School prayer , in the context of religious freedom, is state-approved prayer or mandatory prayer by students in a public school. Depending on the country and type of school, state-sponsored prayers may be required, allowed, or prohibited. States that prohibit or restrict school prayer are often different in their reasons for doing so: In the United States, school prayer can not be requested by students in accordance with the First Amendment of the Constitution United States Clause. In Canada, school-sponsored prayer is not permitted under the concept of Conscience Conscience as set forth in the Canadian Charter on Right & amp; Fundamental Freedom. School-sponsored prayer is disallowed in France as a by-product of its status as a lais nation (neutral religion). Countries that allow or require state-sponsored schools and prayers include Greece, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Australia, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Video School prayer
Countries that prohibit school-sponsored prayer
United States
In the United States, public schools are prohibited from religious worship such as prayer. The legal basis for this prohibition is the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which requires it
Congress will not make laws respecting religious formation, or prohibiting free exercise from it...
The first part of the amendment ("Congress will not make laws that respect the formation of religion") is known as the First Amendment Clause Clause, while the second part ("or prohibits free practice thereof") is known as the Exercise Clause.
Although each of these clauses originally applied only to the US central government, the Fourteenth Amendment extended the coverage of all First Amendments to all levels of government, including the state level, thereby forcing countries and school subjects to adopt an equally separate approach to religion in schools.
Prayer before 1962
In the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was common practice for public schools to open up with verbal prayer or Bible reading. Catholics sometimes object to different Protestant observations made in local schools. For example, in the Edgerton Bible Case ( Weiss v. District Board (1890)), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin decides to support Catholics who reject the use of the King James Bible in Wisconsin's public schools. This ruling is based on a state constitution and is applied only in Wisconsin.
Turning Point: "Regent 'Prayer' and Engel v. Vitale
Popular media and culture often misjudge atheists Madalyn Murray O'Hair by removing school prayers from US state schools when the pronunciation of Our Lord's Prayer in Baltimore schools was decided by the Supreme Court in 1963. A more significant case has been reached. The Supreme Court one year earlier, suddenly changed the legal climate for school prayer in the US.
In 1955, the New York Bupati Council developed a recommended (but not necessary) prayer for the school district under its territory. The prayer is relatively short: "God Almighty, we acknowledge our dependence on You, and we ask Your blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country." The council stated that the prayer would "combat juvenile delinquency and fight the spread of communism."
Seven years later, Steven I. Engel, a Jew, was annoyed to see his son's hand clasped and his head curled in prayer. He told his son that this was "not the way we pray." Engel, a founding member of the New York Civil Liberties Union, took joint action with Daniel Lichtenstein, Monroe Lerner, Lenore Lyons and Lawrence Roth, all parents of children on Long Island, New York's public school system, against Union Free School District Number 9 for its adoption and subsequent prescriptions of the so-called "Bupati's prayer," arguing that it is a state-sponsored form of religion that violates the rights of the First Amendment of citizens through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The use of the Bupati's prayer was initially established in the New York District Court and in the New York Court of Appeals, prompting Engels to petition the US Supreme Court in the case of Engel v. Vitale in 1962. With 8-1 votes to make public prayer lessons in public schools unlawful, the US Supreme Court made its first decision on prayer in public schools. This became the second in 1963 - the decision of Abington School District v. Schempp , which makes the reading of the Bible by the company and the reading of the Lord's Prayer against the law in public schools.
1963 and after
In these two important decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the Supreme Court established what is now the current state ban. sponsored prayers in US schools. While the decision of Engel states that the official state school prayer invitation is a violation of the First Amendment Clause Clause (thereby overriding the New York Court's decision), Abington states that the reading of the Bible and other religious activities sponsored public schools are prohibited. Lawsuit Madalyn Murray, Murray v. Curlett , contributes to the elimination of mandatory Bible reading from public schools in the United States, and has a lasting and significant effect.
Up to the lawsuit, it is common for students to participate in various types of religious activities while at school, including the teaching of religion itself. Nonreligious students are forced to participate in such activities and are usually not given the opportunity to opt out. Murray's lawsuit was combined with the previous case, so the Court may act without Murray's interference. With the success of the lawsuit, the intent of the Constitution relating to the relationship between church and state is again under critical scrutiny and remains to this day. While students continue to pray in public schools, even in organized groups like "See You at the Pole," the lawsuit prohibits schools from introducing prayer as a required activity for every student. The success of O'Hair's lawsuit led to subsequent lawsuits by Mormon and the Catholic family in Texas in 2000 to restrict mandatory prayer at school-sponsored soccer games.
After these two cases came the Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), a decision that sets Lemon tests for religious activities in schools. The Lemon Test states that, to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause, any sponsored practice in state-run schools (or other public-sponsored activities) must adhere to the following three criteria:
- Have a secular purpose;
- May not promote or obstruct religion; and
- Should not result in excessive winding between government and religion.
Controversy
The reaction to Engel and Abington is widely negative, and many school and state districts have sought to re-establish school-sponsored prayers in various forms since 1962. Since the 1990s, controversy in court tends to revolve around prayer in school-sponsored extracurricular activities. An example can be seen in the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992) and Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000), where the public prayer at the graduation ceremony and which is done through the public address system before the high school game (in the public school facilities before the school-collected audience), respectively, decides unconstitutional.
Despite their efforts to present a clear attitude to school-sponsored religious activities, Engel , Abington , and the cases acting as a precedent were cited by some school prayer supporters as evidence contradiction between Establishment and Free Exercise Clause. While the Establishment Clause prohibits religious state sponsorship, the Free Exercise Clause prohibits state intervention in individual religious practice. When a state entity moves to accommodate the right to individual religious expression under the latter clause, the opposite of such "expression" may call such accommodation "state promotion" of a religious activity over another. Concerning the Free Exercise Clause, the court has consistently stated that students who set aside religious views through prayer can not be prohibited unless such activities may prove to cause disruption at school, but remain outside the scope of the state to require such practice.. Thus, anyone is allowed to pray in schools in the United States, as long as it is not officially sponsored by the school and it does not disturb others from doing their work.
The United States Supreme Court: A Political and Legal Analysis discusses the results of the 1991 survey, which states that: "Decisions of school prayer in Courts are, and still are, very unpopular in society, many politicians and most religious organizations 95 percent of the population believe in God and about 60 percent come from religious organizations.In a 1991 poll, 78 percent of Americans supported the reintroduction of school prayer. "As a result of public support for school prayer in the United States, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States reported, "public support for school prayer is translated by various state legislatures into legislation to help schools and religious practices." Analysis of polls since the 1970s by sociologist Philip Schwadel shows support for school prayer dipped slightly but remained popular with the majority of Americans, with a recent 2011 poll of me show 65 percent support.
Canada
British Columbia
Prior to 1944, in British Columbia, the Public Schools Act (1872) permitted the use of the Lord's Prayer in opening or closing schools. In 1944, the British Columbia government amended the Public School Law to provide for mandatory Bible reading at the opening of the school day, which will be followed by a repeated obligation of the Lord's Prayer. This amendment appears as part of 167 of the Public Schools Act , and is read as follows:
167. All public schools shall be opened by reading, without explanation or comment, from a passage of Scripture to be selected from the reading specified or approved by the General Instruction Council. The reading of the Bible will be followed by the repetition of the Lord's Prayer, but the schools must be carried out with secular and non-sectarian principles. The highest morality should be instilled, but no dogmas or religious beliefs should be taught. 1948, c.42, s.167
The compulsory nature of Bible reading and prayer readings are slightly modified by the rules made by the Public Instruction Council. These rules stipulate that either a teacher or student who has a basic conscience because of objections to religious observance may be exempt from them. The procedure to be followed in such cases is described in the rules, which follow in full:
Division (15) - Bible Reading (Section 167)
15.01 Where a teacher sends a written notice to the School Supervisory Board or legal guardian with whom he is employed that he has a conscientious objection to do so. the prescribed biblical reading ceremony and the reciting of the Lord's Prayer (as provided by Section 167 of the General School Law), he shall be exempt from the duty, and in such cases shall be the duty of the School Supervisory Board or an authorized trustee arranging with the Principal to hold a ceremony performed by several other teachers at the school, or by the guardian, or, where none of these alternatives are possible, by one of the senior students of the school or by some other suitable persons other than an ordained member from religious or denominational sects.
15.02 If the parent or guardian of every student attending a public school sends a written notice to the student teacher stating that for cautious reasons he does not want his students to attend the prescribed Bible reading ceremony and read the Lord's Prayer at the opening of the school, the teacher will forgiving students from attendance at the ceremony and at his discretion can assign students some other useful work at school during that period, but the freed student will not lose any other benefits of school by reason of his absence at the ceremony.
In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom received royal approval. Part 2 of the Charter which guarantees freedom of conscience and freedom of religion surpasses Article 167 of the Public Schools Act (1872). Sixteen years later in 1996, based on a precedent to be established in Ontario (1989), it is necessary to read the Lord's Prayer as outlined in the Public Schools Act to be held in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ontario
The challenge of opening and closing Christian practice takes place primarily in Ontario with the crucial case championed at The Ontario Court of Appeal in 1988.
Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (Director) The Ontario High Court ruled that the use of the Our Lord's Prayer in the opening exercise at the public school alludes to the Charter s. 2 (a). 1988. (1988), 65 O.R. (2d) 641, 29 O.A.C. 23 (C.A.). Educational rules do not require the use of the Lord's Prayer and there are exclusionary provisions. The Ontario High Court ruled that the rule violates religious freedom because schools can only use the Lord's Prayer rather than a more inclusive approach. It is said that exclusion provisions effectively stigmatize children and force them into religious obedience that offends them.
The Ontario Court of Appeal is persuaded by the argument that the need to seek exemption from Christian practice itself is a form of religious discrimination. The judges describe the inconsistency of the respondent's position that it is advantageous for minority children to face the fact of their differences from the majority.
Russow v. British Columbia
In 1989, Joan Russow was challenged, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the requirement of the General School Law that in British Columbia all public schools should be opened with the Lord's Prayer and the reading of the Bible. The argument is similar to the case of Zylberberg and the results are the same: offensive words in the Public Schools Act have been removed because they are inconsistent with freedom of conscience and religious assurance in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Canada. Further following the Zylberberg case to cancel the use of the Our Lord's Prayer in schools, the Supreme Court of British Columbia submitted the High Court of Ontario's decision on Zylberberg as a whole.
From 1871 to 1989, school prayer obedience has declined.
With unfavorable court decisions, the requirement for Christian morning practice is replaced by the following clause found in the School Act (1996) in British Columbia.
Held:
76 (1) All schools and Provincial schools should be conducted under secular and non-sectarian principles.
(2) The highest morality should be instilled, but no dogma or religious belief should be taught in the school or Provincial school.
French
As a country declared 'laÃÆ'¯que' (roughly 'religion neutral', secular), France has no school prayer. Instead, public servants are advised to keep their religious faith private, and may be criticized if they display it too openly. French law on secularity and striking religious symbols in schools goes beyond restricting prayers in schools and banning the striking use of religious symbols by pupils in public primary and secondary schools.
Turkish
The predominantly Muslim country of Turkey is in a very secular state public space. In this case, it is similar to France, which on laÃÆ'¯cism system, its founder Mustafa Kemal AtatÃÆ'¼rk imitated the rules of religion when he reformed his country in the early 20th century. Therefore, school prayer is unknown, and allegations of religious motivation can cause serious difficulties for civil servants. Despite its prime secular stance, however, religious and moral programs (which are predominantly Islamic) are mandatory for all students during the final years of elementary and secondary school. In these examples, various prayers and verses of Islam are taught and tested.
Maps School prayer
Countries that allow school-sponsored prayer
United Kingdom
In England and Wales, the Standard and Framework Act 1998 states that all students in public schools should take part in collective acts of worship daily, unless their parents request that they be released from attendance. The majority of these collective acts of worship are demanded to be "wholly or largely of broad Christian character", with two exceptions:
- Religious schools, which must provide religious worship according to school religion (although most religious schools in Britain are Christian.)
- Schools where the local Education Advisory Council on Religious Education has determined that Christian worship will not be appropriate for some or all of the schools.
Despite these legal requirements for schools to hold daily collective acts of worship, most do not. The 2002-200 2002 annual report, for example, states that 80% of secondary schools do not provide daily worship for all students.
Continuing debate
Arguments for and against school prayer
The issue of school prayer remains controversial even where diverse trials such as Canada, the United States, Russia and Poland seek to balance religious and secular activity in state-sponsored arenas. Some argue that religion in school is an effective sosiomoral tool and a valuable tool for psychological stability. On the opposite side, others argue that prayer has no place in the classroom where students who can be influenced continue to be influenced by the majority. The latter type of claim states that, to the extent that public schools themselves promote the religion of the majority, the state is guilty of coercive disorders in the lives of individuals.
In recent years, programs derived from yoga, Hindu religious practices, have been introduced to public schools in the US. Advocates for the programs say they help children to relax and concentrate, but critics argue that the programs violate the separation of church and state.
"While still"
Although the debate continues, there are instances where religious freedom and secular stability have been temporarily balanced. In the United States, some administrations have introduced a "moment of silence" or "moment of reflection" in which a student can, if he wishes, offer silent prayer. The US Supreme Court decision on Wallace v. Jaffree (1984) states that the silent moments at school for the purpose of individual prayer or meditation are valid applications of the Free Practice Clause, while the moment of silence for the intended purpose is clear from the state-approved activity of reflection is a violation of the Establishment Clause. In the same case, the problem of school prayer is further complicated by the differences made between public assemblies attended by participants of their free will, and public events in which a legal presence is necessary. Congresses attended voluntarily can open sessions with prayer, but schools filled with public students should not be. Here the US Supreme Court has interpreted this issue because it revolves around the level of government's ability to indoctrinate its citizens. If it appears that participants at state-sponsored events are more likely to influence the State itself, the court may treat the prayer as "legislative prayer". If, on the other hand, the State is more likely to influence the participants in its events, the court may treat the prayer as a state-sponsored prayer and therefore rule it unconstitutionally.
See also
- Religious freedom
- While idle
- Madalyn Murray O'Hair
- Separation of church and country
- The status of religious freedom by country
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments