The Relationship of Church and State in America and

Its Impact on Education from an Historical and Judicial Perspective

PART III

By
David A. Berresford

In the previous two articles on this topic (See Archives.) we reviewed the religious nature of our Republic’s beginnings and the evolution of the Court’s position on the First Amendment. This article will evaluate the impact of the Court’s various decisions on the public school system in America.

Educators and parents are often caught in the middle of this argument and must be familiar with Court rulings and intentions. This is particularly true of school administrators. In almost all communities there will be factions representing both sides of the church and state issue. The school principal and superintendent will need to support their decisions by an accurate understanding of the law. Unfortunately, many, if not most, school administrators are woefully ignorant of what the law says and what the Court has established. The following issues can become centers of contention:

1. A moment of silence or meditation
2. The use of school buildings by religious groups
3. Teaching from the Bible as a part of the curriculum
4. Student Bible clubs using school property
5. The right of students to wear shirts with Christian literature on them
6. The right of students to bring Bibles to school
7. The right of students to give religious speeches and to offer prayer at graduation activities.
8. The observance of religious holidays at school
9. The use of terms as “Christmas vacation” and Easter break.”

Each of these concerns can be addressed through the examination of specific Court decisions. A moment of silence is permitted by law. Schools, at this time, however, cannot advocate a voluntary prayer. (Wallace, 1985) Students may also lead in prayer at graduation ceremonies. [Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)] Students may even give speeches on religion, including reading from the Bible, at the graduation program. [Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263,269 (1981)] School officials may not promote these activities, nor can they invite clergy to participate. If students wish to do so, they must take the initiative. Students may also participate in the See You at the Pole National Day of Prayer and similar events. Again, this must be student initiated and student lead. [Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)]

The court has made several decisions concerning the use of school property for religious purposes. Members of the community or organizations can use school facilities for religious activities. This is true only if the school also makes those facilities available to other non-school groups during non-school hours. [Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 113, S. Ct2141 (1993)] Students may use school facilities for Bible clubs or prayer groups. These groups are permitted to meet on campus during non-instructional time. This right can only be denied if the school does not permit any other type of service club to use the buildings. When the club has been officially recognized, its members may use the public address system, bulletin boards, and school newspapers in the same manner that the other clubs do. [Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 248 (1990)]

Many individuals believe that the Bible and its reading are forbidden in the public school. In Stone v. Graham, [449 U.S. 39,42 (1980)] the Supreme Court ruled that the Bible may be used as an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, and similar topics. For example, the school board could establish a class that evaluates the role of the Bible in this country and western civilization. Students, even if a class is not using the Bible as a part of the curriculum, are permitted to carry a Bible with them to school. They may also wear shirts that promote their religious views. The student is only bound by the obligation to not materially or substantially disrupt school discipline. [Mergens, 1990]

In the past schools almost universally in the country participated in holiday observances. Since the Vitale (1962) case many schools have eliminated this practice. Students still have the right to pass out religious tracts concerning the holiday, to wish one another a “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Hanukah,” and to present religiously oriented material when an assignment on a relevant topic is given. (Tinker, 1969) Religious songs and symbols can be used in public schools if they are presented in a prudent and objective manner and only as a part of the religious and cultural heritage of the holiday. [Florey v. Sioux Falls School Dist., 619 F. 2d 1311, 1317, 8th Cir. (1980)] Jay Alan Sekulow (1993) notes how the Florey decision was based largely on the United States Supreme Court opinion in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. [374 U.S. 203 (1963)] Furthermore, school districts do not have to rename “Christmas Vacation” to Winter Vacation” or some similar name or “Easter Break” to “Spring Break.” [Lynch v. Donnelly, 464 U.S. 668,675,680 (1984)]

Educators should not deny America’s religious heritage in the name of political correctness. Historical revisionism and a watered-down social studies curriculum can only undermine the identity of the American people. The people of this country are who they are because of whom they have been. Americans have been a religious nation.

References

Alexander, K. & Alexander, M.D. (1992). American public school law (3rd ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
Annals of America 3 (1976) Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
Barton, D. (1993). The myth of separation. Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press.
Declaration of Independence.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 422 (1962).
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 504 (1947).
Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, 619 F 2d 1311, 1317, 8th Cir. (1980).
Lamb’s Chapel v Center Morishes Union Free School District, 113 S. Ct. 2141 (1993).
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992).
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 603, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971).
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 665, 680 (1984).
Millard, C. (1977). The rewriting of America’s history. Camp Hill, PA: Horizon House Publishers.
Northwest Ordinance, articles I, II, III, VI.
People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns 545 Sup. Ct. N.Y. (1811).
Runkel v. Winemiller, 4 Harris & McHenry 276, 288 Sup. St. Md. (1799).
School District of Abington Township V. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
Sekulow, J.A. (1993). Knowing your rights: Taking back our religious liberties. Virginia Beach, VA: The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980).
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
United States Constitution, amend. I.
United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 625 (1931).
Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 132 (1844).
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 S. Ct. (1985).
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 248 (1990).
Widmar v. Vincent, 453 U.S. 263, 269 (1981).