The role of religion in education

Role of Religion

What is the Role of Religion in Education

This is a guideline and template. Please do not use as a final turn-in paper.

What is the Role of Religion in Education?

In Illinois, a federal judge ruled against a state law requiring public school students to observe a moment of silence meant for prayer or personal reflection at the start of each school day. District Judge Robert Gettleman said the law was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state (Calefati, 2009).

In Texas, the State Board of Education heard testimony from leading biologists and social conservatives about revising the state's science curriculum so that it would be more difficult for teachers to discuss possible weaknesses in evolutionary theory (Calefati, 2009).

In June 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cleveland, Ohio's 7-year-old voucher program in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, holding that the funding itself did not promote the establishment of religion and the decision to use those funds to attend a religious school is at the personal discretion of the family, not dictated by the state (Research center, 2004).

This fall, K-12 public schools in Texas are cobbling together new curriculums that incorporate the Bible after a state law passed in 2007 made it a requirement. Provisions in the law called for the course to maintain "religious neutrality" by ordering teacher training, state-approved materials and curriculum standards at levels the attorney general considers adequate (Riley, 2009).

It is really rather difficult to comprehend what role religion plays, or should play, in our schools and education system. When we look at the above examples, we see the ambiguity and ambivalence in the thoughts and actions of those involved in changing whatever the current status is in their own local communities.

In some localities, the fight is to loosen the liberal grip on schools and allow the activities that law allows. In other areas, even the legal religious activities are being questioned and banned if at all possible.

The "establishment" or "religion" clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Today, that clause is commonly associated with the concept of "separation of church and state" (Research center, 2004).

It almost seems as if there has to be more to it than that. How can such a simple phrase cause so much conflict and drama? It seems straight forward that it is referring to government not interfering with religion, and not the other way around. Yet, there it is.

The key point is that while the Supreme Court does protect the rights of those who wish to, to express their religious beliefs while in school, the balance point is how to protect the rights of those who do not wish to participate in them and view them as discriminatory, or coercive.

That is why religious clubs can hold meetings at schools, but prayers at graduations and other school events are banned because others may find them coercive if they are "forced" to listen to them. And because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the words "under God," it is also banned in schools, though it is more than common for many schools to do it anyway.

Even the most literal and liberal interpretation of the court rulings do not ban all forms of religious "education" from the school curriculum. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled that, religion can be taught in the classroom in the form of instruction about religion such as historical or factual perspectives about a particular religion. What cannot happen is that religion be taught so that it is persuasive or evangelistic as if trying to recruit a student into it.

There are major complexities to the whole topic of religion in the schools and what role it does and should play. Of course, it depends on which side is speaking at the time. And existing law and rules are constantly being challenged and changed. Those who make decisions, whether it be school boards or the Congress of the U.S. have to listen and balance the law of the Constitution regarding church and state separation vs. The right to exercise religion with impunity and freedom.

Included in the thought process must be the inputs, deeply held beliefs, and rights of those who are religious and those who choose not to have strong religious beliefs but who have deeply held ideas about the rights contained in the law of the land and interpret it differently.

In addition, there is the idea of our multi-diverse, pluralistic and wonderfully ethnically populated country that must be, not only open, but accepting of all different types of nationalities and belief systems including all of those of differing religious minorities.

These issues, such as creationism vs. evolution, do not have to tear us apart and make it an us vs. them argument. It is crucial that school districts, for instance, have very precise and publicly-held and stated rules and policies about what will be allowed and taught in their schools.

And these rules must be satisfactory to an interpretation of the existing laws in, not only the strictest interpretation, but in the spirit of the First Amendment.

Parents, educators, students, and the administration must learn to talk together and not "at" each other. Each must understand where the other is coming from, and it is the obligation of those who present their views to give them in a manner that allows others to freely respond.

There are several areas of concern to parents and educators alike that are difficult to discuss in a rational manner sometimes. However, the following is an attempt to discuss, briefly, the facts about the issues and what the role of each is in our public schools today.

Evolution vs. Creationism

Evolution only must be taught as scientific fact. Creationism may not be taught as science under any circumstances (ADL, 2009). That is what the law says and the basic rule that must be followed by all school curriculums.

One of the major points of disagreement is whether creationism -- the belief that a superior entity formed earth and man -- may be taught in the classroom. The answer is yes. The major restriction to this is that it may not be taught as science along with evolution which is "believed to be" science-based. Creationism may be presented as a part of a religion class, for instance, in explaining the beliefs of certain religions regarding how human life came to pass on earth.

The U.S. Supreme Court, (believe it or not), has ruled that it is unconstitutional to force teachers to present creationism if they are teaching evolution (Aguillard v. Edwards, 1987). Many would say that is going too far in a legal interpretation of our Constitution. But, there it is.

The point of this ruling was that it is not "equitable" to teach a subject of religious belief in a public classroom paid for with taxpayer dollars, while teaching a scientifically-based belief should be allowed.

The fact is that discussions over religion in the classroom, no matter what the specific subject, become quite emotional and political in nature rather than an actual conversation with rational discussion. It is simply the nature of the human involved in the discourse.

Prayer in Public Schools

Organized prayer in the public school setting, whether in the classroom or at a school-sponsored event, is unconstitutional. The only type of prayer that is constitutionally permissible is private, voluntary student prayer that does not interfere with the school's educational mission (ADL, 2009).

Every student has the right to individual prayer at any time in any place, public school included. However, that prayer cannot interfere with the school's instructional activities and it cannot be meant to evangelize or prosthelisize. Students can say a blessing before having a meal. And a student can pray silently to himself at any time. School officials cannot encourage a student's private prayer however.

Students can talk with each other about religious topics, but cannot attempt to harass other students with those discussions. The conversations cannot be disruptive or coercive. And school administration and staff should interfere if the conversations do appear to become evangelistic or harassing in nature.

A student's private and personal prayer or other religious activity cannot disrupt the rights of other students. And any personal religious activity has to be initiated by the student. No school teacher or staff can oversee or take an active part in the activity. It is unconstitutional for any student's private religious activity to be endorsed by the school in any way.

The question inevitably arises regarding a moment of silence instead of prayer in the public school classroom. Many years ago, a moment of silence, at least, was required to accommodate those who held religious beliefs and wanted to use that moment to pray. However, the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled against a statute requiring that moment of silence (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985). The ruling stated that, since the moment of silence was for the purpose of advancing religion, it was unconstitutional. This was evidently a case-specific ruling however, and the fact is that the Court has not ruled that this moment of silence may always be unconstitutional. There are multiple court rulings in other jurisdictions that have ruled the moment of silence allowable if it passes the test of not advancing religion.

Can a student say a prayer at a school graduation ceremony? The Supreme Court has not ruled that student-led non-sectarian prayer is not allowed at public school graduation ceremonies.

The question remains open and has been decided on a case-by-case basis. It cannot be encouraged by school officials, and prayers delivered by clergy have been ruled unconstitutional.

However, prayers at public school baccalaureate services are constitutional as long as the ceremony is distinct and separated from the graduation ceremony and not endorsed by school officials.

Religion in the Curriculum

While we answered this briefly before, it is an important topic and deserves more space. The teaching of religion in school curriculums goes back to the beliefs of our forefathers and the founders of this country, some believe. Should we not teach, in a historic perspective, the basic belief systems of those who established the United States? Wasn't it their personal and community creeds, thoughts, and deeply held beliefs that were the cause of their actions to find freedom of religion so important that they placed it first in the Constitution?

In Abington v. Schempp, Associate Justice Tom Clark wrote for the Supreme Court:

"[I]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment" (Freedom forum, 2001).

As long as a school follows the following criteria regarding the teaching of religion in the public school classroom, their actions are in accordance with the First Amendment (Freedom forum, 2001):

The teaching method is academic and not evangelical.

The goal is make students aware of various religions, not coerce them to accept a religion or "religion" in general.