I’m certainly not against prayer in school. In fact, as a strong believer in freedom I think it is essential that people be free from government interference (within limits) to follow the “dictates of their consciences.” To be more specific: While I do not believe you are entitled to your opinion, I also do not think it is the government’s job to fix it. You have a right to be free of government interference in what you believe, think, and even do, provided you don’t initiate the use of force against another person. At that point the government can step in. Deciding where that point is can be a thorny exercise, of course.

But back to prayer in school. What exactly would I be signing up for? I visit the page and click Info. Here’s what it says at the time of writing.

This is to see how many people belive [sic] that prayer should be allowed back into public school.

“Allowed back?” I have made the point elsewhere that prayer and Bible reading are not against the law in schools. In fact, courts in the United States have consistently held that religious expression by students cannot be suppressed or abridged unless it can be shown to cause substantial disruption. Essentially you are free to pray, but not if you disrupt classes or block a fire exit. You can even form student prayer groups and meet on school grounds thanks to the Federal Equal Access Act, passed back in 1984.

I have also argued elsewhere that groups like this fall into two categories: those that genuinely misunderstand the current laws, and those who seek to use government to promote their views over the views of others.

I agree with the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church, and the American Baptist Churches that “current law quite sufficiently provides adequate constitutional and statutory protections against violations of the right of voluntary prayer.” This statement comes from a letter to which the before mentioned organizations were signatories.

Given that I believe the current laws are consistent with the Constitution and adequate to protect voluntary prayer, and given that I do not want government to promulgate values, I cannot become a “fan” of the group. In fact, I’m a bit surprised anyone is.

Their current membership is 131,648. I find myself wondering what these folks think they are signing up to support. Let’s read! To avoid accusations of cherry-picking, I’ll just grab the first three posts from the Wall, at the time of writing, verbatim and in order. I don’t give the full names, but you can visit the site (linked at the start of this note) to read for yourself.

Cathy D: You know the shirt may say, God why do u allow so much violence in our schools, but when God is not allowed in the schools, how do they expect him to help…

Cathy D: We need PRAYER back in our schools, in our lives, and homes. Some children would never hear a prayer but at school. Let’s get PRAYER back in our schools. Please Lord help us to get this done..

Andrea S: There are T-shirts you can buy that state on the front “Public Schools Need God” and has 2 letters written on the back. The letters state
“Dear God, Why do you allow so much violence in our schools? Sincerely Yours, A Concerned Student….
Dear Concerned Student, I am not allowed in school. Sincerely Yours, God.”
It says it all. When people started stepping and having God removed from our schools, we seemed to have a lot more tragedies across the nation. We need God in our schools and in our country. I do not understand why people are trying to throw Him out when He is what this country was initially founded upon.. It’s a shame..

Cathy D specifically writes “Some children would never hear a prayer but at school.” That is, she isn’t seeking a right for students to pray in school (which they already have), she wants the students to hear a school-sanctioned prayer whether or not their parents or guardians do. If this sounds noble to you, you haven’t thought it through. Please read the articles I linked above.

Andera S gives the oft-repeated argument that school violence is linked to the removal of school-sponsored prayer. Again, I covered that before. To my knowledge no causal link has been established, and many of the arguments about specific social decay (teen pregnancy, divorce, violent crime) are not supported by easily-available evidence.

So, as someone who values freedom, including religious freedom, this group is not for me.

1. Those who genuinely misunderstand the U.S. legal position on prayer and Bible reading in public schools.
2. Those who understand the U.S. legal position, but want to use the machinery of the state to advance their own cause.

In both cases I fear the end result is the spreading of misinformation.  In this post I’m going to excerpt from publicly-available online postings to support the above.  I’ll provide links, unless asked to remove them by the site maintainers, so that you can have them in full context.  I don’t want to misrepresent anyone’s position on this issue, or to be guilty of spreading misinformation.

Citations tagged “wall post” or “discussion thread” can be found on the Facebook page for Put Christ Back Into Schools, linked at the start of this article.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

– KJV, Matthew 6:5-8

Current Legal Status

My previous posting contained a discussion of the legal status of both prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, so I won’t repeat it here.  Instead, I’ll just summarize.

First, neither prayer nor reading the Bible (or any other holy text) is disallowed per se. Courts in the United States have consistently held that religious expression by students cannot be suppressed or abridged unless it can be shown to cause substantial disruption. What is disallowed is school sponsored prayer or Bible reading, even when it is ostensibly student-led.

Though I did not mention it in the prior post, student groups such as those for Bible study or prayer may be organized and meet on school grounds under the federal Equal Access Act passed in 1984.

The Supreme Court and others have consistently held that school policies promoting religion violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the several states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are cases of note where student groups have been considered “disruptive” on what may be shaky ground.  However it is not at all hard to find student-led prayer groups meeting on high school grounds.  Clearly both Bible reading and prayer are taking place legally in public schools.

There are books on this topic.  The Fourth R: Conflicts Over Religion in America’s Public Schools, by Joan DelFattore, is one example.

The current U.S. Department of Education guidelines on prayer in public schools can be found in the short article Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools available on the Department’s web site.

Misinformation

People are confused about the state of prayer in school, and believe prayer to be illegal.

I really hope this does work because i would to see my children to be able to Pray in school when i have kids and when they are able to. We need to keep praying about this, that gos let’s it happen and that it continues to grow…..

– wall post by MD, 3/10/2009

I find it astonishing just how wrong many “informational” sites are on this issue.

The U. S. Supreme Court issued two bans on prayer in public schools. The first ban came in 1962 and the second was issued in 1963. The bans were the result of a court case sponsored in part by Madalyn Murray O’Hair. She was but one of the litigants in the lawsuit, but her name became synonymous with the case and the promotion of atheism. The ban not only outlawed prayer in public schools but it also banned Bible reading in public schools.

– Excerpted from http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/prayer-in-the-public-schools-faq.htm

Just to reiterate: There is no ban on either prayer or Bible reading in public schools.  It is school policies that may be held unconstitutional, as per the Lemon Test.

Others seem to play a bit fast and loose with what is or is not “banned.”

On June 25, l962, 39 million students were forbidden to do what they and their predecessors had been doing since the founding of our nation – publicly calling upon the name of the Lord at the beginning of each school day.

The New York school children which prompted the Engel vs. Vitale ruling had simply prayed: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee and beg Thy blessing over us, our parents, our teachers and our nation.”

– Excerpted from http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0098_Ban_on_school_prayer.html, by Gary Bergel

It would seem Mr. Bergel knows the appropriate case.  The text of the decision is easily available via FindLaw.  He even quotes the prayer that was at issue.  However the text “39 million students were forbidden to do what they and their predecessors had been doing since the founding of our nation” is disingenuous, to say the least.  The students were not forbidden from doing anything; the ruling again applied to a school policy, and enjoined the school as an agent of the state.  Students remained free to pray or not pray as they wished.

Advocacy sites do a poor job of history, but then they are advocacy sites, after all.

From the time the Pilgrims landed in 1620 until the Supreme Court Rulings of 1963, (a span of 343 years) School Prayer and Bible reading were considered Religious Freedoms.

[...]

While Congress has never passed a Law that Prohibits Prayer in School, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is Illegal for children to Pray in School because it violates the “Separation of Church and State” which is not in the Constitution.

[...]

The Supreme Court in effect added an exception clause to the First Amendment. The exception clause in effect said you are free to worship, pray, or read the Bible except if you are on school property.

– Excerpted from http://www.free2pray.info/

This omits some significant history, including the Edgerton Bible Case in 1890.  In any case, as I pointed out in the prior article, you won’t find much prior to Reconstruction.

Slightly more interesting is the 1620 date.  That’s clearly prior to the founding of this country, omits the natives (who had a variety of different religions), ignores the fact that the Pilgrims were citizens of a country with a state religion (England), and conflates their school prayer with school prayer in U.S. public schools.

Is it all the atheists fault?  Americans United for Separation of Church and State provides the following list of organizations that oppose government-sponsored prayer in public schools.  I took the time to look up a couple of the organizations and link to their policies.  I may add more as time passes.

• American Baptist Churches, USA [policy]
• American Jewish Congress [*]
• Anti-Defamation League [policy] [*]
• Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty [summary] [*]
• Central Conference of American Rabbis [*]
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [policy]
• Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) [*]
• General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
• Mennonite Central Committee
• National Council of Churches
• National Council of Jewish Women [*]
• National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council
• North American Council for Muslim Women
• Presbyterian Church (USA) [*]
• Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association
• Soka Gakkai International – U.S.A.
• The Church of Christ, Scientist
• The Episcopal Church, USA [*]
• The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
• Union of American Hebrew Congregations [*]
• Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
• Unitarian Universalist Association [*]
• United Church of Christ [*]
• United Methodist Church
• Women of Reform Judaism, The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods [*]

[*] This group is a signatory of the following letter: Leave No Child Behind.  Other groups not mentioned above are also signatories of this letter.  One excerpt from this letter:

[...] current law quite sufficiently provides adequate constitutional and statutory protections against violations of the right of voluntary prayer.

What’s Desired?

It seems that some people explicitly want the return of daily devotionals.  This can take different forms.

• Opening the school day with a prayer and / or a Bible reading.
• Allowing the use of religious education in the classroom.

While there is a wide spectrum between these, and there are other suggestions such as adding a “moment of silence,” these are the positions I see advocated most frequently.  I’ll only discuss the first position here, since it is “weaker” than the second.

Should we open the school day with a Christian prayer or Bible reading?

As I pointed out previously, case law against this goes back to Weiss v. District Board, 1890.  You can read more about this case here, on the Wisconsin courts site.

I’ll focus on Bible reading, since the arguments against prayer are largely parallel.

The difficulty arises from the fact that there are different translations of the Christian Bible.  Catholics may object to the use of translations such as the King James Version, while protestants may object to the use of Catholic translations, such as the Douay-Rheims.

Am I wrong?  Consider the following two posts.  The first is by the creator of the group.

By saying “The teaching of the entire Bible and only the Bible..” means that we believe that only the Bible should be taught – not any other book such as the Catholic Bible. Also, the entire Bible, not just parts of the Bible.

– Post in discussion thread “Can someone please explain this group to me?” by Peter Ruchti, the creator of the group, on 3/15/2009

Ther Bible is the Word of God
He is truth and His word is flawless and perfect.
The Catholic faith is all about idolatry and is THE FALSE CHURCH AND DEAD AND VOID OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD WHICH IS TRUTH AND SPIRIT.

– Post in discussion thread “Can someone please explain this group to me?” by LM, on 3/15/2009.

Note that Peter refers to “the Bible,” and clearly intends to differentiate it from the Catholic Bible.  One is left wondering which translation he means, but we can assume it is the King James Version.

It might interest many of these people to know that this country was settled by diverse groups with diverse translations.  In particular, the Mayflower pilgrims, as well as the Massachusetts Bay colonists led by John “city on the hill” Winthrop, used the Geneva Bible.  King James disliked the Calvinist and Puritan nature of the annotations present in the Geneva Bible, and this led, in part, to his commissioning a new translation to replace it.  Interestingly, it is unknown which version of the Bible was present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

(Incidentally, those who object to the new translations with more direct language might also be interested to know that the Geneva Bible used by the Puritans contained simpler and more direct translations than the (later) King James Version.)

As I write this, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the fastest-growing Christian denomination in the United States, and has a strong claim as a truly American religion.  Should we read from the Book of Mormon?

In some places in the United States the Catholic population is the majority, or is soon to be the majority due to immigration.  Should we read from the Catholic Bible?

Should read from the Qur’an?  What about the Upanishads?  Should we let the majority of people in a school district determine the text?

As for opening the school day with a prayer, recall that in Engel v. Vitale, 1962, and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 2000, it was religious groups who objected to school sponsorship of prayer, and not secular groups or atheists.  Recall the list of groups supporting the ban on school-sponsored prayer given earlier in this article.

People want their specific point of view taught in school, or at least want the school curriculum brought in line with their point of view.

Kids are totallly lost now a days because they don’t know who God is, they don’t know how to pray. They are left out to watch violence on video’s and tv. Their views in
school are contrary sometimes to what we are teaching at him in the house. By introducing God’s word then they will start friendship with all not only few…..there will be PEACE!!!

– wall post by MCM, 3/4/2009

Reasons?

Some people clearly want all children exposed to some form of Christianity in an organized fashion, rather than through interaction with their peers or parents.  They wish this even (and particularly) if the parents are not telling their children about Christianity or are not Christian.

I think the worse thing they ever did was take prayer out of school, children now have no leadership of the Lord at school and a lot of them have NONE at home, where does this leave our children.

– wall post by WEN, 3/4/2009

In this sense they want the government to “pick a winner” and promote their religion in the public schools.  Children who object or whose parents object can go elsewhere.

First of all” There are no atheists in fox holes”. I joined this cause because I was invited by my Preacher. I grew up with prayer in school! I’ve been a Police Officer for a long time and I spend alot of time dealing with our youth. Prayer in the schools can only help!

Atheists are offended because this cause does not endorse freedom of religion. What does school prayer have to do with freedom of religion? God says we are to Worship him and to serve him and to spead his gospel. If you haven’t noticed the problems in our society are a direct result of a breakdown in the schools and Churches because we are afraid of those who want to claim that our worshipping God or praying in schools is violating there beliefs.

Those that claim to be offended by this then don’t join this cause you are of no use and simply a tool of satan. Trust me satan doesn’t want prayer in schools either. With God back in ours schools our children wouldn’t be killing and raping each other and assulting our teachers.

I’ll pray for prayer back in our schools and for the salvation of all of those atheists.

– wall post by GK, 3/17/2009

It`s really sad to send your kids to school for them to be denied to even mention God! We pay our taxes and yet only 4% of Americans are atheists 86% believe in God,why do we even listen to the 4%? If we want Christ in schools then we have to resort to private schools,WHY? Let the 4% go to private schools!

– wall post by SR, 3/15/2009

Two reasons are commonly given for this position: freedom of speech and morality.

I completely agree with putting Christ back into the school. I feel that it was wrong to stop this in the first place. The way that I see it is that this is America, and America is suppose to be all about freedom of speech. The ones that believe should be allowed to speak of Christ in School and the ones that don’t believe don’t have to speak of christ then. But don’t give into them and let them have their way while us that do have to stop what we do believe in.

– wall post by AFK, 3/19/2009

When Christ was allowedf to walk the halls, there were no school shootings. When we were allowed to pray in school before test, the graduation rate was higher. When Christ was allowed on the bus, children went to school everyday and did not drop ouy. Teens were not getting pregnant. Gangs were not heard of. Truancy officers were not needed because if a child skipped school their mother knew about it by 10:00am. WE pay in God we Trsut. Howeverm we only trust him and need him in a time of crisis. Keep blocking cvhrist out and we will keep building prisons.

– wall post by SDJ, 3/12/2009

(I will deal with the morality issue in the next section.)

The relevant amendment is the First:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

– First Amendment, The Constitution of the United States of America

The First Amendment enshrines a right (freedom of speech) by restricting what the government can do.  It is not absolute.  Further, in this case the idea is to use the First Amendment to impose a requirement on the government and its agents (teachers and school staff).  Wouldn’t Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Sikhs, and the wide variety of atheists also be allowed to apply this argument and be heard?  The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause would seem to imply they would.  If all opposing viewpoints were heard every day in a large school, what other education could take place?

Consequences?

The site www.free2pray.com has a page listing consequences of removing school prayer.  Let’s look at three they cite.

• Teen pregnancy rates have gone up 500% since 1962.
• The divorce rate is so high that many young children don’t really understand what a family is.
• Violent Crimes have risen steadily since the early 60’s, and our prison system is bursting at the seams.

Teen Pregnancy

I can’t find any support for this figure.  In actuality, teen birth rates have been steadily declining since their peak in the 1950’s (see here).  The percentage of births out of wedlock has risen and perhaps this is what they are citing.  But even so, you are describing a percentage of a smaller number.  Being very generous and using the 1950 and 2000 numbers one can arrive at a four-fold increase in teen births out of wedlock; moving forward to 1962 does not help their case, since the teen birth rate rose between 1950 and 1962, hitting their all-time high of almost one-in-ten of all teen girls in 1957.  The primary factor in the rise of births out of wedlock appears to actually be fewer teens getting married, even when they become pregnant.  The age of first marriage has increased significantly since the 1950’s.

Another source is the CDC, which published this study.  It only goes back to 1976, which is when they began doing national estimates (and excludes the 1957 data, in particular), but they report the following.

Teenage pregnancy rates dropped 38 percent overall from 1990-2004. The rate fell from its historic peak in 1990, 116.8 per 1,000 aged 15-19 years, to 72.2 in 2004. The 2004 pregnancy rate for teenagers was the lowest ever reported since the national series of estimates began in 1976.

– Excerpted from NCHS Data on Teen Pregnancy

Don’t be confused by the above studies; in some cases they are measuring different things, such as birth vs. pregnancy rates. Nevertheless the overall message is that fewer teens, as a percentage of the population, are getting pregnant now than in prior years. Keep in mind also the effect of the age of first marriage; teens married at 17, 18, or 19 are being counted, and that was more common in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Divorce Rate

It seems curious to imply that this is the result of the 1962 ruling, and not the introduction of no-fault divorce in the early 1970’s.  In any case divorce rates have been in decline since the 1990’s, even in Nevada.  See the CDC page on marriage and divorce.

Violent Crime

Yes, the prison system in the United States is a mess.  What about violent crime rates?  The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics tells a different story.  Of course, that data only goes back to 1973, but note the reversal of the trend in 1994.  Should we attribute this to Bill Clinton?

Effect?

Others cite school shootings.  As the lack of school-sponsored prayer has no demonstrated connection with a rise in gun violence in schools, it does not seem that the imposition of school-sponsored prayer would end the violence.  In many cases student violence seems to arise from frustration.  It is therefore conceivable that school-sponsored prayer might exacerbate student frustration if students feel disenfranchised by the promotion of a different religion than their own.

In short, there are many factors behind all these statistics.  No convincing case is made that state-sponsored school prayer would have either a positive or negative effect on any of this.

My Motives

So why am I bothering to write any of this?  First, I believe there is both intentional and unintentional misinformation on this issue, and that groups such as the Facebook group perpetuate this.  Second, I believe that if many of these groups were to achieve their end, the result would be both divisive and damaging, as I believe I have outlined above.

As someone with a personal interest in public education I am concerned about the effect should the government, at any level, be allowed to provide religious teaching.  If you are religious you should be concerned, too.  The demographics of this country change, people move, and religions rise and fall in number.

Recall the posts above on Catholicism, such as “The Catholic faith is all about idolatry [...].”  Then keep in mind that between 1/5 and 1/4 of the population of this country is Catholic.

In short, I do not feel that the proponents of school-sponsored prayer have made their case that the benefits of their policy are sufficient to justify the change and the resulting discord.

Conclusion

While I may not agree with everything Joseph Schumpeter had to say, we would do well to remember the following insight.

Since the first thing man will do for his ideal or interest is to lie, we shall expect, and as a matter of fact we find, effective information is almost always adulterated or selective [...].

– Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

The Cause

This group espouses the following two principles, which I shamelessly copied verbatim from their site.

1. Allow Teaching of and only the Bible by teachers at any time to students anytime.
2. Allowing the Bible (and only the Bible) to be an elective in all schools, and not forced upon.

Continuing on, they state:

We believe every teacher should have the right to teach the Bible at any time.

Please note: To clearify, this group is for teaching of the entire Bible, and only the Bible.

According 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, every person has the right to religion. Why is praying/reading of the Bible not allowed in most schools?

The last question is the interesting one. Why is praying / reading of the Bible not allowed in most schools? I’ll take on the challenge of answering that here.

First, neither prayer nor reading the Bible (or any other holy text) is disallowed per se. Courts in the United States have consistently held that religious expression by students cannot be suppressed or abridged unless it can be shown to cause substantial disruption. What is disallowed is school sponsored prayer or Bible reading, even when it is ostensibly student-led.

Agents of the State and the Establishment Clause

The trick is that education is compulsory in the United States, and for this reason public schools are provided using public funding (i.e., our money). The schools are an institution of the government, and teachers and staff are acting as agents of the government.

Even so, prior to Reconstruction the individual states were free to do more or less what they wanted in this regard. The passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applied the restrictions of the 1st Amendment to the several states via its “due process” clause. The historians and lawyers will correct me here if I’m incorrect, I’m sure.

Anyway, the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first two clauses are the “establishment” clause and the “free exercise” clause, respectively. The free exercise clause protects students who wish to pray. The establishment clause restricts what teachers, administrators, or other agents of the government can do and, importantly, what they can use their positions to promote.

So, in summary, this is what has been interpreted by the courts (consistently, I might add) to prohibit school-sponsored religious activities.

The Courts

Daily prayer and Bible readings continued long after Reconstruction ended. In particular, there was a daily Bible reading and devotional at my public junior high school. So why doesn’t this continue?

The answer is that there have been court cases that have ruled that this is not permissible. There seems to be a misconception that those pesky atheists, led by the pesky Madalyn Murray O’Hair were the cause of all the trouble. Not (entirely) true.

The challenges to Bible reading and prayer that make up the case law were predominantly brought by religious people, and usually Christians. Some cases of note are the following.

In Weiss v. District Board, 1890, Catholics objected to the use of the King James Bible in Wisconsin Public Schools. I assume everyone knows the story of the formation of the Church of England, and why Catholics would prefer a translation such as the Douay-Rheims be used.

This case was later cited by Justice Brennan in Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963. This is actually the case where the Supreme Court articulated the ban on school-sponsored Bible reading. Schempp was a Unitarian, and here’s where Madalyn O’Hair shows up. She had a separate case that was consolidated with Schempp’s.

Back to prayer. In Engel v. Vitale, 1962 (the previous year), the Supreme Court ruled that school sponsored prayer violated the establishment clause. The plaintiff’s were primarily rabbinical organizations who objected to opening the school day with a prayer.

The Engel v. Vitale decision has since been extended in a variety of cases, and it is to many of these cases that most recent attention appears to be paid. For instance, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 2000 the Court ruled that a school policy sanctioning student-initiated and student-led prayer at school events violated the establishment clause. This action was brought by Catholic and Mormon families. Note that the school policy was held to violate the Constitution, not the prayer itself.

In the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens, the Court objected to prayer:

[...] on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school’s public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer [...]

In short, the student was held to be acting as an agent of the school, and thus of the government. Teachers, administrators, and staff cannot act by proxy through students.

The Court’s position is nicely summarized in the “Lemon Test” arising from Lemon v. Kurtzman. A government action is deemed unconstitutional under the establishment clause if it fails to pass all three prongs of the test:

1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

Solutions?

I personally believe it is not necessary to have prayer or Bible reading in the public schools. We have churches and, for that matter, private religious schools. The real issue hinges on compulsory education and public schools.

I would suggest that the members of this particular cause instead consider supporting the elimination of or alternatives to public schools to disentangle the federal government from education altogether. If we wish to retain compulsory education (and most of us probably do), then we could institute a voucher system or other mechanism to provide more school choice.

I’ll close with the following quotation, that I believe summarizes my point quite nicely.

[...] we should at least be able to see that our interest would be best served not by asking the state to promulgate our values but by forbidding the state to promulgate any values at all. If the state can espouse some value that we love in spite of evidence and reason, it can, with equal justice, espouse others that we do not love.

– Richard Mitchell, The Underground Grammarian, v. 6, n. 7