The debate surrounding religion in school is alive and well. Given the overbearing importance religion often has in many peoples’ lives, it is readily visible that parents would not want their children’s practice of religion tampered with by the government. However, because of current interpretation of the 1st Amendment’s so-called “establishment” clause, government interference is inevitable, as the law relates to the practice of religion in schools. An Edweek.org article, “Religion in Schools” gives a brief overview of some of the main issues involving the practice of religion in schools. Although not in depth at all, the article does what it purports to do, giving a basic and introductory knowledge of some of the issues relevant to the issue.
The first matter the author addresses is an explanation of the root of the whole furor surrounding prayer in schools: the text of the 1st Amendment. Noting that common belief of the 1st Amendment’s interpretation amounts to disestablishmentarianism, the author explains that what government really seeks to do is “balance that separation with the prescribed religious freedom.” Citing relevant Supreme Court cases, the author explains that government’s efforts at preserving religious freedom in schools has had some success, while establishing guidelines regarding what circumstances do and do not allow for religious practice. For example, the author notes that while students are free to pray, they are not free to pray when the act would be perceived as “disruptive, discriminatory, or coercive to peers who may not share those same beliefs.” Essentially, then, Court precedent amounts to freedom of religion, as well as the freedom to keep religion to one’s self.
From the government’s perspective, though, the matter is much more clearly cut. As the 1st Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it is easily seen why government seeks to have its proverbial hands completely clean of the matter, so as not to run afoul of Constitutional guidelines. The article refers to a few cases where government clearly sought to curb freedoms amounting to either state “establishment” of religion or “coercion” of students’ rights to refrain from religion. For example, the article refers to the Court decision in West Virginia State B.O.E. v. Barnette (1941), which stated students did not have to recite the pledge of allegiance, due to the inherent constraints upon the exercise of free opinion, which indeed may reflect a person’s religious inclination. As with relation to this example, government policy toward religion in schools follows the precedent of other cases, including those pertaining to the teaching of religious theory in school. The article concludes with a brief reference to more current issues, giving a quick glance toward the controversy surrounding vouchers and the firestorm surrounding their potential for “establishing religion” by fusing government money with religious educational institutions.
In general, the article provides a decent enough overview of the most pertinent issues surrounding the 1st Amendment and its applicability to religion in schools. Where the article falls woefully short, though, is in its usefulness as a true point of initiation for continued research into this subject. When the author makes references to important Court decisions, no reference to the specific cases are extant so that the reader may readily continue research independent of the article. Adding specific reference to even a few of these individual cases would give this article much more value as an introductory tool into the expanse of material available involving religion and school. Fortunately, the article contains links to additional resources that shore up the lacking information. As a stand-alone piece, though, the article does do what it intends, even though it certainly could have done more.
References
Education Week. Religion in Schools. Retrieved October 31, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=60.