Religious freedom in the public school

Edited to include:  Here's a government website that details the government's exact stance on the facets related to prayer in school.  Government stance on prayer in schools- read here.  I hope that you can understand the reasons why it is set up this way. 


I recently had a discussion with a friend about religion and the freedom of the religious, particularly in the public school system.  Many people are misled and uninformed about the rights of the believers in the public realm, especially in the public school system.  Perhaps some of these are intentional misrepresentations by some churches to enhance a feeling of repression among believers.  I'd like to believe that it is all unintentional but I find it hard to believe that a pastor would not seek out the limits of the rights of his congregation so that they may proselytize to the full limit of their rights.  I know that was the case when my husband and I were teens, the rights of students were made very clear by the church we attended and by the leaders of statewide Christian student leadership organizations so that we would make full use of the rights we had.  My goal here is to give you guys the run-down of your rights and do my best to make it clear why it's set up this way.

Students have the right to observe whatever religious practices they choose.  They can bring bibles, pray openly, and even hold meetings of religious clubs/organizations.  These are the rights of students!  Teachers cannot lead the class (or school) in prayer or teach that the teachings in the bible are inerrant and should be taken as fact.  Teachers do have the right to teach from the bible as literature.  Teachers also have the right to read their own bible outside of class time and likewise pray, they just cannot do it as part of any classroom activity.  My main points are how these measures protect the students and how they protect the rights of Christians.

First and foremost, these measures protect the students in much the same way statutory rape laws protect minors from being coerced and pressured into sex, by an adult.  In some instances, the minor might even think that they are having consensual sex but they have simply been manipulated by the adult.  People in powerful positions often take advantage of the naivete of our youngest people.  Another example is the Hitler Youth.  It has been realized often in history that if you want to hook them, hook them young.  Teach them what you want to them to believe and they’ll believe it more than the previous generation.  Of course the level of belief and internalization depends a lot on the authority administering the indoctrination.  We always hear a lot about peer pressure but the effects of someone in a perceived position of leadership over someone else is much greater.  Children constantly seek the approval of the significant adults in their lives and I think it takes no stretch to understand that teachers more than fit the criteria of having a significant role in the life of our children.  The Milgram experiment is a great example of this and takes it to even more drastic extremes.  Milgram discovered that even adults will inflict pain on others if a person they deem is in charge tells them to do so.   He took university student (over age 18) volunteers at Yale and instructed them to administer increasingly intense shocks to another student when they answered wrongly to predetermined questions (the other person was not actually receiving shocks but only acting as if he was; the shock administer had no idea it wasn’t real).  When they started to doubt if they should continue with the experiment a person of perceived authority would enter the room and tell them to continue.  64% of the participants administered the highest voltage shock though many doubted if they should continue.  I think it is easy to conclude that impressionable young minds and even adults will bend to do things they otherwise might not have if it weren’t for the undue influence exerted on them and that they must be protected from these external pressures.  

How it protects the rights of Christians is much less of an abstract thought than protecting our children’s impressionable minds.  Keeping school-organized prayer and bible instruction out of schools isn’t anti-Christian, it’s anti-religion.  Not that the government wants to squelch religion.  It doesn’t.  It simply cannot favor one religion over any other.  If the Bible were to be taught in schools, to be equitable the Quran would have to be taught as well.  The Bhagavadgita, Tao-te-Ching, and other religious texts would have to be taught.   Various related religious practices might be implemented like the Islam adhan (call to prayer) in addition to the Christian school-led prayers that some are so eager to allow.  I’m sure few Christians would be pleased knowing that their tax dollars were providing a religious education contrary to their own beliefs.  It’s much the same way that Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, and Hindu families would be uncomfortable if their children were being forced to participate in Christian education.  The government does not say that these religious doctrines cannot be taught in all schools, it only mandates that no religion or religious text (outside of literature purposes) be taught in publicly funded institutions.  If you desire your child to receive religious instruction in a school setting then you are free to send them to a private school or homeschool.  Most would consider spirituality and religion very personal decisions.  Even among the Christian denominations, there is a wide variance of practices that might not make all other Christians feel comfortable.  There is no one-size-fits-all approach to religion and to impose any on public schools would always leave someone out.

As always, I love discussion on the things I post.  If I didn’t want to actively talk about it I wouldn’t take the time to write this stuff.