Do people really understand the idea of separation of church and state?

Question

In the USA, you hear a lot about people saying that there should be absolutely NO religion in school, that people shouldn't be able to do much of anything to do with the bible in school, etc etc.. Everyone always brings it back around to the idea of separation of church and state.

I'm curious how many times this gets misinterpreted ... In the First Amendment, it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It does NOT say that NO religion can be practiced, etc. In fact, if you read, it says that there shall be NO law prohibiting the free exercise thereof!! How is it then that it seems illegal to allow any kind of religion in school?

I am not referring to forced, required classes, but to things like not even allowing prayer events, etc.

From my understanding, which may be a little off I will admit, the 'founding fathers' wanted to keep the gov't from establishing an "only religion" etc.

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

That particular clause in the first amendment is not being “misunderstood” it is being “misrepresented.” As you note there is a second part to that clause that says. “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

That is why all these laws prohibiting the placing of the Ten Commandments’, nativity scenes and restricting prayer in school are all UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Answer 2

"It does NOT say that NO religion can be practiced, etc. "

But it DOES say that the government cannot sponsor religion in any way. Everything taught in a *public school* is absolutely sponsored by the government. So one of those things taught in public school CANNOT be religion, ANY religion. Period. I'm sure you would agree with that much. No? (If you disagree, then I would say that it is you who clearly does not understand the First Amendment.)

The gray areas are the things that occur in public schools that are not part of the official government-sanctioned teaching curriculum.

If a student wants to say a private prayer before class, then that is clearly protected according to the First Amendment. What if a group of 4 or 5 students wants to have a little prayer circle during recess? IMO, clearly protected. But what if students sponsor a Christian Fellowship club in which 80% of the students participate, and 20% are excluded because they are Jewish or Muslim or Atheist? At this point this is clearly using public (state-sponsored) school grounds to promote religion.

What about having LAWS stating that every morning the teacher shall lead the children in a ritualized speech that includes the phrase "one nation, under God." Saying that this is optional doesn't give those two Atheist students at the back many options. They have two choices: (A) sit, and be unpatriotic (and suffer the social repercussions of being outsiders), or (B) stand and swear a belief in God. Either way, this is a state law requiring a 7-year-old child to take a stand on his or her religious beliefs EVERY SINGLE MORNING. How did we ever allow this to happen in our public school system? How is that NOT a state-sponsored prayer?

Get the point? If it was just a few people wanting to say a private prayer, then nobody would care ... this not only *allowed* by the First Amendment, but *protected* by it.

But time and again, the religious right has pushed for the inclusion of *organized* religion in public schools, and in many cases (such as the Pledge of Allegiance) they have been successful. *This* is where the First Amendment draws (or should draw) the line.

Answer 3

You're right on the point that the Founding Fathers didn't want the Gov't establishing one religion over all others. Most of them had already been thru that. But, it's up to the individual states as to how they handle it too. Before O-Hare or anyone had anything to do with removing lead religious practices from public schools, the schools determined how they would handle this. In Cincinnati, Ohio in the late 1800's they REFUSED to read the Bible at their school. The Board did not agree with including something so personal on children that may or may not even follow that particular religion.

Personally, I don't care if kids pray in school or have bible study before or after school... I don't care if they say a prayer before a football game either. I do care, however, if they decide to Preach one religion over another... I disagree with Lead Prayer or any other religious practice being Lead by the school/teachers/etc... It's not up to the public school system to give my child a religion. My taxes go to those schools as well and I won't have my child subjected to such things... and I wouldn't expect anyone else's kid to be subjected to it either. I believe religion is a personal thing, something one shouldn't Lead another person to.... it's something each person has to do on their own.

Answer 4

I suppose the meaning has been perverted. I don't approve of all these bans on public expression of religious convictions; I'm not overly taken with evangelicals,but I've seen them routed out of parks by the police when they were minding their own business with a little outdoor prayer circle. They don't that to American Buddhists,who use the parks - as is certainly their right - just as much and for the same purpose. It would be interesting to discover who is behind all these Supreme Court and state Supreme Court cases that kind of stand separation of church & state on it's head - who financed these cases? Somebody is paying a lot to push this agenda,and the laws (case law,actually) thereby arising are obviously enforced with discrimination. Christianity seems to be the target; I might not like every denomination but it is (or was) a free country; anyway,I think everyone has a right to freedom of expression,without government harassment or persecution - I don't care if they're Mormons or Wiccans or Orthodox Jews or New Agers,or anyone else. As far as the fact that some groups are admittedly irksome (Hare Krishnas,for example),well,as John Kennedy said, "Our capacity for tolerance is not measured by our response to those with whom we agree but rather to those with whom we disagree." Let's try to find out who's behind all these upside-down "interpretative" (case) laws that didn't pass any legislature or Congress.

Answer 5

Nobody has a problem with religion being expressed. The problems comes in that people wish to be free from forced religious expression.

For example, there's no reason why my children should be forced to sit through a school-sponsored prayer during instructional time (though, if other children wish to pray to themselves, I have no issues with that). There's also no reason why I can't pledge my allegiance to the flag without stating that we're a nation "under God." The list can go on for quite some time.

Answer 6

The Establishment clause clearly states that no ONE specific religion can be established as superior, which means no class prayers, as there are, believe it or not, quite a few different religions in the world and country.
If it's a school event promoting the Bible, it's unconstitutional as it is establishing an official religion.

Answer 7

I believe your understanding is correct.

Perhaps it would help to describe some scenarios.

I believe it is constitutional for a public school to facilitate a morning devotional of a format approved by a committee of interested students and/or faculty.

It would not be constitutional if only Christians were allowed on the committee.

A devotional could take many forms including a prayer, an inspirational thought, or a moment of silence out of respect for someone who recently died.

Answer 8

Regarding the separation of Church and State, that phrase does not appear in the Constitution of the U.S. It was however a provision of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R."

CONSTITUTION
(FUNDAMENTAL LAW)
OF
THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
Adopted at the Seventh (Special) Session of
the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
Ninth Convocation
On October 7, 1977

II. THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL

Chapter 7: THE BASIC RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS OF THE USSR

Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

Answer 9

I agree, but (using your example) what about the Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, etc children in the schools that want to use a Bible and do prayers?

I agree though on the point of the Founding Fathers wanting to keep from having a National Religion, because that it what forced the Pilgrims and the first settlers to make the voyage in the first place: religious intolerance.

Answer 10

Are you christians nagging again? No one said you cant pray in public areas. Stop trying to make yourselves feel persecuted just because you wanna feel like a " warrior for christ ". Dont you know how to read it says in public areas there cant be any advertising of religion allowing time for prayers is advertising religion do it on your time if you wanna waste your time praying there doesnt have to be a specific time or place set aside for you