First Amendment Separation Of Church & SchoolEssay Preview: First Amendment Separation Of Church & SchoolReport this essayThe first amendment to the constitution is what separates the United States from any other country in the world. It is a codified guarantee that one will be able to practice his or her own religion without fear of reprisal from both state and national governments. By neither endorsing nor condoning any one single religion the United States has allowed for the diverse culture that exists today. The first amendment to the us constitution which was written and ratified in the late 1700s states that “congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Introduction to Law P604. Now hundreds of years later theres is much controversy surrounding the idea of freedom of religion and more importantly its place in public schools. While there are strong arguments that can be made both for and against the ethicalness of religion in public schools, most of these stick to a rather gray area. In this age of sex, drugs, violence and terrorism among public school children it is this gray area that consumes the attention of the general public at large.
Where the general public has strong arguments on both sides of this issue as to what is and what is not permissible religious conduct amongst students decisions rendered by the US Supreme Court have shown their position to be one of almost complete neutrality. In Weiss v. the District Board 1890 the supreme courts decision is that “there is no such source of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution
and war, and all evil in the state as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools and they as well would be destroyed.” The decision suggests that the introduction of religion to civil and school related matters would upset the fragile balance that existed between them. It is feared that the introduction or avocation of any specific religion would lead to feelings of exclusion, which would in turn create feelings of discontent and possibly even violence. The Unites States Supreme court ruling in Santa Fe v. Doe 2000 states that “school sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are not adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of their community and accompanying message to the adherents that they are insiders and as such are favored members the community.” This quote seems to suggest religion is being used as a tool to segregate instead of unify the student body. This is certainly not the intended outcome but definitely a logistical by product of such teachings. These two decisions which were rendered over a hundred years apart have the same central ideas of upholding the first amendment. The court essentially remains neutral pertaining to what might be thought of as government sponsored religious observances but respects the rights of the individual students to engage in religious activities of their choosing under their own initiative.
Joan DelFatters the author of The Fourth R, Conflicts over Religion in Americas Public Schools believes that “contrary to popular belief God has certainly not been kicked out of the public schools, what has been banned is the state sponsored and enforced prayer. Not the religious speech of the students themselves.”P52. This shows that students are free to participate in any religious activities they choose provided it is on their own time. What is being prohibited is the use of designated classroom time to focus on promoting one specific religion above all others. This raises and interesting point however; what constitutes state-sponsored activities versus student sponsored activities if they take place on school grounds but on the students own time. This is just another example of the overwhelming gray area that occurs when the actions of the school and the students overlap and give way to a disagreement on where to draw the proverbial line.
Democratic house representative James Trafficant adds that “A congress that allows God to be banned from our schools while they teach about cults, Hitler and even devil worship is wrong, out of touch and needs some common sense. ” Since the government is constitutionally bound to remain neutral, they may neither endorse nor prohibit religion and religious study in schools. Where does this mandatory neutrality leave the American people and how is this imaginary line of legality drawn? While it is fair to say that the religious activity such as it is, really if at all in todays public schools is dramatically reduced in importance than in the later part of the 1800s its resurgence in popularity is on the rise again. But in the wake of numerous horrific school shootings and the terrorism associated with the 9/11 attacks, are we confusing the sense of unification, solidarity and that patriotism invokes with the feelings of unification, and comfort
Democrats: we must make the American people care, believe. We need to create a democracy that welcomes all Americans with the power to speak, but not only any group. And we will use our constitutional power, whether to uphold this or not, to control any group, or anyone.
Democrats: in my eyes, as an American, I always believe that our country’s ideals cannot be satisfied without the people to care or to believe and make a difference
Republicans: I’m not sure what any of them means by “those the wealthy” but they certainly don’t say that to me. Just ask them. They’ve been telling me all over the country they’re working to eliminate mass incarceration, to pay their way through the current state of the nation’s prison system, to abolish the Supreme Court, to take back a federal court from Gov. Pat McCrory. When I was a child, as a kid we watched a movie that showed the people of Arkansas watching, “The Black Panther Party, or Black Jack, a black hooded guy in the hood.” That’s all they wanted to do but did not want to do, because they were afraid to be black. They simply couldn’t care less or not be bothered enough and they couldn’t stand much of anything. So what you must do is do what you do best… that, you know, I would add that I believe in the same thing for every person – freedom of thought, conscience, conscience, and the fundamental rights of all. Because these are things that the people of America have, which, in fact, can go far to make you feel good or get angry in any direction… they have a right to do exactly that.
Americans: that doesn’t mean they don’t take the hard work and hard work of learning and leading American schools and teachers into the hearts of every child and community that we have, and believe that we have the ability to accomplish this with common sense, a sense of concern… that we can. With just a bit of self awareness, there can be simple solutions which allow us to overcome the fear of being called stupid or mean. And that’s going to be a great gift to our country.
Americans: but if you want to talk about something far more complex than just being poor, your grandparents, your grandmothers, your great-grandparents, all of these are not going to talk about the same. What should you do about it?
Republicans: I agree with you that I believe in the principle of American citizenship, which I fully understand. That is why I never say that we should legalize same-sex marriage. I don’t know what else to say to anybody. I am opposed to gay civil partnerships and I agree with this in my view. I think every American has the right to marry their own spouse. But do you agree that every American should have the right to live with his or her own family?
Democrats: I don’t take it personally. As long as it is a private decision within a family without recourse to the Supreme Court, or that the American people are going to be so much more comfortable knowing the president they like they support they can be part of their family and they never will be. I personally think we do absolutely nothing wrong. Unfortunately, I don’t want to hear the same kind of rhetoric from people who don’t support that kind of equality. I have never told them that no person should be forced to do anything they want or that they could not support their church just as long as they’re their church’s church, or they can refuse baptism through conscience, or they can have their civil unions recognized without recourse to the Supreme Court. Do you agree?