Published by The first amendment of the constitution of the United States reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (U.S. Const., Amend. 1) This simple clause, known as the establishment and free exercise clauses, has been the subject of controversy since the beginning of the 20th century. Many people, mainly secular, have come to view the establishment clause as a means of separating church and state. A view that says religion should not be found in any government sponsored building or be discussed by government officials. They believe this because they feel that practicing religion while being paid by the government means the government is sponsoring that religion; however, many others, mainly religious, will say that the free exercise clause protects the right of anybody, whether government or not, to practice their religion. These people will claim this because they feel the establishment clause was designed to prevent the government as a whole from sponsoring one religion over another, not to suppress individual government employees. The area of my life I saw most affected by this debate was during my years in public school and was quite interested in the arguments for and against religion in school. I was taken by surprise when I was attending a Christian club on campus that was sponsored by some of my teachers. When we prayed, I noticed that they weren’t, when I asked why, they explained to me that they were not allowed unless a student explicitly asks them to pray with us. I found this to be ridiculous in the sense that anybody should have the right to practice their religion; whether they’re at work or not. At the time I wasn’t a Christian, but was looking into it, but with my teacher’s response I did become slightly more fearful to see that being religious meant I would be suppressed.
Most of us have been through a public school and it is very likely to have noticed a lack of teaching of religious views, or a lack of religion in general; however, when the constitution was first ratified, it was no issue that schools prayed at the beginning of each day or that creation was taught rather than evolution, or even that the teachers led prayer with the children; however, over the years, some parents began to become offended by these practices and went to the courts to ask that the school officials would not practice their religion in view of their children. As the debate grew, the restrictions on the practice of religion grew as well, to the point of preventing students from learning about any specific religion from any school employee. As I began on my journey to discover the reasoning behind this seeming suppression of religion, I decided the first place to look would be the 1963 Supreme Court case Pennsylvania v. Schempp.
I started by reading Mr. Justice Clark’s majority opinion of the court. In part IV of his opinion, Clark summarizes many opinions of justices in the past from cases surrounding church and state. In his summary of the 1952 case of Zorach v. Clauson, Clark quotes a passage from Mr. Justice Douglas’ opinion claiming “And, so far as interference with the ‘free exercise’ of religion and an ‘establishment’ of religion are concerned, the separation [of church and state] must be complete and unequivocal.” With such powerful words, it is clear that Clark is making the point that it is far more important that church and state are separated then for citizens to have a complete free exercise of religion. Clark also continues to refer to the England government and how the church has corrupted the government there. He claims England should be the context in which we interpret the 1st amendment so that our government doesn’t become corrupt by religion as well. He believes this because he fears that religion, if left unattended would seep into the governmental system and cause corrupt government officials to arise and destroy what we worked so hard for, freedom for all.
After reading the argument against practicing religion in schools, I read the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart of the same 1963 case of Pennsylvania v. Schempp to learn of the legal arguments supporting the practice of religion in public schools. Shortly prior to ending his dissent, Stewart emphasizes that “our Constitution indispensably protects … the freedom of each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian or Atheist, Buddhist or Freethinker, to believe or disbelieve, to worship or not worship, to pray, or keep silent, according to his own conscience, uncoerced and unrestrained by government.” In view of Stewart’s all-encompassing list of religions and actions, I found that he strongly believes that it is essential for citizens to have the freedom to practice their religion no matter who they are. Contrary to Clark, Stewart feels that restricting government employees from practicing their religion will, in effect, restrict the freedom that Clark is trying to protect. I believe Stewart isn’t fearful of religion overtaking government because he views the establishment clause keeps the government from establishing a religion while still allowing individual employees to practice their own. Earlier in his dissent he even claims that restricting the practice of religion in schools will not show that the government is neutral to religion, but rather, it favors secularism.
After reading the legal documents referring to the debate between the establishment and free exercise clause, I decided to find simpler sources that would be easier to understand. Richard D. Sorenson published an article in Education Digest named “The Bible and the Board”. The article is aimed at school board officials to inform them of the laws regarding religion in school to prevent their schools from law suits based on the conflict between the two clauses in the 1st amendment. His main interest in writing the article was to help schools understand the laws regarding the “advancing or inhibiting [of] religion.” (Sorenson) Sorenson states that the government’s stance on religion should be completely neutral, according to the establishment and free exercise clauses, so that it does not affect religion in a negative or positive way. Sorenson didn’t take a stance as to whether these laws were making the government neutral towards religion; however, he did emphasize the need to stay neutral. With a better understanding of the government’s view on handling religion with neutrality, I decided it would be helpful to ask someone who had experienced the consequences of this debate first hand.
Josh Penrod was a science teacher at Flowing Wells Middle School for 8 years and is now in his fourth year in youth ministry at Dessert Son Community Church. During his last four years as a teacher, Penrod had sponsored the Fellowship of Christian Athletes club (FCA) on campus. During the sponsorship, he found that there were very strong opinions on whether the club should be allowed or not. When I asked if these strong opinions caused him to feel his freedom to practice his religion was restricted, he explained a situation where opposing teachers had submitted school announcements mocking the FCA and it’s existence on campus. He had also explained how he “was allowed to do any announcement for the school except for the FCA announcements.” This act of obvious censorship caused him to feel like his privilege to practice his religion or even to have a Christian faith was being suppressed.
During our interview, Penrod described an incident during the morning announcements that highlighted the severity of the censorship in the school. While one of the school’s students had been reading the announcements, he varied from the normal sign-off line to say “Jesus loves you, and you should too.” Penrod stated that before the rest of the announcements had even been completed, he had received several phone calls and had an administrative official come through his office to tell him that they needed to see him. After relaying the story, Penrod stressed that the action of the student was completely his own and that he had nothing to do with the student’s actions.
When I asked Penrod how he felt about the separation of church and state laws he explained that he felt that they are a joke. He said that it seems to be unconstitutional because it feels like teachers and students can talk about any point of view except a Christian point of view. He mentioned a teacher who had a whole bunch of random quotes posted on his wall and that the quotes ranged from quotes of wisdom to objectionable rap songs; however, the bible was never quoted on the wall. At the end of the interview Penrod made sure to let me know that not all schools were this strict against Christianity and that it really depends on what school you go to, even within the district.
After my interview with Penrod I felt I had a pretty good handle on the arguments for and against allowing the exercise of religion in public schools; however, a week later a preacher call Brother Jed came to the University of Arizona to talk to the students. Before I listened to Brother Jed, I had never before heard preaching like his, from what I heard, he was preaching anger and judgment to the students at the University of Arizona and accusing them of things that – sure they might have done, but – were in no way his place to be accusing them of, such as homosexuality, premarital sex, and masturbation. I had always learned that as a Christian I can’t hold non-Christians to the same standards because they don’t have the same values as I do, I did not see this with Brother Jed, and instead I saw someone preaching in a way as if he was sinless. The hypocrisy of his teaching is what I believe was the main reason so many students were upset with him, because he was accusing rather than loving like Christians should. After I had heard enough and left, I realized that Brother Jed was the type of person that people like Clark, who use the establishment clause to suppress religion, are trying to protect younger students from. If Brother Jed had been a high school teacher, many students would have their views of religion completely swayed from what they would have been.
My journey to understand the reasoning behind the restriction of religious exercise has enlightened me to see the issue from the perspective of government officials who are trying to protect the rights of students from being pressured into a religion that is not their own; however, I still believe that the way the issue has been handled has been taken to an extreme in some cases that cause individuals employed by the government to feel that their own rights are being restricted. I still hold my position that there isn’t enough religion in schools; however, in light of this new information, I no longer view the laws as an attempt to remove religion from the public school system anymore. Perhaps, with time, legislation will be passed that will better address this issue so that everyone may feel that their rights are being respected.
Works Cited
Sorenson, Richard. “The Bible and the Board.” Education Digest 73 (2007): 10-13
Pennsylvania v. Schempp. No. 142. Supreme Ct. of the US. 17 June 1963.
Penrod, Josh. Personal Interview. 24 March 2009.
Smock, Jed. The Campus Ministry USA. University of Arizona, Tucson. 27 March 2009.
