EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA (American Psychological Assoc.): NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com/help/?

int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.

References Durso, K. E. (1994). The voluntary school prayer debate: A separationist perspective. Journal Of Church & State, 36(1), 79. <!--Additional Information: Persistent link to this record (Permalink): http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=31h&AN=9502160077&site=ehost-live End of citation-->

THE VOLUNTARY SCHOOL PRAYER DEBATE: A SEPARATIONIST PERSPECTIVE Since 1962 when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Engel v. Vitale[1] that teacherled and state-composed prayers in public schools are unconstitutional, many attempts have been made to overturn that ruling.[2] Those persons supporting the restoration of prayer to public schools have included former President George Bush and Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC). During his administration, Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment restoring the "right for a kid to pray.voluntarily in the school."[3] Helms likewise has been a vociferous advocate of restoring voluntary prayer to the public schools. On 22 January 1992 during a debate concerning the Neighborhood Schools Improvement Act, Helms submitted an amendment to the act that called on the United States Supreme Court to use Lee v. Weisman[4] to overturn both Engel and Abington School District v. Schempp.[5] The views of these two prominent politicians concerning voluntary school prayer reflect the majority opinion of the American public. In a 1991 Time/CNN poll, 78 percent of American adults favored allowing children to say prayers in public schools, and 89 percent favored a moment of silence.[6] Clearly, voluntary prayer in public-school classrooms remains a volatile issue thirty years after Engel. THE GENESIS OF THE VOLUNTARY SCHOOL PRAYER DEBATE: ENGEL V. VITALE BACKGROUND TO THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION In November 1951, the New York Board of Regents, the state's highest educational body,

submitted a "policy statement" recommending that New York public schools begin each day with the pledge of allegiance to the flag along with the recitation of a prayer. The Regents believed that the recitation of the prayer would help children gain a respect for, and be obedient to, law and order. The prayer also would encourage children to follow the faith of their parents as this faith was explained and confirmed by their religious leaders.? The Regents' goal was to compose a prayer that was "non-sectarian" in nature and acceptable to Jews, Protestants, and Catholics. In order to avoid objections by atheists, the Regents made the recitation of the prayer voluntary.s The "non-sectarian" prayer, or what others called the "to whom it may concern prayer," consisted of only twenty-two words: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country."[9] The prayer was submitted to three leading clergymen from the three previously mentioned religious faiths for their approval. After receiving the clergymen's approval, the Regents presented their proposal to various school boards. The Regents allowed individual school boards to decide whether or not to have the prayer recited in their schools. A group of parents in New Hyde Park, New York objected to the recitation of the prayer. These parents and the New Hyde Park school board eventually had their positions argued before the United States Supreme Court.[10] JUSTICE BLACK'S MAJORITY OPINION In a six-to-one decision,[11] the Supreme Court ruled that the Regents' prayer recited in some of New York's public schools was unconstitutional. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, argued that the prayer breached the wall separating church and state and therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. According to Black, the Establishment Clause meant at least that government, whether state or federal, has no authority to compose official prayers for its people? The Court rejected the school board's claim that no coercion existed and that recitation of the prayer was completely voluntary. Black observed that 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."[13] He argued that the Establishment Clause was founded upon the conviction that when the government involves itself in religious matters, such involvement tends to destroy the government and to degrade religion. According to Black, the histories of England and the United States illustrate that, when a government promotes one form of religion, religious dissenters are often hated and mistreated,[14] Black, anticipating objections to the Court's decision, stated that the decision should not be interpreted as an expression of hostility toward religion. He claimed that the decision, which asserted that government is powerless to write or endorse official prayers and that religious affairs should be left to individuals or to religious leaders, was neither sacrilegious nor antireligious.[15]

JUSTICE STEWART'S DISSENTING OPINION Justice Potter Stewart was the Court's sole dissenter in the Engel decision. He argued that children who did not want to pray could refrain from doing so without any undue embarrassment or pressure. The Court's decision, however, prevented children who wanted to pray from participating in the religious heritage of America 16 Stewart rejected the majority opinion that New York had established an "official religion" by composing a simple prayer and by allowing children to recite it. Stewart chronicled numerous examples to demonstrate how the majority's decision contradicted America's religious heritage. He reminded the Court that it began each session with the Crier saying, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court," that both houses of Congress open each session with prayer, and that every president from Washington to Kennedy asked for God's help and protection in their inaugural addresses. Stewart also cited the inclusion of the phrase "one Nation under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, the stanza of the "The Star Spangled Banner" that includes the words "In God is our Trust," the 1952 congressional act asking the president to proclaim an annual National Day of Prayer, and the inscription of the words "In God We Trust" on coins.[17] All of these examples, Stewart maintained, illustrated that America was traditionally a religious nation. None of the actions of the Court, Congress, or presidents could be construed as establishing an "official religion" in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, Stewart concluded that the New York Board of Regents did not violate the Constitution by writing the school prayer.[18] The decision in Engel has been one of the most controversial decisions of the past thirty-two years, and it continues to be the subject of much debate. The conflicting opinions of Justices Black and Stewart raise numerous questions including: How should the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, be interpreted? Does the government have the right to prevent individuals from practicing their faith, a practice guaranteed by the First Amendment? Should religious matters be left to local authorities? How much importance should be placed on the views of religious minorities? And do state-sponsored prayers have any coercive effect on children? The issues raised by these questions are discussed in the following section. ISSUES IN THE VOLUNTARY SCHOOL PRAYER DEBATE THE ISSUE OF INTERPRETING THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE Two broad approaches to interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment are the "narrow" or "no preference" approach and the "broad" or "separationist" approach? Interpreters who utilize the "no preference" approach maintain that government aid to religion is acceptable as long as such aid does not favor one religion over other religions. Thus, in this approach, the government accommodates its laws and policies to further religious freedom. During the 1980s, the nonpreferentialist approach to the Establishment Clause gained popularity. Such an approach was promoted by many religious fundamentalists, some constitutional law

scholars, the Reagan and the Bush administrations, and several justices of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist. According to Rehnquist, the framers of the Establishment Clause only wanted to prohibit the establishment of a national church and the preferential treatment of a particular religion. Thus he maintained that the Establishment Clause does not erect a "wall of separation" between church and state? Persons who favor the broad or separationist approach to the Establishment Clause agree with the nonpreferentialists that the government should not favor one religion over other religions, but they go further and assert that the government should not advance religion in any way. Separationists argue that in 1789 the Senate rejected the type of language currently used by nonpreferentialists. The Senate debated the language of the First Amendment for six days between 3 and 9 September and rejected four proposals that would support a nonpreferentialist position. These proposals read: (1) Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others. (2)Congress shall not make any law. . . establishing any religious sect or society. (3) Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another. (4) Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship[21] The rejection of these proposals and adoption of broader language implies that the framers had something more in mind than just the prevention of a national church or preferential treatment of a particular sect. A second criticism advanced by separationists against the nonpreferentialist interpretation is that it gives Congress powers not found in the Constitution, especially not in the First Amendment. This amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion "Such language limits and qualifies congressional power concerning religion; it does not give Congress power to involve itself in religious affairs. Leonard Levy contends that only "black magic" can make the First Amendment a depository of congressional power. Congress possesses only delegated power, and the First Amendment clearly cannot be interpreted as empowering Congress with authority in religious matters. Concerning the voluntary school prayer issue, Levy argues that "the state's effort to further praying. . . is no more the business of the state than whether a child has received the sacrament of baptism."[22] THE ISSUE OF PROTECTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Proponents of voluntary school prayer believe that one of the key issues in the debate is the right of people to express their religious beliefs, a right which includes religious speech. In October 1980, the Moral Majority published its "Christian Bill of Rights." Amendment V of the bill demanded that public school children be allowed to pray in school. The amendment stated, "We believe that

all students enrolled in public schools should have the right to voluntary prayer and Bible reading (Josh. 24:15)."[23] Thus proponents of school prayer believe that there are times when the government must intervene to. guarantee religious liberty. Because the Supreme Court has upheld the Establishment Clause at the expense of the Free Exercise Clause, school prayer advocates further assert that the government must intervene and uphold children's right to pray. The government does not have to compose a prayer or authorize a teacher to lead prayer, but it should allow prayer time for children. A different child could lead the prayer each day, and no one would be compelled to pray or even to assent to the prayer? Opponents of voluntary school prayer do not agree that the Free Exercise Clause is violated when the government does not set aside time for students to pray. As Justice Sandra Day O'Conner observes, "Nothing in the United States Constitution as interpreted by [the Supreme Court] . . . prohibits public school students from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day."[25] The government cannot prohibit any child from praying silently or even praying out loud as long as the prayer does not interrupt class. Thus, for opponents of school prayer, denying the government the authority to sponsor or to promote prayer does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. THE ISSUE OF STATE AND LOCAL CONTROL OF RELIGIOUS MATTERS A significant issue in the voluntary school prayer debate is the level at which government has the right to make decisions concerning religious matters. According to some proponents of school prayer, public schools have a long tradition of beginning each school day with a time of prayer, a tradition that should not be denied. If the decision to have school prayer is left to local legislators and authorities, they could decide whether or not to have school prayer. Some school boards would elect to have prayer, others would not. According to Joseph Piccione, those school boards that approved school prayer would be sensitive to the social changes that have occurred in the past thirty years and would not do anything that could jeopardize the rights of those children whose beliefs do not conform to the majority religion? Opponents of school prayer disagree. Tradition is relevant, they say, but never decisive. Four decades ago, many southern states had a tradition of providing separate schools for black and white children, and many persons claimed that the government should not interfere with local traditions. Also, the school prayer tradition was not as firmly established as many proponents of school prayer maintain. By 1962, many states eliminated school prayer, and only one-third of the public school systems in the United States required prayers at the beginning of the school da Furthermore, Rodne Smith provides two reasons why the subject of religious activities should not be left to local authorities. The first reason concerns the need for uniformity in constitutional decision-making. If matters dealing with the Bill of Rights are left to state legislatures, the extent of the fundamental rights guaranteed therein would vary from state to state and even from school district to school district. The second reason is political. Smith contends that legislators have not always taken their constitutional responsibilities as seriously as they should. Legislators often

look at public opinion polls before considering whether or not something is constitutional? THE ISSUE OF RESPECTING RELIGIOUS MINORITIES Respect for religious minorities is another issue in the voluntary school prayer debate. America is a pluralistic nation where no particular denomination constitutes a majority. In some cities and towns, however, one particular denomination or faith comprises a majority. In such situations, the majority sometimes attempts to impose its beliefs upon those of minority faiths. The attitude of the majority is at times condescending toward minorities. In 1982, Alabama passed a law permitting teachers to lead "willing students" in a proscribed prayer to "God . . . the Creator and Supreme Judge of the Word." When the law was challenged, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand said that religious minorities who disagreed with the prayer would have to develop a thicker skin."[29] Not everyone who favors school prayer adopts Judge Hand's attitude. Erwin Griswold believes that school prayer could be desirable, even beneficial, to minorities. Children of religious minority groups need to learn in school that they are different from other children and that other children are different from them. Griswold asserts that children in the minority will learn that they are accepted and tolerated despite their differences. These children will also learn to tolerate the majority's belief by understanding and respecting what is meaningful to the majority.[30] When the government, however, directly promotes religious activities and ignores the rights and the beliefs of religious minorities, it sends a subtle message to these groups. As Justice O'Conner observed, the message to the dissenters is that they are "outsiders, not full members of the political community" whereas the majority are the favored members of the political community.[31] This message, according to Dean Kelley, is essentially the same message given to seventeenth-century religious dissenters in Europe. These dissenters had two options: either accept the majority religion without objection or emigrate to a country where their religion was in the majority. These two options are similar to the options that proponents of school prayer amendments give to students who do not want to pray: either sit quietly without objecting to the prayers or leave the classroom, at least temporarily. Kelley maintains that the public schools are as much the dissenting students' schools as anyone else's, but the schools become "less theirs if they have to endure or emigrate because of something going on there. They become for that time and that reason second-class citizens because of their religion."[32] Such an attitude also encourages the majority to maintain that it deserves beneficial treatment. The majority's belief is that in a democracy, it should have some advantages. Thus when the majority wants religious devotions in public schools, religious minorities must yield to the wishes of the majority. This belief, the majority maintains, is democracy in action. Yet those of the majority often only hold this attitude while in the majority. When they lose their political power and become part of the minority, the type of attitude they once promoted frequently becomes "persecution." THE ISSUE OF COERCING CHILDREN TO PRAY

A final issue in the voluntary school prayer debate is that of coercion. Children do not attend public schools of their own free will. Because of the compulsory nature of school attendance, children constitute a captive audience. They go to school to learn such subjects as math and science but sometimes find themselves in the midst of a religious exercise. Those persons who want school prayer continuously remind opponents that children are not forced to pray and can leave the room if they so desire. Smith, however, maintains that children may acquiesce to peer pressure from children of majority faiths rather than excuse themselves. Such pressure may force some children to participate in religious activities that are against their religious beliefs or in which they would not otherwise participate. The possibility also exists that they may participate in order to gain their teacher's approval.[33] Not everyone, however, believes that coercion or peer pressure in the matter of school prayer is inherently bad. Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich claims that pressuring public school children to pray would be an acceptable practice. In today's society, public school students are pressured to use drugs and alcohol and to have sex. According to Gingrich, there is nothing wrong with these same students being pressued to pray. Furthermore, those persons who see a danger in allowing, or even pressuring, children to pray have confused their priorities. The real danger facing America, Gingrich claims, is not "an abstinence-dominated theocracy" where children may be forced to pray, but a "pornographic-viewing, drug-addicted culture."[34] These five issues are at the center of the school prayer debate. But underlying these issues are the motives that compel people to promote or to oppose prayer in public schools. MOTIVES FOR PROMOTING OR OPPOSING PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS MOTIVES FOR PROMOTING SCHOOL PRAYER A Public Witness to God. Many advocates of voluntary prayer in ublie schools claim that such prayer symbolizes America's religious heritage. They often quote Justice William Douglas's phrase, "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme [35] Being to support their claim. Some proponents maintain that America was founded as a Christian nation and existed as one until secular humanists and liberals gained control of the country through the court systems and proceeded to "kick" God out of the public schools. Proponents of school prayer have expended much effort to reinstate prayer in the public schools with the hope that such prayer would provide a public witness to America's faith in God. During the past thirty years, over two hundred proposals have been made in Congress to overturn Engel. A 1984 proposal introduced to amend the Constitution read: (1) Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions (2) No person shall be required by the United States or any state to participate in prayer.

(3) Nor shall the United States or any state compose the words of any prayer to be said in the public schools.[36] According to church-state separationists, the major flaw in this proposal is that it does nothing to change the current situation. The first sentence of the amendment is irrelevant, because neither the Constitution nor any person can prevent someone from praying. The second sentence does not make anything legal that is illegal, and the content of the final sentence is prohibited by Engel. [37] Thus it appears that the purpose of the amendment and others like it is to demonstrate that America is a religious nation. The Moral Decline in America. Some proponents of school prayer emphasize that America has experienced rapid moral decline since the supposed expulsion of God from the public schools in the early 1960s. A fund-raising letter of the Moral Majority published in the fall of 1981 highlighted the gravity of the situation. Ever since God was "kicked out" of the public schools "our children have suffered terribly. Today's schools produce millions of young criminals preying on the sick and elderly; dope addicts; illiterates; illegitimate mothers and hapless, va-cant-eyed welfare dependents. And it's going to get worse, much worse, unless we Honor God by returning Him to our public schools. God is never going to bless a people that doesn't Honor Him before their children."[38] Eleven years later, during the debate concerning the Neighborhood Schools Improvement Act, Senator Helms emphasized the cause and effect relationship between Engel and the decline in morality. Armed with charts supporting his arguments, Helms observed that since prayer was abolished in public schools, America has experienced increases in teenage sexual activity, teenage pregnancies, abortions, cases of sexual diseases, incidents of violent crime, and suicides? "Like it or not, believe it or not," Helms asserted, "there is a common thread between these societal problems and what happened in 1962 and 1963. There has, undeniably and unquestionably, been a massive collapse of morals in America."[40] Blaming America's societal ills on the absence of school prayer is ultimately an attack on the public schools. This kind of assignment of responsibility for the decline in morals and values to one group or institution is not a recent trend. In previous decades, other sources were targeted as the cause of America's decline in morality. Catholics and Jews often were thought to be responsible for societal problems? Today, the public school system is cited as the cause of moral and societal turmoil. According to school prayer proponents, one way to halt the continuing moral decline is to have children pray in public school classrooms. MOTIVES FOB OPPOSING SCHOOL PRAYER A Concern for the Public Schools. The public schools have long been a battleground in American church-state relations. Separationists do not want the public schools, which they understand to be secular institutions, to get involved in denominational squabbles and religious activities in such a highly pluralistic society as America. Furthermore, the government's involvement in religious activities tends to produce intolerance and divisiveness.

Separationists reject the theory of some religious fundamentalists that neutrality on religious questions means that the public schools automatically establish the religion of secular humanism, which supposedly is dedicated to the destruction of religious tradition and moral values. For separationists, however, public schools, as agencies of the state, rightly focus their attention on subjects such as anthropology, the human environment, and human values and leave the religious education of children to their parents, the church, or the synagogue.[43] Yet many parents have not accepted responsibility for their children's religious education and find it easier to leave the duty and responsibility of initiating prayer to public school teachers. Separationists also are hesitant to assign a cause and effect relationship between Engel and the declining morality in America. In fact, the cause and effect theory may be used to substantiate positive results as well. As Martin Marty facetiously observes, the Southern Baptist Convention had a little over 10 million members in 1962 but by 1985 its ranks had grown to over 15 million. He also wonders how fundamentalists could account for the fact that since Engel, evangelicals, fundamentalists, and pentecostals have experienced rapid growth. As for God being "kicked out of school," Marty maintains that a God who can be wheeled in and out of school at the government's request is unworthy of America's respect. If America depended on such a "disposable" God, it deserves the moral decline that often is associated with Engel.[43] A Concern for Religion. One concern of separationists is that prayer has become a political issue. They observe politicians, such as former Presidents Reagan and Bush and Senator Helms, lobbying for a constitutional amendment allowing children to pray and depicting those persons who oppose school prayer as liberal and anti-religious. Such activities and characterizations make separationists skeptical about the motives of these politicians. Separationists attribute some politicians' religious zealousness in promoting voluntary school prayer as an attempt to repay religious fundamentalists for their political support in elections. Such suspicions are supported by former Attorney General Ed Meese's confession that school prayer and other social issues were never a top priority with the Reagan Administration despite the former president's public stance? Also, despite Bush's verbal support for school prayer, his administration never submitted a prayer amendment proposal to Congress, and Bush administration officials even stated that religious exercises in classrooms would be coercive and would violate the religious liberty of non-participating students. Thus, according to one writer, the disparity between Bush s public rhetoric and his administration's actions on the school prayer issue was "little more than a political pom-pom."[45] Separationists also regard with much skepticism the government's involvement in the religious lives of its people. Such an attitude predates the founding of the country and may be attributed to Roger Williams. Williams was the first person to guarantee religious liberty and freedom of conscious in colonial America when he established his live-lie experiment" in Rhode Island. He compared the church to a garden and the world to a wilderness. The integrity of the garden (the church) was best preserved by erecting a wall to keep out the corrupting influences of the wilderness. According to Williams, the church could only protect itself from the world by keeping

the world from infringing on its territory and its responsibilities. Once a gap opens between "the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made His garden a wilderness "[46] Williams did not necessarily equate the world with the government, but his comparison holds true for many separationists: the government manipulates and trivializes religion; it never helps religion. Proponents of school prayer maintain that they too are concerned about the vitality of religion. One proponent, George Goldberg, contends that such concern for religion is essentially a concern for the spiritual needs of children. To say that children must receive religious instruction only at home, Goldberg claims, "is ignorant or dishonest or both."[47] He further asserts that many children come from broken homes where no religious instruction is provided, and even children from two-parent families may not receive much more religious training than children from dysfunctional families. In the hectic world of modem family life, the rush to get to work and to get children ready for school leaves little time for parents to pray with their children in the morning, and extracurricular activities and television dominate children's afternoons and evenings. Not only do parents not have the time to pray with their children, but Goldberg also argues that parents are not competent to provide their children with religious instruction.[46] Thus, according to Goldberg, a concern for religion means that prayer must be a part of the public school day, despite the fact that school prayer "must be a rather formal exercise necessarily drained of deep meaning by the requirement of sectarian neutrality."[49] CONCLUSION RESTRICTING CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY At the heart of the school prayer issue is the question of whether or not the Establishment Clause provides Congress with the authority to involve itself in promoting religious activities such as prayer in public schools. It does not. The Establishment Clause clearly limits, not enhances, the authority of the federal government. With the incorporation of the First Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment, which makes the First Amendment applicable to the states, state governments also are powerless to promote religious activities in public schools.[50] In essence, the First Amendment makes both federal and state governments powerless in religious matters. Application of this principle to the voluntary school prayer debate means that no government in the United States can promote or prohibit children from praying in public schools. INSTRUCTING CHILDREN TO PRAY The responsibility of teaching children to pray should not be assumed by agents of the state, the public school teachers. Public schools are neither churches nor Sunday Schools, nor should they be. As stewards of their children, parents are responsible for the religious education of their children. If parents are too busy to pray with their children or to teach their children how to pray, then evidently prayer is not a significant part of these parents' lives. The public schools, however, are not surrogate religious instructors for children whose parents do not value the importance of

prayer. PRAYING PRAYERS VERSUS SAYING PRAYERS The United States government provides excellent examples of the superficiality of ritualistic prayers. As many proponents of voluntary school prayer point out, the Supreme Court and Congress both open sessions with a "prayer." Yet one would be hard pressed to call the Court's opening with "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" an act of prayer. Such a declaration is no more than a slogan, a repetitious ritual devoid of any religious meaning. Congressional prayers do not fare much better. Anyone who has seen the daily televised proceedings of Congress has observed the name calling and the nasty remarks exchanged between partisan members of both Houses, and yet each day both Houses open their sessions with prayers offered by government-paid chaplains. One commentator who considered congressional prayers to be an establishment of religion asked, "Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?"[51] This observation came not from an intolerant religious skeptic but from one of the founding fathers, James Madison. Madison's assessment of congressional prayers also holds true for mandated school prayers. Such prayers may become an insincere repetition of words, a ceremonial act devoid of devotion, and a daily routine that must be endured. Abraham Heschel captures the essence of sincere prayer in these words: "To pray with kavanah (inner devotion) may be difficult; to pray without it is ludicrous."[52] Sincere prayer can never be reduced to a "tiresome formality" or a "formal exercise necessarily drained of deep meaning." The desired outcome for those who value prayer is not to have children say prayers but to teach them to pray prayers with kavanah and with the intensity and devotion that true prayer requires. Teaching children to pray, however, exceeds the authority and the competence of the government and its agents (public school teachers). Many school prayer advocates are devout Christians who sincerely long for public school children to have the opportunity to pray. Yet these advocates apparently ignore Jesus' instruction concerning the intimacy and privacy of prayer. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned his disciples not to imitate the hupokritai (hypocrites) who loved to be seen praying in public. In contrast to such public displays of religiosity, Jesus commanded his followers to go into their rooms, shut their doors, and pray to their God "who sees in secret" (Matt. 6:56). Jesus' instruction safeguards prayer from becoming a meaningless show of public piety. DOING UNTO OTHERS The argument that religious minorities should understand voluntary school prayer as a means of learning about their minority status is unconvincing. Minorities, whether religious, political, or ethnic, are aware of their status. They do not need government-sponsored worship to enlighten them.

Many Christians who favor school prayer see nothing wrong with government-sponsored prayers. They are often either members of the majority faith or majority opinion, and their religious views are not threatened by these prayers. Yet they fail to consider those persons who adhere to other faiths or even members of their own denomination who are part of the minority in other areas. These members of the religious majority tend to interpret the school prayer issue as an attempt by religious minorities to impose their beliefs on the majority. The fact remains, however, that the inclusion of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights was the combined effort of many religious minorities who demanded that an amendment guaranteeing religious liberty be included in the Constitution. Religious minorities base their opposition to voluntary school prayer on the fact that "voluntary" prayer in public schools often provides the opportunity for their children to be manipulated and ridiculed and for their religious faith to be mocked.[53] Members of the religious majority should be aware of, and sympathetic to, the potential for cruel attacks and insensitive treatment faced by children of minority religious views. Nor should members of the religious majority forget that they may not always be in the majority and thus should heed Jesus' advice that "whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them" (Matt. 7:12; Lk. 6:31). Should they ever find themselves in the minority, they will appreciate the fact that the First Amendment is a defense against anyone imposing religious activities upon them that are against their beliefs. Despite the sensitivity displayed by some proponents of voluntary school prayer toward members of religious minorities, many of these proponents maintain that participation in the prayer time would be strictly voluntary. Because it is a voluntary activity, they assume that nonreligious children or children of minority faiths will excuse themselves during the prayer. Such an assumption seems oblivious to the fact that public school attendance is mandatory. Children who do not attend private or home schools are compelled by law to be in a public school and thus are a captive audience. Once in school, they are confronted not only by peer pressure but also by the pressure to please their teachers. Few children want to face the ridicule of their peers or their teachers by standing finn in their religious beliefs. The coercive nature of peer pressure was illustrated during the 1988 presidential campaign when members of the House of Representatives lined up at a microphone to say the Pledge of Allegiance. These men and women were mature adults, and to assert that they all repeated the pledge solely out of their love for or loyalty to their country is not plausible. They knew the political consequences for being singled out for not repeating the pledge. School children also understand the consequences of nonconformity. They are more likely to acquiesce to the pressure to conform than to remove themselves from their classroom. The pressure to conform is great whether or not it is intended. Proponents of voluntary school prayer who claim that such pressure may be necessary to allow other children to exercise their rights forget that the concept of religious freedom in the United States was established to protect the right of dissenters who refused to be coerced in religious matters and not to allow the majority to

use coercion when they deemed it necessary or beneficial.[54] Thus proponents of voluntary school prayer should ask themselves this question: "Would I want my children pressured to participate in religious activities that are meaningless or that conflict with my own religious beliefs?" If they answer no, then they should accord others the same respect. With the election of Bill Clinton as president of the United States, advocates of voluntary school prayer have lost the power and prestige of the presidency in promoting their cause.[53] Yet the school prayer debate is an issue that will continue to be in the public forum just as it has been for the past thirty-two years. For those who have an interest in the issue, the main question will be: Does the government have the authority or even the responsibility to promote worship in public schools? Those who favor school prayer will answer the question in the affirmative. Separationists will continue to argue that the First Amendment prevents the federal and state governments from promoting religious activities and that the best way for the government to help religion is to leave it alone. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). For a discussion of the attempts to overturn Engel, see Leo Pfeifer, Church, State and Freedom (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1967), 90-103; Leo Pfeifer, Religion, State and the Burger Court (New York: Prometheus Books, 1984), 476-78; and Steven K. Green, "Evangelicals and the Becker Amendment: A Lesson in Church-State Moderation," Journal of Church and State 33 (Summer 1991): 541-67. U.S., President, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, 1991), George Bush (1990), 1030-31. See also Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (1989), 291; (1990), 572, 656, 855, 1039; (1991), 71, 615; and President, "Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session with the Mount Paran Christian School Community in Marietta," Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (1 June 1992) vol. 28, no. 22, 937. Lee v. Weisman, 112 S.Ct. 2649 (1992). Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Nancy Gibb, "America's Holy War," Time, 9 December 1991, 64. Pfeffer, Church, State and Freedom, 461-62. Pfeifer, Religion, State and the Burger Court, 81. Engel at 422. "The Court Decision--And the School Prayer Furor," Newsweek, 9 July 1962, 43-44. Usually nine justices vote on cases, but Justice Felix Frankfurter was ill and Justice Byron White had not yet assumed his duties on the Court. Engel at 430. Ibid. at 431. Ibid. Ibid. at 433-35. Ibid. at 445. Ibid. at 449.

Ibid. at 450. Robert T. Miller and Ronald B. Flowers, Toward Benevolent Neutrality: Church, State, and the Supra, me Court (Waco, Tex.: Baylot University Press, 1987), 241-42. Wallace v. ]afttee, 105 S.Ct. 2516-20 (1985); William H. Rehnquist, "The True Meaning of the Establishment Clause: A Dissent," in How Does the Constitution Protect Religious Freedom?, eds. Robert A. Goldwin and Art Kaufman (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1987), 99-113. Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986), 82; Dean M. Kelley, "Free Enterprise in Religion, or How the Constitution Protects Religion and Religious Freedom," in How Does the Constitution Protect Religious Freedom? 115. Levy, The Establishment Clause, 155. Quoted in Peggy L. Shriver, The Bible Vote: Religion and the New Right (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1981), 18. Joshua 24:15 reads: "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." Joseph J. Piccione, "Prayer: Anchored in the Soil of Liberty," New York Times, 12 March 1984, A17. Wallace v. Jaffree at 2495. Piccione, "Prayer," A17. Geoffrey R. Stone, "Yes: The School Prayer Decisions Are Reasonable," in Contemporary Debates on Civil Liberties: Enduring Constitutional Questions, eds. Glenn A. Phelps and Robert A. Poirer (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1985), 10. Rodney K. Smith, Public Prayer and the Constitution (Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1987), 187. Quoted in Turner Rose, "The 'Moment of Silence' is not Dead," Washington Post, 8 April 1987, A21. Erwin G. Griswold, "No: Absolute Is in the Dark," in Contemporary Debates on Civil Liberties, 1415. Wallace v. Jaffree at 2496. See also Lynch v. Donnelly, 104 S.Ct. 1355 (1984) at 1367. Kelley, "Free Enterprise in Religion," 137. Smith, Public Prayer, 182. "Pro and Con: Permit Prayers by Students in Public School," U.S. News and World Report, 12 March 1984, 40. Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 313 (1952). Justice Stewart quoted Douglas's phrase in his dissenting opinion in Engel, 370 U.S. at 450. Quoted in Erling Jorstad, Being Religious in America (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), 107. Ibid. Quoted in Robert Zwier, Born Again Politics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1982), 41.

Congressional Record, 102d Cong., 2nd sess, 23 January 1992, sections 242-43, 254. Ibid., section 243. Robert T. Handy, Undermined Establishment: Church-State Relations in America, 1880-1920 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991), 16, 41-44, 153, 156-57. James E. Wood, Jr., "Secular Humanism and the Pubhe Schools," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 2 April 1987, 2-3. Martin Marty, "Roots of Decay," Christian Century 102 (27 November 1985): 1103. "Social Issues Were Never A Reagan Top Priority, Says Meese," Church and State 41 (September 1988): 17. "Bush and School Prayer: Bordering on Sacrilege," Church and State 45 (March 1992), 15. Quoted in Levy, The Establishment Clause, 184. George Goldberg, Reconsecrating America (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 120. Ibid., 118-20. Ibid., 118. For a discussion of the application of the Bill of Rights to the states, see Henry J. Abraham, Freedora and the Court: Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 38-117; and Henry J. Abraham, "The Bill of Rights: Reflections on Its Status and Incorporation," in The First Freedom: Religion and the Bill of Rights, ed. James E. Wood, Jr. (Waco, Tex.: J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University, 1990), 61-86. Elizabeth Fleet, ed., "Madison's 'Detached Memoranda'," William and Mary Quarterly 3 (1946): 559. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Quest for God: Studies in Prayer and Symbolism (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 53. See J.B. Jackson, "When the Child Becomes the Victim," Liberty 87 (January/February 1992): 2324; and Danny Royer, "If Jerry Falwell Lived in Utah, He Might Support Freedom From Religion," Church and State 45 (May 1992): 20-21. Geoffrey R. Stone, "In Opposition to the School Prayer Amendment," University of Chicago Law Review 50 (Spring 1983): 837. For Clinton's views on the separation of church and state, see Rob Boston, "Campaign 92," Church and State 45 (October 1992): 12; Larry Chesser, "Shift in Church-State Relations Expected," Report from the Capital 47 (November-December 1992): 10-11; and Derek Davis, "Rebuilding the Wall: Thoughts on Religion and the Supreme Court Under the Clinton Administration," Journal of Church and State 34 (Winter 1992): 7-17. ~~~~~~~~ By KEITH E. DURSO KEITH E. DURSO (B.A., The University of Oklahoma; M.Div., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Ph.D., Baylor University) is a pastoral intern at First Baptist Church in Norman,

Oklahoma. Special interests include church-state issues and bioethics. The author wishes to thank Dr. Pam Robinson-Durso and Dr. Steve Sadler for their helpful suggestions in preparing this essay. Copyright of Journal of Church & State is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.