Is school prayer constitutional based on the 1st amendment?

Question

First let me be Clear I am not a member of the religious right and havn't been to church in yrs. I am a constitutionalist. First i find it of nocoincidence that the fouding fathers grouped religion in with free speach, free press and free assembly. Many of you have learned about the separation of church and stat but few actually know exactly what the constituion says and more on what is taught in schools and reported on the news.
!st Amendment:
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, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
The historians among us know that it is through Judicial means that prayer in Public buildings ie schools was percieved as tacit approval of a religion and this is how modern law hads come into being
But I am reffering to original intent.

It seems to me that banning individual voluntary prayer is a violation the preventing free expression and freedom of speach clauses of the 1st \Amendment and that judicial interpretation was flawed. My other objection to modern law is the adoption of atheism as a religion in a legal sense. This seems to go against common sense

Again to keep things focused I have no dipute over what current law is or how it got there My question is not reffering to judicial interpretation just what the constitution says about the subjectfor all other agument derive from this premis

Jack You particular take is closest ot my own however manyloca school boards do not follow this line of thought. Many exclude the introduction of faith in any officially santioned school funtion and some go much further than than in violation of the constitution IMHO. Your thoughts also beg the question of why scholl vouchers are such a hot topic for clearly if one used a voucher to send ones child to a musliim madras or a chatholic school it would not violate the constitution or anyones individual rights as it allows individual to excersize their rights without the government officially supporting any one belief system

Beach Bum- I won't degenerate this into a battle of quotes suffice it to say that the quote you used was one of many in support of both positions. and the man you quoted was from one of the two most secular of our founding fathers Madison and Jefferson. Patrick henry, Washington and Hamilton all expressed support for public funding of religion to some degree or another.

Answer 1

The previous answers are either, vague or incorrect. The bottom line on current judicial thinking is as follows:

Per the "Establishment Clause," it is unlawful for schools to initiate any form of prayer in schools or at school events, such as graduations or sporting events, etc.

Per the "Free Exercise Clause," students are free to pray at school, and organize non-faculty-led prayer or Bible study groups. They may even request the use of school facilities for these meetings, as the Supreme Court has ruled that these groups have as legitimate a claim as any other student organization like Junior Achievement or the Chess Club.

I hope this helps

Answer 2

How on Earth can we determine what the proposers and ratifiers of the 1st amendment intended, insofar as public schools are concerned, when there were no public schools that existed when the 1st amendment was created?

The best evidence of what was intended is their behavior. I highly recommend that people here should look up a case called Marsh v. Chambers, 1983. Unfortunately, I don't have the rest of the cite nor do I have a link. That case was about "legislative chaplains." Is it constitutionally permissible for the legislatures to hire chaplains who lead prayer in the legislative chambers? Six of the nine members of the Court said that it is permissible. They explicitly arrived at their conclusion on the grounds that they discerned the intentions of the proposers by their actions. The other three members of the Court -- the ones who dissented, who said that legislative chaplains are unconstitutional -- came about one inch away from saying that the proposers of the 1st amendment were hypocrites. They didn't literally put it that way, of course, but they came close. What is interesting about the dissenters in Marsh is that they said that the words of the 1st amendment are more important than the fact that the proposers didn't obey the law they created.

The position taken by the dissenters in Marsh begs an interesting question. How to you discern the intent of hypocrites?

Answer 3

It isn't actually separation of church and state in America but the Establishment clause and this means a state religion can not be established and saying prayers in a public school would suggest that there is a state religion. I went to school when prayers were still being said and I resented it, even among Christians there are differences in sects so there are Christian Ministers and perhaps priests but of that I am not certain but I have heard ministers who objected to it. What that teacher and coach are doing is not Constitutional.

Answer 4

Making an outward expression of prayer while in school should not even be an issue reguarding the First Amendment. By a vast liberal stretch praying in school could be encompass through the First Amendment.

The issue at hand is a simple conflict between people who do not want their children to be exposed or influenced by God or 'a god', and people who teach their children to pray and fear God.The first group of people believe their children have the right to not be surrounded by religion in school, the second group believes that all children have the right to or not to express religion so long as they respect others.

Now, there is a problem with the first idea. A debatable issue with the second idea. If you say, "No prayer in school" ~code for 'No God in school' the separation between Church and State would then be breached. How could this ever be possible??? Very simple, the practice of a godless life is a religion in its self, Secularism. To impose this on any child is finitely consolidating Church and State. The only way to maintain the separation is to be tolerant of everybodies right to express..as long as the practice upholds to the Bill of Rights which every citizen is entitled to. The debatable issue is really a matter of common sense. Children goto school to learn. Children cannot disrupt other children from the learning process. The debat comes down to this, when is it approprate to pray in school? It is certainly not inapproprate to pray while in school, however, there are certainly times when it would not be approprate to pray during school.

Answer 5

I think he has a valid point OU812 says that there is nothing wrong with privately saying prayers but courts have rulles moments of silence for prayer or contemplation as unconstitutional. he also never said organizational prayer he is talking about individual public expresion of religion. An example would be a student reading a prayer at a non compulsory assembly such after a tragedy or death. Under current law and policies in many areas this in not allowed. certainly he is not advocating school led prayer.

Answer 6

I tried to email you back but it said your email was not confirmed.

I am going to paste what I typed in that email.

Because of the questionable wording of the 4th amd, don't you think many politicians and the courts have examined the writings of the forefathers to fully understand exactly what they meant? = YES

Here is just one result of that examination.. a quote by Jefferson "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinion, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/churchstate.html

EMPHASIS on the last sentence... "thus building a wall of separation.."

WIth all that said, if you examine some of my previous answers to this exact debate, I don't even make that argument. I base my argument on exactly what the US Supreme Court based their argument on. And if you had done your research, you would find that the US Supreme Court ruled prayer could not be allowed in public schools as structured time NOT because of separation of church and state but because of the wording of the 4th Amd. that states (in summary) you can't allow just ONE type of prayer based on ONE religion.

The courts ruled that if you allow a moment of silence to bow your heads (christian), u have to allow kneeling, chanting.. on and on for each individual religion.

Answer 7

The Supreme Court ruled on this in 1955. To me, that's original intent!

Seriously, the Supreme Court decision should be your first point of departure after reading the applicable sections of the Constitution. The website below will take you directly to a good summary of the decision. It's in layman's terms, and has other links.

Answer 8

The question isn't whether the constitution allows schools to organize prayer time in public schools. If you're really referring to "original intent," the question is where in the constitution does it permit the federal government to pay for schools with tax money.

Answer 9

You simply haven't read or understood the cases and the issues. Restricting prayer to out-of-hours places and meetings does not constitute official atheism. Nor did the "founding fathers" promote religion; and anyway that is irrelevant to what the Constittution means today. It means no more and no less than what the Supreme Court says it means. Not what you or I read into it.

Answer 10

God this gets old.
Organized prayer in school is not constitutionally protected.
It is not ok to force your religion onto others.
There is nothing wrong with privately saying your prayers; but you may not interfere with the education of others or force your prayers onto others.