Separation of Church and State

Separation of Church and State

Ashley Prim

"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized.  Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business.  As a result of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution.  Thomas Jefferson originally coined the phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.  His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them.  The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The phrase separation of church and state did not come into the educational picture until the Supreme Court ruled in 1947 during the hearing of Everson vs. Board of Education.  The court was asked to decide whether tax revenues could be used to transport students to private Catholic schools.  A New Jersey law had allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school in buses operated by the public transportation system.  Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy.  A taxpayer filed suit saying that the Board should not be able to reimburse parents of children who attend parochial schools with the taxpayer dollars—seeing that taxes were there to support public schools.  The court rejected this complaint stating that taxes were being used for a public purpose—educating children.  The fact that the use of the money coincided with someone’s personal desires did not render the law unconstitutional.

In West Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943), that no one could be compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance.  In Engle vs. Vitale (1962), the court decided that teachers and school administrators, as agents of the state, could not lead students in prayer.  In Lee vs. Weisman (1991), the court expanded its doctrine in Engle and declared that outside clergy could not be brought in to say prayers at official school events.  The court created the Doctrine of Coercion, which stated that the rights of nonreligious students were violated if religious activities took place in a public place, even if they were not forced to participate.  Finally, in Santa Fe the court ruled in the case of Independence School District vs. Doe an expansion of the coercion doctrine that stated students could not lead prayers at official school events.  In 2003, the court dismissed the case about the Pledge of Allegiance being a religious doctrine.  However, if they had ruled in favor of this, the words “under God” would have to be removed from the Pledge.

Currently, the law has been broken down into two sides, what is prohibited and what is not.  According to current legislation, the law prohibits schools from requiring students to recite prayers in class and at high school games, from promoting any one denomination or religion at the expense of another, from banning the wearing of religious clothing and symbols, from praying before Board of Education meetings.  The law allows some benedictions and prayers at graduation ceremonies.  The law also allows the teaching of certain aspects of religion, such as in history, literature, comparative religion, etc.  Student religious clubs, moments of silence, prayer outside of the school building are all permitted.

The pros and cons of separation of church and state are still widely debated.  Specifically, there seems to be two sides to the debate of prayer in school.  Those who favor prayer in school feel as though to ban school prayer diminishes the religious freedom of students who would like to pray and forces them to act according to the dictates of a non-religious minority.  They also feel that a simple and voluntary school prayer does not amount to the government establishing a religion, any more than do other practices common in the U.S. such as the employment of Congressional chaplains or government recognition of holidays with religious significance.  School prayer would result in many societal benefits. The public school system is tragically disintegrating as evidenced by the rise in school shootings, increasing drug use, alcoholism, teen pregnancy, and HIV transmission. School prayer can help combat these issues, would instill a sense of morality and is desperately needed to protect our children.  School prayer would address the needs of the whole person. Schools must do more than train children’s minds academically. They must also nurture their souls and reinforce the values taught at home and in the community.  School prayer would allow religious students an opportunity to observe their religious beliefs during the school day. The U.S. Supreme Court has urged school cooperation with religious authorities for “it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.”

Those who are not in favor of prayer in schools feel as though their rights are being violated in the opposite sense.  This party feels that school prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which provides that government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.  Since public schools are government funded, prayer led by school officials or incorporated into the school routine amounts to government-established religion.  They also agree that prayer in schools violates the separation of church and state.  These supporters feel that public schools are intended for education, not religious practices.  Also, it is felt that school prayer may lead to intolerance. Public prayer may highlight religious differences of which students may have been unaware. Those students who abstain from school prayer may be ostracized.  Critics feel that school prayer is inherently coercive and cannot be implemented in a way that is truly voluntary.  They also agree that the public school system is created for all students and supported by all taxpayers.  It should therefore remain neutral on religious issues over which students and taxpayers will differ.