Name:
Course:
Tutor:
Date of Submission:
Prayer in Public Schools
For a long time now, there have been debates on the issue of prayer on public schools. Tracing back the issue of prayer in the public school as presented in various court cases and the issue of prayer from a personal perspective shows the correct argument towards prayers in public school prayers.
The first court case on school prayer can be traced in the Engel V. Vitale case that happened way back in 1962, where there was the banning of praying in public school by the Federal Supreme Court. Weiler says that this happened after parents in a public school at New York protested that the voluntary prayer at the school was not in line with their religious belief (Weiler). To spice this up, other religious groups came forward to support the parents on the same issue, which they argued that it was against the amended constitution. After a long consultation with various concerned parties and religious group, a firm confirmation was made that this was unconstitutional. Therefore, the court issued an opinion stating that there were not supposed to be prayers written by the government for recitation in the public schools.
To justify this, the court stated the existence of the separation between the state and the church, where it revisited the history of the matter. Besides this, the court argued that a school prayer is a religious activity since it has the nature of a prayer. Therefore, prescribing a prayer for children in schools would mean that the government was violating the establishment clause. The argument towards this was that the prayer was voluntary and that no one was asked to respect any established religion, but the court could not side with the argument.
After this argument on prayer in public school, others were to come as well. Alexander and David explains the procedures of the Wallace V. Jaffree case where teachers were authorized to put a side a minute in order to allow a voluntary prayer or a moment of meditation by the students (Alexander and David). This case was a result of a teacher having not engaged the children of Jaffree in the saying of unison prayers in the school.
The other case as shown by Weiler was the case of Lee V. Weisman, which was a case on prayers by religious figures, at a graduation ceremony in a public school (Weiler). This came after parents to a student requested the barring of a Rabbi from praying at graduation ceremony where he had been invited to no avail. After this, the parent continued with his claims and finally won the case although there was an appeal. In this appeal, there was a claim that the prayer was voluntary and that the parent could have done away with the prayer by moving away. However, despite the claims, the parent won the case thus preserving the judgments made in the past.
The third case that have been indicated by Lindpo was the Santa Fe Independent Dist. V. Doe case, which was against all prayers led by students during the football games held in high schools (Lindop).. This came after the school had allowed a student to lead prayers in football games held at home after which some parents opposed this practice saying that it violated the establishment law. The final decision by the court was that this practice was also unconstitutional, which also acted on affirming the earlier made judgments on the issue of prayers in public schools
From the decisions made by the court in these cases, it is clear that court prayers at public schools are unconstitutional if done collectively or if the government designs one prayer to be an official prayer that can be used by all the public school. However, this decision does not seem right since as seen in these arguments, the prayer is voluntary because no one is being forced to partake in the prayers. Arguing from the biblical terms shows that prayers is an essential thing and that the bible supports prayers without ceasing. However, the issue of different religions in public schools work to raise questions on whether to or not to allow prayers in public schools. According to Ackerman the support of one prayer either from one religion of from the other, by the government shows that it is violating the laws that it should show the citizens how to keep (Ackerman). Besides this, in a public school setting there are various unbelievers and agnostics who are not in support of prayers in public school. Weiler says that such prayers that involve the whole school are a ay of attacking atheists and unbelievers (Weiler). By ruling that the school should give students time to pray or to meditate, the court did the right thing since taking a private prayer is voluntary and no group can be intimidated from private acts of other individuals.
On the other hand, public prayers in schools should be allowed with the assumption that individuals are free to or not to attend the prayers. This is because in most cases you will find that the larger group shares similar religious value and is not in opposition in public prayers. This is well outlined in the cases explained, where only a few individuals were complaining and not the whole number of parents in these schools.
In conclusion, prayers that have been designed the government for be recited at all public schools does not seem right at all. However, just as Dudley puts it, religion needs to be left to the conscience and the conviction of every man (Dudley pg 8).

Works Cited

Ackerman, D. Prayer & Religion in the Public Schools. Nonvika boks; New York, 2001. Print.
Dudley, Mark E. Engle v. Vitale (1962): Religion and the schools. New York: Twenty-First Century Books, 1995.
Lindop, Edmund. The Bill of Rights and Landmark Cases. New York: Maffia Press, INC., 1989.
Weiler-Harwell, Nina. Attacking atheists: Doing One's Duty to God and Country in 21st Century America. Proquest LLC. New York. 2008. Print.
Alexander, Kern, and M. David Alexander. American public school law. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Pub. Co., 1985. Print.