Prayer in School and the Changes That Have Come - Essay Example

In the year 1963, an Atheist woman, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who was closely knit with the communist party, took the Baltimore County school district to court for allowing students to pray in school. At first, the case with dismissed, as the judged recognized this woman’s motives. She then took the case to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Again, the case was dismissed, as the judge stated that neither the first or fourteenth amendment was designed to separate religion and government. Finally, when she took the case to the Supreme Court, she got the results she wanted. An eight to one ruling was made in favor of abolishing not only school prayers, even the reading of the Bible was prohibited at any time on school property (Free to Pray). Since this case in 1963, the legislation in regards to prayer in schools has changed considerably over these next decades. In the year of 1962, a year before the Murray V. Curlett case in 1963, mandated prayer in schools was done away with. This was the result of the ruling that took place in the case of Engel v. Vitale. This case changed America in numerous ways. For one, it caused a lot of controversy between those who were conservative Christians and those who were not. It also caused schools that were once founded on religious principles and to instruct students in a certain faith to be disallow to continue doing this any further. Then there was the Christian Right, which was a movement started by conservative Christians who were angered by the case ruling (Dierenfield, 240). It didn’t stop there, as the Murray v. Curlett case would cause more damage. After the case of Murray v. Curlett, religion was completely shut out of schools. Not only were people disallowed to pray, the Bible was prohibited on school grounds (Free to Pray). It is safe to say that because of these rulings, students caught reading the Bible faced severe penalties, as well as persecution from school staff. No hint of religion was to be mentioned or displayed. While in school, it was as if the students had to cut ties with their religion, as if their beliefs did not apply for that portion of the day. In June of 2000, the Supreme Court, in a six to three ruling, made the decision that prayers led by students before a school sponsored event, such as a football game, is unconstitutional. John Paul Stevens, who represented the majority, stated that students have the right to pray privately before, during, and after the school day; however, they could not pray over the school’s loudspeakers, and they could not say prayers for the entire student body, as this is not considered to be praying in private. Rather, praying over loudspeakers and praying to represent an entire student body is considered public prayer. It was not too long ago that students were prohibited to pray in the classrooms (Prayer Found Unconstitutional by Supreme Court, 10). Some would say that being allowed to pray in private is a major improvement from not being allowed to pray at all; however, there were others who felt that this ruling was problematic. For instance, Kelly Shackelford, who is in association with Legal Liberty institute, a group IN Texas that defends the freedom of religion of people in the area, states that such a ruling infringes upon people’s right to freedom of speech because for the first time in American history, the highest court in the nation is starting to sensor private citizens’ religious speech, as they are putting stipulations as to how students can go about praying in school. He worries that this ruling could lead to worse things, such as the censoring of speech altogether down the line. He is alarmed about the decision and feels that people need to stand up against it (Prayer Found Unconstitutional by Supreme Court, 10). This man is not alone in is feelings, as others have spoken out about the ruling. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of those who voted against the ruling, states that such a ruling could cause people to react in a hostile fashion against religion altogether (Prayer Found Unconstitutional by Supreme Court, 10). Though there are those who disagree with this ruling and are completely against it with every fiber of their being, others feel differently, as they are in support of it. Rabbi David Saperstein, who directs the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, says that such a ruling is sensible. He holds this view because he feels that someone praying publicly could infringe upon the religious rights and freedoms of others who do not share that person’s beliefs (Prayer Found Unconstitutional by Supreme Court, 10). People who may belong to another religion may feel awkward, as it may be expected of them to participate in the prayer, even though they do not pray to that particular god or belong to that particular faith. In the year of 2003, new legislation works in favor of conservative Christians, as new laws are passed to protect prayer in school. The new federal guidelines enable students to lead prayers publicly before and during school sponsored events, whereas before, this was not at all allowed. Conservative Christians finally feel a since of relief, as they feel like their right to practice their religion will not be censored. Numerous organizations in favor of prayer in school were elated with the ne guidelines. For instance, Kevin Hasson, who is the president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, an organization that protected a New Jersey student’s right to red the Bible in class, felt that it was wonderful that conservatives now have a foothold and that their religious rights and freedoms would be protected. Those on the opposing side, however, are outraged with the new guidelines. They state that such guidelines could be used as a tool for harassing students who do not share the same beliefs and that students will be forced to engage in religious activities that may make them feel uncomfortable. In regards to the issue, one opposer, Barry Lynn, who is the executive director of an organization known as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says that this will give students lead way in praying publicly at school events. He blames the Bush Administration for these new guidelines and considers them to be majorly flawed. He states how adamant he is about schools not following such guidelines. Despite what thee opposers say, people are free to pray in school no matter their religion, as schools that disallow certain prayers will lose out on federal funding (Toppo, 10d) Though here are guidelines being established that are designed to protect the religious right and freedoms of all religious groups, there is still much controversy between those who are for and against prayer in school. One might think that everyone would be satisfied with the new guidelines, being that no one’s religious liberties will be trampled upon. However, there are still those who feel that no religion should be practiced in school at all. But because religion is a major part of the lives of many people, it is impossible to turn it off for a certain time frame. Belief systems control a lot of what a person does, how he thinks, and how he views things. For this very reason, there will always be people fighting to protect religious freedoms in the schools. As far as future political trends are concerned, it is difficult to determine which direction legislation will go. One might speculate that since we are in a more tolerable era, religious rights and freedoms will be better protected. After all, schools allow students to be openly homosexual. As a matter of fact, students who decide to live the alternative lifestyle are protected from bullying and hate speech. So if homosexuals are allowed to openly express their views, so can those of multiple faiths. Political trends could also take another turn, as religious freedoms could be denied. The reason this might happen is because many religious groups strongly dislike people who are homosexuals, and school districts may feel that being allowed to openly express religious views and pray during school hours and on school grounds could cause a great deal of disharmony. Only time will tell whether or not legislation will be in favor of prayer in schools in the years to come. Work Cited Dierenfield, Bruce. The Battle over School Prayer. How Engel v. Vitale Changed America. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007. "Prayer Found Unconstitutional by Supreme Court." Curriculum Administrator 36 Issue 7(2000): 10. "Supreme Court Cases." Free to Pray. Jan. 2009. 7 May 2009 . Toppo, Greg. "School Prayer Gets a Boost." USA Today 11 February 2003: 10d. Read More