In arriving at a better understanding of this issue, it is first important to define the constitutional issue at hand. The phrase, separation of Church and State, is actually from a letter that was written by one of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, to a group that called themselves the Danbury Baptists (Busher 13). In the letter, Thomas Jefferson wrote that, 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. This was of course in reference to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Whitsitt 186).
The basic precept of this doctrine is founded on a firm belief that religion and state should be separate. It covers a very wide spectrum, as mentioned in the previous sections of this discussion, ranging from the secularization or elimination of the church to theocracy wherein the state works in tandem with a religion in order to govern over the acts of people (Bradley 199)
The problem is that while the church and state do maintain that there is indeed a necessity to abide by the doctrine of the separation of church and state there is no clear way of delineating the boundaries between the spheres of these two institutions (Bradley 199). There are still certain acts that require entanglement between the church and the state because of the duty of the government to cater to the welfare of its people who invariably belong to some form of religion, in most cases. One of these instances is when prayer is allowed in public school classrooms.
It has been argued that prayer in public schools should not be allowed since it is inconsiderate of the different religions that are represented in the school. Public schools host people from all religions since they are cheaper hence affordable. When the prayers are done they are biased against the religion with minor representation in the school hence it is better if prayer was abolished in school. When prayers for one religion are done, the other religions feel oppressed discriminated against and they have a feeling of inferiority. It feels like the school administration is trying to force the students to join their religion. The school administration should advocate the elimination of prayer to avoid cases where the students feel discriminated. The students will feel like they are forced to worship (Sommer 1984).
It must be remembered that the acts done by the government are not meant to further the cause of any single religion but are actually for the general welfare and the benefit of the state. The state therefore does not conform to any particular religious doctrine but in fact caters to its own doctrine as mandated by the will of the people and of the Constitution (Clark 165). Acts such as exemptions from taxation or providing funds for education and charities, though viewed as supporting religion, are in fact welfare based or faith based according to secularists. This reflects the view that temporal authority and spiritual authority should properly operate in complimentary spheres. The spheres where they overlap such as in moral values or property rights are areas where neither should take authority over the other but should instead offer a framework in which society can work these issues out without subjugating a religion to the state or vice versa (Bradley 196) such as in the case of allowing school prayer.
To argue that prayer is unconstitutional would be to deny the people the right to their rich American history. The first settlers were Pilgrims and even the first thanksgiving meal, though not seemingly a prayer by conventional means, was actually an act of thanking the almighty God for all the blessings (Bradley 199). If prayer is to be considered as a religious affirmation that is offensive to the constitution then other forms such as the pledge of allegiance and the In God We Trust declaration on the dollar bill must also be struck down (Bradley 199). It cannot therefore be argued prayer in public school classrooms is a clear violation of the establishment clause when even the humble dollar bill has the sign in God we trust written on it. If it is to be argued that prayer is a violation of the establishment clause then so must the dollar bill be struck down as a violation (Bradley 199). Yet time and again the almighty dollar has prevailed.
The reason for this is because such a declaration is not an endorsement of a single religion, which is exactly what the establishment clause prohibits, but rather it is a declaration by the American people of their belief in a superior being. This argument is not limited to a single God but to all Gods of whatever beliefs. The beauty of the American democracy is that it empowers instead of stifles. It encourages instead of denies. To argue that prayer should not be allowed is unpatriotic, it is un-American.
A prayer is a sign of thanks for everything that has been given to everyone. A single word or phrase isolated and taken out of context does much to remove the original intent from it. Reciting a prayer in public school classrooms does not further the cause of any single religion. Instead, it serves to show the rest of the world the pride that Americans have for their great nation. It shows unity. It shows strength. It shows the American way.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment