Religion in the Public Schools

Baptist Statement

Prepared by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.

 

THE First and Fourteenth Amendments to our Constitution prohibit Congress or State and local governments from making or enforcing any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." These few words, as they have been interpreted by the Supreme Court, protect the people from governmental involvement in their religion or their churches and forbid individuals or churches to use public funds to achieve religious ends or use the power of government to force religious beliefs or practices on the rest of the population.

These concepts were strengthened by the Court's decisions in Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963). In a majority of the public schools in the country, teachers, principals, superintendents, school boards, or legislators all agents of government on their own initiative, or responding to the desires of elements of the community, had made religious exercises like Bible reading and prayer an integral part of the public school curriculum. In most instances these religious exercises were called voluntary. However, in the exercises which the Court declared unconstitutional the only element of voluntarism was the choice of nonparticipation, which the students were said to have. The individual student did not decide what, when, or how he would pray, or which scriptures would be read, or which translation or version of the Scriptures would be used.

In the Engel case a school board required each classroom teacher to supervise students every morning as they recited aloud the following prayer: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country."

The Court's ruling that this type of religious exercise in the public schools was an unconstitutional establishment of religion did not turn on the wording
of the prayer, but rather on the following facts:

Government wrote the prayer. Government required that the prayer be a part of the regular school program under the direct supervision of an agent of the government a classroom teacher.

Government determined the time when the required prayer would be re cited.

Prayer is a religious exercise, and government, by requiring and participating in prayer, established the religious beliefs embodied in these exercises.

If parents objected to having their children participate in government-sponsored prayers, the children were excused from the service. However, the
Court said that this did not satisfy the constitutional restraints because, "When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain."

In the Schempp decision the Court spoke to the constitutionality of government-required Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public
schools. In Pennsylvania the law required that at least ten verses from the Bible be read, without comment, at the opening of each school day in every public school. In Maryland, the board of school commissioners of Baltimore City required opening exercises in the city schools. These consisted primarily of "... reading, without comment, a chapter in the Holy Bible and/or the use of the Lord's Prayer." In both States provisions were made to excuse children from the opening exercises if their parents so requested.

The Court held that such exercises were unconstitutional under the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution denies to courts the power to decide nonlegal matters, such as the value to students of prayer and Bible reading. The Court was within its powers when it declared that government is required by the Constitution to be neutral in its relationship to religion and must neither seek to advance nor be hostile toward religion. In this case government's required neutrality was violated, because: Government required these religious exercises and made them a part of the public-school curriculum, under the direction and control of teachers who are agents of the States; government, through compulsory-attendance laws, required that students be present in the schools at the time of services.

What the Court Specifically Prohibited

In these two landmark cases, Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp, the Court held that "it is no part of the business of government
to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."—Engel, at 425.

"The State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those
who believe in no religion over those who do believe.' " —Schempp, at 225.

Religious exercises—such as prayer or reading from the Bible—if they are sponsored or provided for by the state or its agents have no place in the public schools. —Engel and Schempp, passim.

The Court ruled that the establishment clause of the First Amendment permits a variety of curricular uses of religion and religious materials.

The Bible may be used as a reference for the teaching of secular subjects. —Schempp, at 225.

The Bible may be studied for its literary and historic qualities. —Schempp, at 225.


The study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization have a legitimate role in public education. —Schempp, at 225.

The recitation of historical documents that contain references to a Deity is permissible. —Engel, at 435.

Officially approved anthems that include the composer's professions of faith in a Supreme Being may be sung. —Engel, at 435.

"It seems clear . . . from the opinions in the present and past cases that the Court would recognize the propriety . . . of the teaching about religion, as distinguished from the teaching of religion, in the public schools." —Schempp, at 306.


Many people of varied religious beliefs who are committed to the principle of religious liberty and the constitutional separation of church and state
have had mixed emotions about the decisions in these cases. Baptists generally agree that government has no competence in the field of religion and object to governmentally required or sponsored religion. Yet Baptists believe in the right of the individual to pray and
to read the Bible.

Many critics of the Court's decisions assume that all prayer and all teaching of moral values have been banned from the public schools and that, as a result, some form of secular humanism has been established in their place; that religion and God have been excluded.

This is an incorrect interpretation of the decisions. In Engel and Schempp the Court limited governmental power. The free-exercise clause was not at issue in these cases, and the decisions did not apply to the free exercise of religion by individuals. Any attempt to construe the decisions otherwise is in error. Only the power of government was curtailed; personal religious liberty was expanded.

God was not excluded from the public schools—no court, government, or group of people has the ability to do that. The Court was clear throughout
its decisions that it had not made any attempt to do so.

Similarly, prayer was not and could not be excluded from the public schools. Prayers that were governmentally written, approved, sponsored, or required were disallowed. Individual personal prayers—or even group prayers without any form of governmental involvement— were not at issue in these cases. Because the Court has not ruled on these types of prayer one cannot be certain of the metes and bounds of group praying in public schools. However, from the constitutional point of view, it is inconceivable that the Court would rule against such activity as long as government is not directly or indirectly involved and no attempt is made to use government power to impose prayer or religion on anyone else.

Bibles Not Barred

Bibles have not been barred from the public schools. Students may have them and read them, alone or in groups, subject only to the schools' regulations about extracurricular reading. Bibles may be in school libraries and may be used as required reading in secular courses, as will be shown below. But government must not require Bible reading as a part of a religious exercise.

The teaching of moral values has a legitimate place in those parts of a public school curriculum that deal with valuational topics. The social sciences
and humanities are often concerned with the moral dimensions of their subject matter. However, these courses should not be made the vehicle for the
teaching of sectarian moral or spiritual values. One of the traps that we as Baptists must avoid in our concern for Christian witnessing is that of seeking to use the power of government or public authority for the advance of our faith. The avoidance of this is, in fact, the essence of the Engel and Schempp decisions.

Many groups in the nation are working hard toward ways and means of teaching about religion in the public schools within the bounds of the Constitution and according to the principles of religious liberty. As a result, two basic methods of religious education have achieved a legitimate place in the curriculum of many schools: teaching about religion and religious literature as a part of already established courses, and the development of new courses that provide for an objective study of religion.

Amend the Constitution?

If people disagree with a constitutional interpretation made by the Supreme Court they can wait for a change in the make-up of the Court and
raise the question again or they can seek to amend the Constitution. Many of those who objected to the decisions in Engel and Schempp have chosen the latter course and have proposed several amendments. These proposed amendments would alter substantially not only the "no establishment" clause basis of the Court's decisions, as their proponents intended, but also would automatically alter the "free exercise" clause so closely interrelated with it.

Most of those who support amendment on this subject do so from the mistaken assumptions that the Court's decisions are directly responsible for
many of the ills of today's society; that the Court prohibited religion, Bible reading, or prayer in any form in the public schools; and/or that government
shows hostility toward religion when it does not use its power and facilities to promote the religion of a majority of the people within a given jurisdiction.

A second group of supporters of the amendments has acted on a more pragmatic basis. They see a possibility of sectarian gain from the adoption of
amendments that permit governments to support, provide for, or require a variety of religious exercises or activities in the public schools.

The proposed amendments apply to public schools and authorize the state and local governments to provide for religious services, to require "voluntary" and/or "nondenominational" prayers, and to determine the content of prayers, the time the prayers are said, and the place where they are said. One of the proposals declares that students have a constitutional right to have religious instruction provided for them in public schools.

Proponents of these several amendments, in their zeal to get some kind of religious instruction, prayer, or Bible reading back into the public schools,
often do not carry these proposals to their logical conclusions.

Prayer—but not truly voluntary prayer—could be reinstituted in the public schools by governmental edict. These prayers would be "voluntary" only in the sense that the student could choose not to participate. But he would not play a deciding role in determining what, when, where, and how the prayer
is said.

In a pluralistic nation with Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Moslem, Mormon, Buddhist, et cetera, believers, as well as many nonbelievers, scattered
throughout the country, any requirement that government provide for a "nondenominational" prayer as a constitutional part of a public school curriculum quickly becomes a nonsensical impossibility.

At the option of government, readings from the religious writings of any specific portion of the religious spectrum could become mandatory in a public
school system. The person who does the reading could be required to make comments on the reading or be prohibited from doing so.

Under one of the proposals, religious instruction could become a part of the regular school curriculum. Though there is a requirement that the religious
instruction be conducted under nonpublic auspices, it can logically be inferred that the government could assign the responsibility for religious instruction to a single nonpublic group, to a few of them, or to all groups. It remains that the schools would have to provide the facilities, and, dependent upon a later Court's interpretation, possibly the funds to operate programs of religious education, indoctrination, proselytization, or evangelization. The type of approach would probably reflect the views of the dominant religious group in each particular community.

The Dangers of Amendment

Supporters of proposals that would alter the religion clauses of the First Amendment should be aware of the
dangers that are inherent in such action.

The religion clauses have been argued before the courts for years, and the applicable legal precedents are clear. Any change in the First Amendment would lead to much new litigation and many new decisions. It is quite conceivable that religious liberty as we have known it could be circumscribed by new precedents. The First Amendment has adequately protected religious liberty in the past, and there are real dangers in tampering with it.

The proposed amendment, which declares a right to religious instruction in the public schools, would probably serve as a basis for a valid claim for aid to parochial schools. The grounds on which the courts have ruled against financial aid to parochial schools have been that such aid unconstitutionally supported religion.

This is the first area of the Bill of Rights to come under frontal assault. A successful intrusion here in so vital an area as religious belief and practice
could open the doors to altering the other rights that have protected us from governmental action.


Ministry reserves the right to approve, disapprove, and delete comments at our discretion and will not be able to respond to inquiries about these comments. Please ensure that your words are respectful, courteous, and relevant.

comments powered by Disqus

Prepared by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.

January 1976

Download PDF
Ministry Cover

More Articles In This Issue

The Great Deception

The role of deception in end-time events.

The King Is Coming

The New Testament Witness to Christ's Second Coming

Efficiency? Yes—But More!

From One Leader to Another

The Dikes of Biblical Chronology

History tells us most eloquently that a vast expansion of the Biblical time-scale eventually leads to a greatly reduced concept of the Creator's work, and definitely not to "an expanded conception of the Creator."

In Search of the Hittites

The monthly biblical archeology column

Plea for a Christ-Centered Eschatology

The key to unlocking the hidden, underlying unity of the two Testaments is the Person of Christ.

The Meaning of Genesis 1:1

Lexical, Grammatical, syntactical, and stylistic considerations to understanding the meaning of Genesis 1:!

On Giving Advice

The author gives wise advise on giving advice

High-level Wellness

Reprinted by permission from author's book, Come Alive, Review and Herald Publishing Association 1975.

Messages from your Nerves

The hypochondriac just loves taking pills and injections. His supposed illness has nothing to do with what he is trying to treat.

View All Issue Contents

Digital delivery

If you're a print subscriber, we'll complement your print copy of Ministry with an electronic version.

Sign up
Advertisement - RevivalandReformation 300x250

Recent issues

See All