Essay On First Amendment In Public Schools
The first amendment in the US constitution states that Congress shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting thereof.” A metaphoric wall has always existed between the church and state, according to Thomas Jefferson in 1947 (McCarthy, Martha).That wall has been in the center of many court cases in the Supreme Court linked to public schools. The public school setting has always been a major area of controversy concerning the separation of church and state. Albeit with some exceptions, the separation of church and state should not take place in public schools. The freedom of religious expression is already limited, and if the separation of church and state happens to take place in public schools throughout the US, the government would teeter on the brink of violating the first amendment. The First Amendment gives religious Americans preferential
…show more content…
treatment: in the exercise of their religion, they are specifically protected from government interference (Kolenc, Antony Barone). The establishment clause of the first amendment states that “all people have the right to express religion”, if that simple freedom was taken away in schools, then that would make the school policies unconstitutional. In turn, student’s curriculum and activities would take a huge blow. For example, teachers around the US would not be allowed to teach secondary theories to Evolution related to the Bible. With these limitations on the curriculum, it puts extra stress on educators everywhere. Educators are expected to exercise sound judgment and follow well-established legal principles, and they can be liable for damages if they fail to do so (McCarthy, Martha). If the policies change, teachers could be dismissed for activities that would be considered controversial. According to Institute for Humanist Studies, “the motivations behind passing RFRA in New York State appear murky and seem to have less to do with religious freedom than special privileges,” some nonreligious persons believe that some court cases are ruled in favor of the religious folk. The facts based on this claim are factual, but not necessarily true. All cases that take place in a US court are just and not at all biased or unfair in judgement. Secondly, if the US Supreme Court does force separation, then the Pledge of Allegiance might be under fire for violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Some recent legal activity has focused on allegations that public schools are proselytizing students by reciting the pledge each day (McCarthy, Martha). These legal actions were taken because some recent court cases has found that people were going against the prospect of saying “under God” in the pledge, they claim that saluting the flag contradicted their declared fidelity to God alone, a spiritual commitment that the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause protects (Sifton, Elisabeth). But by a ruling in 1943, students are also allowed to not partake in the reciting of the pledge, so there really is no reason for the separation of church and state in that field. Also, taking away the pledge would throw America into a political war. The pledge has been around for a very long time, taking it away would be like prohibiting the singing of the national anthem. The pledge is a huge patriotic symbol for most
Americans. Lastly, if free religious expression in the form of prayer is prohibited, school officials are, at the very least, teaching children that public acknowledgment of God is not as important as the things the schools can discuss (MacLeod, Laurel). And these influences on young minds could potentially do damage to their religious lives, and in this case, their non-religious lives as well. It seems unjust that schools are openly allowed to talk about sex and same-sex marriage, but religious talk in classroom is frowned upon. But again, students have the right to not embrace certain religious views if they do not choose to. With some exceptions on what religious ideas or views are being taught, schools definitely cannot shove any religious views down student’s throats and force them to accept them. The most prevalent argument of individuals is that the government has a responsibility to be neutral, so that no child is offended by the religious speech of another (MacLeod, Laurel). This argument is impractical and unrealistic; this issue could never have a neutral side. The elimination of religious expression in public school for an atheist would offend a believer; likewise, the push for religious expression might offend a nonbeliever. All-in-all, if the Supreme Court does rule for the separation of church and state, the public school setting would be impacted, and not necessarily for the better in some cases. In many ways, the foundation on which America was founded has been twisted one way or another. For example, the original purpose of the first amendment was to keep the government out of religion, trying to preserve the peoples right of private religion. Also, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, because its drafters did not see a dichotomy between their religious beliefs and the document that constructed their Republic (MacLeod, Laurel). To close, Congress and America as a whole should not push for separation of church and state because it would be unconstitutional, unjust, and overall un-American.
treatment: in the exercise of their religion, they are specifically protected from government interference (Kolenc, Antony Barone). The establishment clause of the first amendment states that “all people have the right to express religion”, if that simple freedom was taken away in schools, then that would make the school policies unconstitutional. In turn, student’s curriculum and activities would take a huge blow. For example, teachers around the US would not be allowed to teach secondary theories to Evolution related to the Bible. With these limitations on the curriculum, it puts extra stress on educators everywhere. Educators are expected to exercise sound judgment and follow well-established legal principles, and they can be liable for damages if they fail to do so (McCarthy, Martha). If the policies change, teachers could be dismissed for activities that would be considered controversial. According to Institute for Humanist Studies, “the motivations behind passing RFRA in New York State appear murky and seem to have less to do with religious freedom than special privileges,” some nonreligious persons believe that some court cases are ruled in favor of the religious folk. The facts based on this claim are factual, but not necessarily true. All cases that take place in a US court are just and not at all biased or unfair in judgement. Secondly, if the US Supreme Court does force separation, then the Pledge of Allegiance might be under fire for violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Some recent legal activity has focused on allegations that public schools are proselytizing students by reciting the pledge each day (McCarthy, Martha). These legal actions were taken because some recent court cases has found that people were going against the prospect of saying “under God” in the pledge, they claim that saluting the flag contradicted their declared fidelity to God alone, a spiritual commitment that the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause protects (Sifton, Elisabeth). But by a ruling in 1943, students are also allowed to not partake in the reciting of the pledge, so there really is no reason for the separation of church and state in that field. Also, taking away the pledge would throw America into a political war. The pledge has been around for a very long time, taking it away would be like prohibiting the singing of the national anthem. The pledge is a huge patriotic symbol for most
Americans. Lastly, if free religious expression in the form of prayer is prohibited, school officials are, at the very least, teaching children that public acknowledgment of God is not as important as the things the schools can discuss (MacLeod, Laurel). And these influences on young minds could potentially do damage to their religious lives, and in this case, their non-religious lives as well. It seems unjust that schools are openly allowed to talk about sex and same-sex marriage, but religious talk in classroom is frowned upon. But again, students have the right to not embrace certain religious views if they do not choose to. With some exceptions on what religious ideas or views are being taught, schools definitely cannot shove any religious views down student’s throats and force them to accept them. The most prevalent argument of individuals is that the government has a responsibility to be neutral, so that no child is offended by the religious speech of another (MacLeod, Laurel). This argument is impractical and unrealistic; this issue could never have a neutral side. The elimination of religious expression in public school for an atheist would offend a believer; likewise, the push for religious expression might offend a nonbeliever. All-in-all, if the Supreme Court does rule for the separation of church and state, the public school setting would be impacted, and not necessarily for the better in some cases. In many ways, the foundation on which America was founded has been twisted one way or another. For example, the original purpose of the first amendment was to keep the government out of religion, trying to preserve the peoples right of private religion. Also, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, because its drafters did not see a dichotomy between their religious beliefs and the document that constructed their Republic (MacLeod, Laurel). To close, Congress and America as a whole should not push for separation of church and state because it would be unconstitutional, unjust, and overall un-American.