Law on School Prayer Essay

The issue on school prayer has been subject to constitutional debate since 1960’s. The Court ruled against school-sponsored prayer in the Engel vs. Vitale case in 1962. Such court decision is in line with the upholding of freedom of religion (and the expression of one’s faith and belief). The Court said that one could instead do his or her prayer privately and need not impose his or her prayer to anyone (Dierenfield, 2007). This is the very basis of the Court for implementing the non-school-sponsored prayer in every school in the United States. Such ruling was put into question when another case of school-sponsored prayer occurred in 2000. The case wherein the Santa Fe Independent School District permitted the non-private conduction of prayer (done in front of other students of the school) which is aim to declare support for the football athletes (Status of Current Law on School Prayer, 2007). Although, the Congress had tried to intervene with the issue, the Court still prevailed by saying that the school violated the law against school-sponsored worship or prayer. In order to uphold the ruling of the Court against school-sponsored worship or prayer, the House and the Senate passed the ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education) in October 30 2001 (Status of Current Law on School Prayer, 2007). This act states that schools that would violate the law against school-sponsored prayer would be denied of federal funding. The Congress position was to uphold the right of students for voluntary prayer hence it disallowed the imposition of school on conducting a school prayer. The fear of losing the support of the government (for public schools) really held every school so that they became really careful about dealing with religious and faith-related issues of their students. They allowed their students to pray or not pray. They do not anymore try to make actions or sponsor events that would tend to patronize particulars faiths or religions. Legal Implications Truly, no one should interfere with other’s way of expressing himself or herself. Likewise, no one should impose his or her religion, belief or faith to anyone (Muir, 1985). Thus, the Court had a very good reason for declaring such decision concerning school prayer. By taking a closer examination on the issue, one would realize that the Court, as well as the Congress, just really wanted to protect the rights of the students for voluntary prayer. Hence, schools were ordered not to support any form or kind of religious and faith-related activities. This is due to the fact that public schools have a diverse population of students who belong to various religions. In effect, if the school would favor one student or a group of students in the school to conduct an event that would advertize their religion, there will really be a violation against the rights of other students on their religious belief (Muir, 1985). The Court provided a very plausible and rational suggestion to religious sectors and the parents of the students. It said that students can practice their own way of upholding their religious faith while not impeding other’s right of voluntary prayer. They can really do their prayers privately. By doing so, no one would complain about the imposition of school prayer. The Congress’s sponsorship and Court’s implementation of the ESEA could really help them monitoring and regulating schools in sponsoring and conducting activities. The schools, in return, would ensure that they would be hands-off regarding religious matters. They should really do that otherwise their federal funding would be denied by the government (Status of Current Law on School Prayer, 2007). To end, the issue on school prayer and the law regarding it intend to promote the rights of the students for voluntary prayer and against discrimination of religion. Schools primary duty is to ensure proper education for their students – and that should be their focus.