Skip to main content

God, Religion, and Public Schools

For years now, I've seen posts and received emails calling for God to be allowed back in schools. This is a sentiment often expressed publicly by religious leaders in times of crisis, that whatever crisis is occurring at the moment is because we've turned our collective back on God, including kicking him out of schools. Famously the daughter of Billy Graham made statements to that effect after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, which have since passed into a form of internet legend. Yet, for all the publicity these statements get, for all the reblogging, sharing and forwarding that these statements get, calls to "let God back into schools," as one woman put it in a letter to the editor, are not just wrong factually but downright disingenuous. 

Let's take the claim at face value for analysis. While the exact wording varies from person to person, the claim seems like it might best be stated as follows:

a) God has been prohibited from (public) schools.
b) Because God has been prohibited from (public) schools, bad things are happening.

Thus from these two premises are drawn the conclusion that (c) God should be allowed back in schools.

As we know from basic logic, if the premises of an argument are flawed, the argument fails, and I would assert that premise (a) is fatally flawed. 

Has God indeed been banned or otherwise prohibited from public schools? The answer to that must be an emphatic "no" in several senses. Before the analysis continues further, we should establish what is meant by God being banned from schools. In many cases, the people who make this assertion usually take it to mean that prayer has been banned from schools, thus forcing God out. "God" in this argument is always code for prayer and the Bible, and we must proceed with this knowledge in mind. Well, are prayer and the Bible banned from public schools? Most certainly not. In spite of some of the hysterics from the would-be theocrats, no one is actively working to stop students praying. If a student wishes to pray privately before the day begins at their locker, before they eat lunch, or before a test, it is their absolute right to do so. The First Amendment guarantees their freedom of religion, and this would include their right to pray in school. No teacher or administrator is actively going around to make sure that no one prays in a school, acting as a sort of "prayer police," and any assertion to the contrary is delusional. Can students bring their Bibles or other religious texts to school and read it during any free time they have? Again, this is absolutely their right. So we see that students are not prohibited from praying, from carrying a Bible, from forming Bible clubs or engaging in release time for religious instruction. My own alma mater has a very active Bible Club where students meet regularly to discuss their faith; a teacher acts as an adviser to the group, but they are led by students and may well be the largest such club in the country. Students in public schools pledge their allegiance every day to "one nation, under God." Surely this demonstrates that God has not been banned from schools?

As a brief theological aside, the idea that God can be banned from anywhere seems somewhat problematic, as one of the attributes of the Judeo-Christian God is the idea that the deity is omnipresent, which is to say that He is everywhere. This would also seem to undermine premise (a) that God has been banned from public schools.

Thus the argument itself fails, but the fact that an argument is bad isn't enough to stop most people from using it. In fact, most arguments, when examined rationally, will prove to be bad, as far as that goes. So, then, now that we've seen that the argument is not only bad but obviously a ludicrous one, why then do religious figures keep asserting that we need God back in public schools in the face of evidence that God never actually left?

I believe that the key to understanding this is the fact that when the religious Right talks about prayer in schools, they are not talking about private prayer but public, school-sponsored prayer and religious devotion. In two decisions in the 1960's, the Supreme Court ruled (first in Engel v. Vitale in 1962 and then Abington Township School District v. Schempp the following year; summaries of both cases and their importance are available here) that both government sponsored prayer and devotions in public schools were unconstitutional, violating the separation of Church and State. It is important to repeat that these decisions meant that teachers and administrators were prohibited from leading students in sectarian religious prayer and devotions during class time; this did not prohibit private prayer at all, despite mildly hysterical assertions to the contrary. Religious figures continue to denounce these decisions, and some still vigorously thumb their nose at the idea that public schools should remain religiously neutral out of respect both for the Constitution as well as the great diversity of religious belief in this country. Thus when people talk about putting God back in schools, what they really mean is that they want students to be obligated to recite a prayer every day and perhaps also to be required to sit through a devotion based on a verse or two from the Bible.

Why is this a problem? Certainly many Christians in this country would welcome it, if the prevalence of this notion is any indication. In the first place, as the Supreme Court decided, official prayer (as opposed to private prayer by students) or Bible study constitutes a government endorsement of one particular religion over all others. Now granted, again, no small portion of Christians in this country would have no problem with that, but it is the Constitution that is the law of our land and we base our decisions in government on that. The Constitution bars the establishment of religion, and thus by extension our public schools must remain religiously neutral. This allows all students the freedom of their own personal religious beliefs without holding one particular belief up over all others. Those who feel that this constitutes an unreasonable limitation on their religious liberties are perfectly welcome to opt for a private religious school or to homeschool their children.

In the second place, the desire to force all students in public schools to sit through official, state-sponsored prayer or religious instruction imperiously ignores the great and increasing religious diversity of our country. Yes, a majority of the citizens of this country identify as Christians, but in our system of government the majority does not get to trample the rights of the minority, at least in theory. To force students who are Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Wiccan, atheist, etc. to sit through Christian prayer in a public school is to trample on their own religious liberties, and would be no more welcome to them than it would be to most Christians to be required to engage in Islamic prayer rituals. To dismiss the rights of non-Christians in the public sphere is not only unconstitutional but morally wrong.

So the next time you see someone asserting that we need "God back in schools," ask them, if you can, what they really mean. Do they truly think that God has somehow been kicked out of public schools, or are they merely expressing the desire of many theocrats to return to an age where their particular sectarian beliefs were forced on everyone? Do they mistakenly believe that all prayer has been banned, or do they wish their beliefs forced on everyone, in absolute defiance of the Constitution? As our country grows increasingly more diverse, these are not idle questions. For our country to thrive it is essential that we respect the right of those different from ourselves to make their own decisions about their lives, without having it forced on them, and this is especially true in matters of religious belief.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Film for Our Time

The jurors take a break in 12 Angry Men On the hottest day of the year, the trial of an eighteen year old boy for the murder of his father concludes--the jurors withdraw for deliberations, tasked with determining whether the defendant is guilty. If they agree, a death sentence will be handed down. The case seems an easy one, with the jury ready to reach a verdict in less than five minutes of deliberation, but one juror is not convinced. Over the objections of the others, he demands a recounting of the evidence presented, arguing that surely a man's life is worth more than a few moments' thought. Over the course of several hours, the jurors weigh the evidence of the case, and with it weightier issues of class, justice in the United States, and the intersection of the two. 12 Angry Men  remains relevant to us as we continue to deal with these issues nearly sixty years after the film's release. The great strength of the film lies in the fact that only two of the jur...

Endless Forms Most Bizarre

Anyone who knows me for more than ten minutes knows of my deep and abiding fondness for dinosaurs. It's a holdover from that phase most children go through, re-ignited during a summer class on the extinct beasts during college. Yet the drawback of being an adult who loves dinosaurs is readily apparent when you visit the shelves of your local library or bookstore. Most dinosaur books published are aimed at a far younger audience than myself, and the books for adults are often more technical works. Imagine my delight in seeing the newest book by John Pickrell waiting to be cataloged at my library! I placed a request for the book as quickly as I could pull out my smart phone, and I was not disappointed! Weird Dinosaurs: The Strange New Fossils Challenging Everything We Thought We Knew , is an excellent overview of many of the fascinating and bizarre new discoveries, and rediscoveries, of the past decade. A journalist and editor by trade, Pickrell is passionate about dinosaurs, ...

A Tale of Sound and Fury

Since the week before it was to be published, Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House  has been, by far, the most-talked about book in the country. The furor, prompted by an angry denunciation-by-tweet from the President, a cease and desist letter from his lawyers, and salacious details from the book making their way into the press, immediately catapulted it to bestseller status. Being a political junkie, of course I couldn't resist giving it a read. While the book sold out almost immediately in print, I was lucky enough to borrow the digital audiobook from my local public library. I rushed through it in just a few days - not only because of how engrossing it was, but also knowing that there were a lot of people waiting to read it after I was done. As enjoyable a read as Fire and Fury was, the deep irony of the book is that it would likely have received little attention had it not been for the attacks by the Trump Administration. In attempting to st...