Alexis Galvan Rhetoric April 4, 2002 Church versus State: Religion and Prayer in Public Schools           In the United States, where tragedy has struck, controversy surrounds various issues.  One concern that needs addressing is the role of religion or prayer in the public school system.  Since the September eleventh attacks, America has leaned on religion for comfort.  It is said a religious awakening has arrived.  Therefore, religion in schools is becoming a greater issue.  Some individuals frown on the thought of prayer in public schools; however, prayer encourages a positive atmosphere.           Explaining the reaction of Americans after the September eleventh attacks John Burruss states, "People in time of crisis are drawn to their faiths" (qtd. in Morse).  Morse expresses that what would normally cause a stir has instead been accepted.  Liberals would normally protest over what is legal and what is not. In moments like these it is not the time to challenge these actions.  According to Morse, religion is being promoted more strongly.  She states, "seeking to reassure their students . . . schools across the country are turning more openly to God."  Normally, schools would be hesitant to address this issue, but it is in times like these when we must unite as one.  Morse also describes the role of religion before the attack on America stating, "Before September 11, the answer was a crisp and concise no.  Today it's open for debate."  Kevin E. Broyles suggests that to address this issue a basic understanding of the history of prayer is necessary.  He also points out how the philosophy of America has changed since the construction of the Constitution.  The way the Constitution is interpreted is most likely different from the way the framers expected it to be understood.           Those who frown upon religious practices in public schools argue that public schools are religiously diverse. Thus, the chance of a student feeling left out or offended by prayer is inevitable.  Barry Bussey supports this point of view and states, "When religious exercises occur in the public schools there is a significant potential for discrimination against religious minorities and those who object."  Someone may take offense to listening to coercive prayer which they do not believe in.  On the other hand, the United States is a country that prides itself on liberty; therefore, if the Constitution is altered the traditional American values will be demolished.  Laurel MacLeod writes, "It seems unreasonable that public schools allow open discussion about sex but do not allow open discussion about God.  The courts have forgotten that schools can allow free religious expression without embracing any particular type of religious thought."  Praying is a religious activity, but it doesn't define a specific religion.  Every student is already granted the right to participate in religious exercises.  The question is not if prayer should be allowed in public schools since the Constitution already grants freedom of religion.  Instead, the issue is that the majority, religious groups, and the minority, religious minorities or atheists, all need to be protected.           In the First Amendment it is clarified that a line between church and state exists.  Still the government sees fit to try and regulate how and when religion is practiced.  The First Amendment was written to avoid conflict among the different religious groups. Since church and state are not staying completely separate, many issues involving prayer continue to arise. Prohibiting prayer in the schools takes away the rights of the majority who are religious.  To protect both the majority and the minority without infringing upon either group's rights, prayer is allowed and practiced individualy.  Those who choose not to include prayer in their daily routine do not have to practice prayer (MacLeod).  As it is pointed out by Laurie Asseo, "Truly private prayer neither seeks nor requires a microphone and an audience."  If prayer is important enough to individual students, they will take it upon themselves to pray privately.  Prayer should not need advertising for students to understand its significance.  In the end, private prayer is beneficial to both the minority and the majority.  It is when the school as a whole practices prayer that students become offended. Although the Constitution grants everyone the freedom of religion, the law also grants everyone individual rights.           Although the issue of church versus state seems complex at times, the case is simple.  As Bussey states, "Unless society is convinced of the harm that can result from the imposition of school prayer in public schools, all of the legal shenanigans mean absolutely nothing."  This issue is too broad for any organization or group to attempt implementing policies.  Those who oppose prayer can only base their arguments on one factor.  The factor being minorities are being offended and need protection.  The most significant factor in the debate over prayer in public schools is the government's responsibility to remain neutral.  It is because of neutrality that people go in circles trying to decide who is responsible for regulating religious expression.  The Constitution clarifies the line between church and state; therefore, it is up to society to decide whether prayer is detrimental to students.  Society is the final regulator of prayer in public schools.           It is not the responsibility of the school system to encourage healthy religious practices.  The schools' responsibility is to educate students for their future.  The schools should emphasize the student's academic education.  If stressing prayer sidetracks school officials, then how are students supposed to receive the best education possible?  The best interest should be in students' academics.  Mark Walsh states, "many conservatives began to blame the prayer decision for the decline in the student-achievement scores, rising teenage pregnancy, and other educational and social troubles."  These are just some examples of what happens when academic education is overlooked because of issues like prayer in schools.             Life is diverse and educational in itself.  The students will learn and benefit from diversity.  Eventually, nature will take its course and find a place for prayer.  It is in the best interest of students that neither government nor school officials be allowed to meddle in their personal prayer life. For example, if prayer is necessary before a test, it is acceptable as long as the individual is not coercing other students.  Amelia Newcomb suggests, "Students can learn to coexist, to be sensitive to different points of view while still strengthening their own spiritual and moral values."  Therefore, school officials and the courts should allow nature to take place and students will eventually learn to live among each other.  Students face many obstacles to overcome, and diversity is inevitable since the human race is defined by differences.  Without the help or distraction of the courts, religion will fall into its position.           A compromise can be established that will satisfy everyone.  Prayer can be taken out of public schools and replaced with a moment of silence, or other options may be explored.  Individuals can use the moment of silence however they choose.  In this allotted time, people may pray quietly to themselves or they can remain silent.  This method should prevent anyone from feeling offended.  Since no words are spoken there is little to be stricken by.  This alternative honors each individual's rights and diminishes controversy.  Another solution is private prayer.  Private prayer is a student's ability to practice prayer quietly and privately to avoid offending the minority.  This allows students to learn how to be considerate of the feelings of those who are in the minority.  This method also allows religious students to express themselves while honoring the other students' rights as well.  Bussey claims, "Violating a civil right would make the school districts more careful about what policies are implemented."  Not only would implementing the moment of silence protect the minority, but also it will also enable the school to be more cautious of the consequences.           Although prayer is meant to develop a positive atmosphere, it has ignited controversy.  There are various solutions to overcome the consequences of prayer in public schools.  Many options must be considered to protect both the minority and majority.  Before policies are implemented, every angle of this issue must be observed.  An understanding of the Constitution is necessary before regulations are set on religion.  Since the government's intervention is limited, the role of religion is still debatable.  This also brings up another question: if it is not the place of the government to intervene and regulate, then whose place is it?  Until this is decided the best solution is a compromise.  Sources Cited Asseo, Laurie. "Court Again Limits Prayer in Schools." Associated Press 21 Feb 2002           <http://ehostvgw3.epnet.com/           fulltext.asp?resultSetId=R00000000&hitNum=23&booleanTer>. Broyles, Kevin E. "Recent Developments." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 93.           16 (Winter 1993): 279. 13 Feb 2002 <http://ehostvgwl12.epnet.com/           fulltext.asp?resultSetId=R00000000&hitNum=44&booleanTe>. Bussey, Barry. "School Prayer and Discrimination." Journal of Church and State 42.1           (Winter 2000): 193. 21 Feb 2002 <http://ehostvgw20.epnet.com/           get_xml.asp?boolleanTerm=School+Prayer&fuzzyTerm=&hit>. MacLeod, Laurel. "School Prayer and Religious Liberty: A Constitutional Perspective."           Concerned Women for America Sept. 2000. 14 Feb 2000 <http://cwfa.org/library/           freedom>. Morse, Jodie. "Letting God Back In." Time 22 Oct. 2001: 158. Newcomb, Amelia. "Praying at School." Christian Science Monitor [Boston] 16 June 1998:           B1. Walsh, Mark. "Prayer Proposal Echoes Earlier Debates Over Religion in School." Education           Week 14 Dec. 1994: 6.