the 14th amendment -that guarantees the protection of life, liberty and property and protects against the deprivation of any without due process- the court ruled that the Establishment Clause was one of the liberties that is protected (“Religious…”). It was also made clear that in concurrence with the Establishment Clause the courts could not have ordered for the schools to be reimbursed as that would be considered as supporting a religious establishment and would be a violation. Despite the ruling all nine justices agreed that the Establishment Clause went far deeper than merely prohibiting the establishment of a national religion.
Following the Everson case the definition of establishment was debated, in the Everson case the court defined it to mean:
The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion…. Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.'(“Religious…”)
The continuous reference to the words of Thomas Jefferson depicting a wall that should separate church and state proves the validity of such a divider. Essentially it means that laws and on cases of this nature are to be dealt with in a concrete and absolute manner. A wall is a permanent structure that cannot be breached, broken through or passed by.
The constitution mandates that all public schools must maintain religious neutrality. With having over 20 recognized religious groups encompassing nearly 92% of the adult population in the United States in 2001 it is the responsibility of the various states to provide public schools which serve each student in an equal manner and do not intrude upon their assorted backgrounds or religions (ARIS 15). Government officials are supposed to remain impartial to religion and being that they are on a public payroll public school faculty members such as teachers and principals are government officials and are required to remain religiously neutral at all times (Durden). This means that they are not permitted to encourage religion in general, oppose any religion, or support any particular religion as being superior to any other.
The existence of prayer in any public school will either directly or indirectly affect each and every student. By having only one type or prayer, the required equality and religious neutrality no longer exist. Therefore the school is in violation of the Constitution.
The case of Engel v. Vitale deals with the First Amendment and its application to the issue of prayer in public schools. In the town of New Hyde Park, New York school officials were allowing a prayer to be said at the beginning of each school day. The New York Board of Regents which is the state’s highest educational body wrote this prayer. The prayer was made optional and intended to be “‘non-sectarian’ in nature and acceptable to Jews, Protestants, and Catholics”(Durso 79). However, numerous students of the school inquired if the prayer was against their beliefs, as well as those instilled in them by their parents. Several parents of the district’s students objected to the prayer in its entirety. In a 6 to 1 decision the Supreme Court ruled that the recitation of the prayer in New York public schools was unconstitutional. Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion and stated that he believed the Board of Regents was violating the Establishment Clause by rupturing the wall separating church and state. The Court also disagreed with the Board and believed that there was the existence of coercion due to the fact that the power, prestige and financial support were behind this prayer. Justice Black stated that when such support “is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain” (Durso 79).
Knowing that there would be opposition to this ruling Justice Black made it clear that the decision should not be construed as an articulation of opposition toward religion. He asserted that the decision, which claimed that government is not permitted to construct or support official prayers and that religious dealings are issues to be dealt with by individuals or religious leaders, was neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious. (Durso) Justice Black was correct in that there existed much opposition to the ruling. Justice Potter Stewart was the only dissenter in the decision on Engle v. Vitale and represented the beliefs of those who oppose the banning of prayer in schools. He claimed that the prayer was optional and that the ruling prevented the children who wanted to pray from being able to assert their right to freedom of speech and religion. (Durso)
Within one year of this decision other aspects of religious involvement in schools were brought to the Supreme Court. With an 8 to 1 majority the reading of bibles were outlawed in all public schools. This protected the vast number of members of other religions who the Justices felt should not be forced to hear what is preached in the bible. Another law was passed to ban the recitation of prayers prior to students sitting down to eat. These were victories in the eyes of those who believe in preserving the values and following the rules set fourth in the Constitution that state there should always be a separation of church and state.
Being that the sheer amount of members of the public school system makes it one of the most diverse entities in existence proves that there is the need for the separation of church and state. There are too many religious requirements among the members that it would be impossible to satisfy them all. Thus by eliminating the role of religion there is no favoritism of any one group over another. Finding a solution that does not completely disallow any and all prayer yet satisfies all parties as well as the Constitution is difficult.
Those who reject the ruling or believe that religion does have a place in public schools do have other alternatives. Prayer and religious elements are permissible in certain school related areas such as the flagpole, school buses, hallways, cafeteria, after-school student clubs, and before and after class. The right for a student to pray in the specified areas at the specified times is guaranteed and protected under the Constitution. Certain organizations that believe prayer in public schools should not only be allowed but also encouraged came up with an idea for an event that would enable students to express their religious beliefs at school. As described on the official organization’s website the event dubbed “See You at The Flag Pole” was started by a group of teenagers in Burleston, Texas (“What IsâÂ?¦”). The teenagers attended various high schools and along with their friends met around the school’s flagpole and prayed for their peers and friends. Later that year the participation grew to over 20,000 students and by 1991 the movement had gone national (Shepard). This event was a way for Christian students to find a way to bring their beliefs to school; they did so in a legal fashion and did not violate the Establishment Clause since there existed no government involvement. While this event is legal that is not to say it is not exclusive. Other non-Christian religions are not included in this event.
One solution that may appease all religions is to have a moment of silence. This could be a time for prayer, a time to reflect or just a time to relax. This solution would not favor the members of any one religion or those who do not subscribe to any one in particular or any at all.
Another solution that already exists today is the implementation of private and parochial schools. The United States permits such schools to have a religious distinction so that followers of that religion may learn about it in the privacy of their own schools and does not have to worry about governmental intervention.
Vouchers provide parents of public school students with a type of scholarship that help to lower the out of pocket expense for private school tuition. The federal government would allocate these vouchers and by doing so would effectively be promoting religion. Obviously promoting religion would be in violation of the first amendment. However that is only the root of the problem, by allowing the government to violate this amendment there would be an onslaught of additional consequences. By giving this money to the family the government would be removing the funding for that child from the public school he originally attended. Effectively by passing out these vouchers the government would be siphoning money from the public school system right into schools of religious affiliation. The consequences of ignoring this issue are apparent, the violation of the first amendment is only the first injustice, many more consequences would follow and the American public would bear the brunt of it.
It is obvious that funding from the federal government for faith-based initiatives is in violation of the separation of church and state. The drafters of the Constitution wanted to create a safeguard that would last forever that would prevent the government from not only instituting a national religion, but favoring any faith over another. By funding faith-based initiatives the federal government has exercised its power through one of the most influential avenues, money. The violation of the Establishment Clause is obvious. However it is essential to shed light on the consequences of allowing this violation to continue. In the middle of 2001 author John M. Swomley of ‘The Humanist’ in Buffalo, New York discussed one major ramification of tolerating this violation ; he spoke about the role of the president and said that “if Bush and his officials accept some faith – based groups and deny others, clearly the secular government our founding fathers deliberately and carefully bequeathed to us is crossing the line between church and state and intruding where government is forbidden to venture”(Swomley 38). By crossing the line that is drawn between church and state the government, namely the president, is entering an area that he was not intended to enter based upon the possibility of abuse of power. Permitting the government to aid faith-based programs gives them the right to exercise their power in whichever fashion they please. The founding fathers of this country did their best to prevent this from occurring because the repercussions of favoritism of any religion are very severe.
The separation of church and state intended to assert clearly that the federal government is not granted any power over religion either negatively or positively (Hamburger). Many of the founders of the United States of America were in fact Christians themselves however they believed that religion should be a personal matter and thus they intended to establish a government that was secular. The Constitution does not possess any mention of God; “the omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate” (Allen 1), subsequently providing proof of the Founders’ legitimate intention of removing religion from government (Brooke). The Founders wanted to protect the new nation from experiencing any encroachment of their rights by religious institutions and by “requiring a separation of church and state, [the Constitution] mercifully spares [the public] the inevitable injustice of being judged by the religious beliefs of others”(Parrish 11a). This idea of separation was included to protect the citizens of the United States of America from the suffering that comes along with religious oppression. By remaining apathetic and allowing such lax interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution the freedoms and liberties that the citizens of this country hold so dearly are being encroached upon. If not stopped, this entanglement and intertwining of public life and religion will lead to severe consequences.
