Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Church-state relations essay
An essay on the relationship between the state and the church
First Amendment rights in schools
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Church-state relations essay
Abington vs. Schempp In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that prayer should not be recited in public schools, but then again in 1963 there were some people that said that forbidding recitation of prayer was not enough. This issue was brought to the Supreme Court in the case Abington vs. Schempp. There were four states, one of which was Pennsylvania, that required ten verses of the Bible to be read every morning, and then students had to recite the Lord's Prayer. In a previous court case, students could be excused from the prayer recitation by a written note from the parents. In the most recent court case, Engel vs. Vitale it was decided that requiring students to recite the Lord's Prayer infringed on their First Amendment rights to have freedom of religion. Being required to pray the Lord's Prayer was forcing them to be Christian-like. But the required Bible reading had not been eliminated in that court case so Edward Schempp made an attempt get rid of it. Edward Schempp had a son in the public school in the Abington school district who said that he did not believe in Jesus, his birth, or in the Trinity so the Bible readings were against his belief. Since he was forced to attend the devotions in the morning he was being denied his First Amendment rights. The Abington school district countered the argument saying that the Bible taught good morals that all kids should learn to have. The Pennsylvania District Court ruled in favor of Schempp saying that required Bible reading violated the Free Exercises clause of the First Amendment. Even though a parent could excuse their child, it did not prevent the school from violating the First Amendment. Abington was not pleased with the results and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court also... ... middle of paper ... ...when the Reformation started to spread from Germany to the Netherlands, to Switzerland, etc. So from history I think that on earth, in our world, Church and State can not be combined. So in a way the Court's rulings were good, but the fact that it caused America to become quite ungodly makes me want to choose the middle line. It was good and bad in my opinion. Jeremiah 18:15 is another good verse: "Because my people hath forgotten me, they have burned incense to vanity, and they have caused them to stumble in their ways from the ancient paths, to walk in paths, in a way not cast up." I think this verse accurately describes America. By forbidding prayer and Bible reading in public schools, and "burning incense to vanity" they forgot the Christian principles that America was founded on, America went from a relatively Christian nation to a very, very ungodly nation.
This example of a Supreme Court case shows that the court is not above politics. Even though most Americans, including government officials, practiced some form of Christianity, the judges were not willing to compromise the information in the Constitution for the popular beliefs of individuals. I agree with the Supreme Court in its decision to ban the practice of prayer in public schools. Not only does it violate the Constitution, but it encroaches on our freedom of thought and action. Being excluded from a public classroom because of personal beliefs does not sound just.
When it came down to the government during the convention of May 1776, instead of protecting our rights they had passed them down causing us to be under common law. If one had denied the Christian faith and went against everything it believed in, such as, “there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military,” (Jefferson 176). This is what most people had thought about if you did not follow their religion. Thomas Jefferson believed that the wall between church and state should be very high in order to keep out and prevent hostile situations. Using an example from today’s news, many people get uncomfortable in the United Stated with the Muslim religion because of the previous horrific events that led to many cruel deaths in our history. By this, the way that we look at these people is forever changed because of the incidents and who knows if we will ever not be hostile with one another because of it. If church and state hadn’t been separated we may have not become a true democracy from what our developing country was seeming to lead towards. More people would not be as accepting of each other, and not that they are still not today, but I feel as if it may
The general court was set on a path to separating the beliefs of the church and the government. Luckily, years later a law would be passed in the Constitution that separates church and state.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case is a litigation that was brought by an atheist father seeking for a determination of the constitutionality of the practice of recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students since it contained the phrase “under God.” The Supreme Court had two major issues to determine i.e. whether Newdow had the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the practice and school board’s policy and whether the phrase “under God” was an infringement of the Establishment Clause of the country’s constitution. In its ruling, the Supreme Court argued that Michael Newdow did not have the legal standing to file the litigation since he was a non-custodial parent.
The Protestants who emigrated to America knew from experience of the negative effect the government had on religion when the two were operating together. With the mindset of creating a new, perfect holy land, they decided to make sure both church and state worked separately. While Puritans still did everything they could to enforce their beliefs in New England, including exiling those who did not attend church regularly, the core idea of separation of church and state was in the minds of the people. In order to have a country that values the freedom of religion, the church has to be out of any government policy. Any laws that are created around a single church’s faith, even if the majority of the population believes in them, threaten the freedoms of all other denominations.
The Supreme Court's previous last major school-prayer ruling was announced in 1992, and barred clergy-led prayers at public school graduation ceremonies. "The Constitution forbids the state to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation," the court said then. Many viewed the ruling as a strong reaffirmation of the highest court's 1962 decision banning organized, officially sponsored prayers from public schools.
The case Engel v. Vitale in 1962 decided that school prayer is unconstitutional. With this case, it was pointed out that the students were to "voluntarily" recite the following prayer: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country." The court ruled that this rule was unconstitutional according to the First Amendment's "establishment clause," which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The case Elk Grove Unified School District versus Newdow came about when a student parent, Michael Newdow, an atheist, has a disagreement with the Pledge of Allegiance. Elk Grove Unified School District is a public elementary school where teachers begin the day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is considering being voluntary. Under California law, all elementary schools must recite the Pledge of Allegiance once a day unless those student object due to their religion. As stated before, in 1954 the Congressional Act added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow took it upon himself to review the School District policy referring to the religious portion. This caused Michael Newdow to sue in the federal district court in California, stating making students listen to the Pledge of Allegiance, even if the students do not choose to participate to the word “under God” violates the establishment clause of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
"God help, I'm so lost!" If you listen carefully, this is a common thought that is heard throughout many schools in the nation. Is this thought appropriate? The following statement clearly shows that the law allows students and adults to practice religion, but at the same time be respective of others and their beliefs even if they do believe or if they don't. "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, or to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (First Amendment, The Constitution of the United States). Prayer is not normally permitted as a scheduled part of classroom activities, because it would result in the violation of the principle of church-state separation, which has been defined by court interpretations of the 1st Amendment to the U.S, Constitution. The separation principle is extended to Public school as an arm of the government, with an exception which can be permitted if, during the school year, a mixture of prayers, statements, etc are delivered, using material derived from a number of different religions and secular sources. So far, this has never been tried in a school or ruled upon by a court (Religion in Public).
Prohibiting School Prayer Threatens Religious Liberty. Civil Liberties. Ed. James D. Torr. -. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003.
Prayer in School: Good or Bad? As secular humanists and groups like the Christian Coalition are at war with each other regarding prayer in high schools behind closed doors in Washington DC, the average high school kid is the one that gets caught in the middle. For years now there has been a heated debate about whether or not prayer should be allowed in school. Every time the argument is rekindled, it ends in a stalemate, and is a topic that campaigning politicians tend to stay away from.
The Supreme Court ruled on two landmark cases related to prayer in schools. Public schools cannot sponsor Bible reading (Abington versus Schempp, 1963). The Lemon case of 1971 specified public schools may not teach courses in religion only public school courses.
While students are attending public schools they should be aware of their religion options. The student should have the right to practice their religion as they please, just on the own time. Yes, religion plays a huge part in molding a person but, should be practiced when the time is available, not in a classroom setting. The government should have the ability to control the protection of the students that just want to learn. The capability to regulate the religious practices while attending public educational institutions should be left to the government. Faith, religion and belief, usually are three words that are used to describe one situation, although these words have three different meanings. To have faith in something or someone you must first believe in it and also accept it as well, but have a belief without evidence. Religion is a belief in a heavenly superhuman power or principle, such as the almighty or creator to all things. Everyone has faith and belief, but not all believers believe in the almighty. Allowing religion into public schools while everyone attending not having the same belief is unfair, unconstitutional and is complicated to teach to a verity of students.
Annie Laurie Gaylor quoted Thomas Jefferson in her article The Case Against School Prayer, “No citizen shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever…” and that to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of [religious] opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical” (Gaylor, 1995, p. 7). No man should have to be subject to anything that he does not believe in. Prayer should not be allowed in the public school system because of the idea of separation of church and state and the First Amendment.