Separation of Church and State - Michael Martusus

The idea of separation of church and state has been discussed by scholars for over 2000 years. This view came to the forefront in the Western world during the enlightenment period (17th century). The Philosophers of this time period, especially John Locke, will directly influence the founding fathers on this topic when developing the United States constitution. The first major challenge came about when clarifying freedom of religion in the 1st amendment. Our third president Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter in 1802 which he coined the phrase, “Wall of separation between church and state”. This phrase will go hand in hand with many Supreme Court decisions and is still a highly debated topic today with many pros and cons.


The advantages and disadvantages of separation of church and state for U.S. citizens are clearly written in the 1st amendment in our Constitution. These clauses are the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause.

(Pros)
First, the Establishment Clause states that the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. This right has not allowed the government to declare and financially support a national religion. The government must remain neutral towards all religions. This clause will be challenged by state governments throughout the United States history. For example: The Supreme Court case in 1962 of Engel VS. Vitale. The state of New York approved a voluntary prayer at the beginning of each school day. The prayer read as followed: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." The question arose; does this nondenominational prayer violate the establishment of religious clause of the first amendment? Yes it does. By New York providing this prayer it is supporting an official state religion. If this was accepted in New York what would stop other states from passing their own approved religion. This would be extremely discriminatory towards students of different religious faiths. The government would be able to influence our student’s moral values and their secular views.

Second, banning formal school prayer is a benefit for the student body as a whole. With so many religions practiced in the U.S. and with the various denominational differences a school would not be able to assure a positive spiritual experience for all the attending students. This would create a split in the student body thus hurting the main objectives of the institution which is to educate the students. For example: The social/political climate in the U.S. has changed immensely since the 17th century. The roots of public education started when the Puritans passed legislation in 1642 requiring all children to attend school so they could read and understand the principles of their Christian religion. They wanted to ensure that their children would grow up committed to their religious doctrines. However with today’s diverse population this idea would never be feasible.

Third, public school systems are created for all students and paid for by taxpayers. If a public school supported one religion and allowed prayer in the school the tax payer who is not of that religious sect would not feel obligated to support the school financially. This would affect the school budget, let alone split the parents, the board of education, and the political structure within the municipality. For example: If a public school placed a Christmas tree in the lobby and had the students recite Matthew 1:18-25 (story of Jesus’ birth) the other religious sects (Islam, Jewish, Buddhist, or Hindu) would feel their religious beliefs were not being supported by the educational institution. Thus, their taxes would not be beneficial for their child’s education.

(CONS)
First, the Free Exercise Clause in the Constitution states that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This means people can worship their religion without government interference unless it breaks the law. This has become freedom from religion not freedom of religion. To ban school prayer takes away a student’s religious freedom and forces them to act in a manner that is uniform of the institution they are attending. Students lose the freedom to express themselves. This can hinder their education because they are following an institutions way of thought and not their own.

Second, school prayer would benefit students in schools. The public school systems have been decaying over time. This is evident by the alarming rise of drug use, teen pregnancy, school shootings, and the transfer of sexual transmitted diseases among the students. If school prayer was allowed it would help fight theses issues. It would establish a sense of morality within the children. Also, school prayer would address the needs of the whole student. Schools would not just be preparing the students academically but would strengthen values that are taught at their homes and throughout the community.

Third, prayer in school could help students achieve higher on the state tests. If a student is allowed to pray in school it will set their mind at ease. If student’s minds are at ease then they are able to concentrate more with task on hand. With every public school district struggling to achieve AYP this would be a good idea. If a school was allowed to have a school prayer before everyday then students would have the ability to confirm their faith and have a positive outlook for the day. When taking tests a positive attitude can go a long way to passing.

In conclusion, there are many pros and cons with the separation of church and state. Both views can be argued to what is beneficial for the development of for the students in our school systems.