Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Prayer In School Essay, Research Paper


The issue of separation between church and province has invoked great contention in American society. When asked the inquiry, should schools be allowed to get down the twenty-four hours off with a supplication, 72 per centum polled responded yes ( The American National Election Study of 1980 ) . Yet the Supreme Court has continually denied leting supplication to ooze into the public school system. The Supreme Court has repetitively ruled that the infiltration of faith, via supplication, in the public school system is contradictory to the rules this state represents and is in misdemeanor of the Establishment Clause located within the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Amidst this contention two compendious theories have become prevailing, accommodationists and separatists. Accommodationists feel that faith is portion of our political, historical and cultural heritage. And therefore, supplication in school is in harmoniousness with the values this state represents, therefore the name accommodationists, who construe ( accommodate ) the First Amendment to let supplication in school. Separatists, on the other manus, believe that there is no jurisprudence esteeming the mixture of faith. Separatists feel that there is a clear wall of separation between church and province. This paper will lucubrate upon both theories, finally turn outing the separatists correct and further discourse the Supreme Court determinations refering supplication in school.

Reviewing Establishment Clause

The argument over the Establishment Clause must get down by looking at how the Establishment Clause is worded in the fundamental law. In the First Amendment of the United States Constitution it reads, Congress shall do no jurisprudence esteeming an constitution of faith. Because of the legion alterations before an acceptable Constitution Clause phrase was agreed upon it is safe to presume that the framers were really specific as to how they wanted this Clause worded. First, the accommodationist theory ( that will be discussed subsequently on ) that the framers simply meant the intensions of this Clause to forestall an established national faith is wrong. If the framers had meant for this it seems logical that it would hold been worded, no jurisprudence esteeming an constitution of a church. It seems dubious that the framers meant for faith and church to be used synonymously ( Lardner 1951, p. 112 ) . Therefore, it is safe to state that the framers meant for the Establishment Clause to intend more than simply the bar of an constitution of a national faith.

Purposes of the Framers

If it is so agreed upon that the framers were specific in taking the word faith what are the intensions? Since it is decided that the framers meant much than merely forbiding the constitution of a national faith the following inquiry to reply is how far did the framers intend this prohibition to travel in society? By looking at the attitudes of the framers during the clip of the authorship of the fundamental law this inquiry can be answered with a certain sum of assurance. During the period of the authorship of the fundamental law spiritual reform was get downing to take topographic point. The ecclesiastical domination meant to command the lower categories was get downing to lose its power. The belief that the message of God was in the custodies of the elite was get downing to lose signifier and spiritual individualism was on the rise. Persons started to believe that they could have the message of God without an mediator.

Among the early Deistic minds included Jefferson, Franklin and John Adams, all who had a important impact on the authorship of the fundamental law. As good, Washington and Adams, who were non deistic, were classified as free-thinkers, work forces who entertained a more than mean grade of incredulity on such affairs as the deity of Christ and the Bible as the disclosure of God s word. ( Lardner, p. 113 ) What does this intend? That if many of the framers believed in single, spiritual autonomy so the Establishment Clause, written by the framers, was meant to include the separation of supplication with school. The school system in today s society is immensely different so the educational system in topographic point during that clip, but by cognizing that many of the framers believed in spiritual freedom it can be assumed that they would hold frowned upon the thought of a supplication been forced upon a pupil who did non desire it.

Knowing the purposes of the framers and the implied significance behind the Establishment Clause this paper will next discourse the two theories in construing the Establishment Clause.


To understand the accommodationist position it is necessary to look at the civilization that this society lives in. When looking at the front side of a coin the words, In God We Trust appears. On the dorsum of a measure the oculus of God hovers above the pyramid. When secondary kids around the state pl

border commitment to the flag they say, under God. During Christmas season the white house puts up a Christmas tree. If there was meant to be a rigorous wall of separation between church and province how can In God We Trust appear on currency? How can the white house, one of the most recognizable symbols of this authorities support a Christmas tree? To an accommodationist, the reply is simple, faith has been apart of this civilization, faith is a portion of this civilization and faith will be a portion of this civilization. To deny faith is to deny a portion of American civilization.

There are two different positions an accommodationist has when construing the Establishment Clause. First, that the Establishment Clause does raise a wall of separation, but that wall merely prohibits the province from preferring one faith to another. Equally long as support is non-discriminatory, spiritual assistance is constitutional. However, this poses many jobs for the minority position. It is easy to ease support in a non-discriminatory mode to the major faiths, but it becomes complicated to administrate this same support to the minority faiths at the same clip.

The 2nd position an accommodationist might hold is much more conservative. This position holds that the Establishment Clause merely prohibits the constitution of a national faith. Much like the 1 that was setup in England during the clip of the interruption off. During this clip the Episcopal Church was recognized as the official church in England. Therefore, this Church was entitled to public fiscal support, every bit good as all members of the authorities being required to belong. Furthermore, an accommodationist would so experience that any nexus between supplication and school is constitutional because it clearly does non tag the faith as the faith of the state.

To keep the accommodationist belief that leting school supplication will assist increase the ethical motives of the childs of society is a good idea. But that does non do it constitutional. This is non a moral inquiry, but a constitutional inquiry. Is supplication in school constitutional? Not, will prayer in school addition the ethical motives of childs today?


The separatist s attitude towards the relationship between church and province is simple. The Establishment Clause, erects a solid wall of separation between church and province, forbiding most, if non all, signifiers of public assistance for or support of faith. ( Epstein & A ; Walker 2001, p. 143 ) This means any public money used for the support of faith is prohibited, along with any assistance that may denominate one faith over another. Everson v. Board of Education ( 1947 ) did allocate revenue enhancement dollars to be used towards the transit of kids to public and private schools, but because the jurisprudence was secular in intent and impersonal the Justices found it to be constitutional.

Supreme Court Decisions

The complexnesss that arise when construing the framers purposes becomes evident when the Justices of the Court have problem holding on what the right purposes of the framers are. Furthermore, confusion prevarications in the fact that the justnesss can non come up with the same logical thinking as to why supplication in school is unconstitutional. In Everson v. Board of Education ( 1947 ) and McCollum v. Board of Education ( 1948 ) seven sentiments are written, two bulks, two concurring and three dissenting. Furthermore, Engel v. Vitale ( 1962 ) contained three separate sentiments that spanned over 30 pages. In School District v. Schemp ( 1963 ) there were four separate sentiments that contained over one hundred 17 pages of idea on supplication in school. This diverseness in sentiment makes apparent the Courts inability to clearly decode the inquiry of the separation between church and province and demonstrates how hard it can be when construing the fundamental law. Yet despite this failure to hold on the exact purposes of the framers the Justices have been consistent in the opinions of supplication in school. Continually they have ruled that there is a clear separation of church and province.

Talking on behalf of the tribunal, Clark writes in his sentiment on Schemp, We have come to acknowledge through acrimonious experience that it is non within the power of the authorities to occupy that bastion, whether its intent or consequence be to help or oppose, to progress or retard. In the relationship between adult male and faith, the State is steadfastly committed to a place of neutrality. ( Schemp, 374 U.S. 203 ) With respects to that bastion Justice Clark is mentioning to the impression of supplication in school. It is clear that the Justices are construing the Establishment Clause to forbid the promotion of faith in any signifier.

Despite the complexnesss that have been associated with the Establishment Clause the Justices have been consistent in the separation of supplication from school. From Everson ( 1947 ) to Doe ( 2000 ) the Justices continually forbid any intermingling of supplication and school.


Post Author: admin