School Prayer: the Courts, the Congress and the First Amendment

Guide Rating -

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...," but what exactly did the authors mean by that? Did they simply mean that an official state church should not be established, as members of the Religious Right argue? Or did they mean that the government should not be involved with supporting and helping religion at all?

Summary

Title: School Prayer: The Court, the Congress and the First Amendment
Author: Robert S. Alley
Publisher: Prometheus Books

Pros:
•  Detailed Historical Summary
•  Both Sides Presented
•  Strong Case for Separation

Cons:
•  None

Description:
•  Modern History of the Separation of Church and State
•  Summaries of Court Decisions
•  Transcripts and Summaries of Congressional Debates

 

Book Review

In his book School Prayer, Robert S. Alley argues for the latter view, but specifically focuses upon its implications for the divisive issue of official sponsored prayers in public schools. Alley begins his effort with a detailed analysis of James Madison's 18th-century debates over religious freedom and the cultural context in which they occurred.

Although he also covers the problems of the history of "protestant hegemony" in the nineteenth century, as well as the messianic attitudes of some presidents as reflected in their pronouncements on the relation of religion to government, the bulk of his book is focused on thirty years of congressional testimony and key Supreme Court decisions.

His starting point here is, naturally enough, the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Engel v. Vitale in 1962 and Abington v. Schempp in 1963. The former prohibited officially organized prayers while the latter prohibited officially organized Bible readings. People were outraged that the government would no longer be involved in religious support and education, and many called for Chief Justice Earl Warren's impeachment.

But a more common response was to call for constitutional amendments which would specifically permit prayer in schools — a solution still offered occasionally today. Numerous congressional hearings were held on the matter, but opponents of the amendment were rarely given equal time with those who supported it.

What also came out of these hearings was just how truly sectarian and Christian the designs of prayers were supposed to be. After all, if there are going to be officially endorsed and organized communal prayers, someone is going to have to create the prayers being used:

Who will define what is a "good" prayer? Chenoweth's position was quite typical and reflected a culturally conditioned notion that prayer was definable within Christian parameters. Indeed, this predisposition to confine religious definitions to majority views led to the establishment of the term "Judeo-Christian tradition," an unfortunate if well-intended hyphenate. Jews do not have a Christian heritage, while Christians most certainly do have a Jewish heritage. Therefore, Jewish citizens do not, in point of fact, have a Judeo-Christian tradition. It is an effort at tolerance that is flawed by an inherent imbalance.

It seems that most Christians in America simply assume that just about everyone else around them are not only Christians, but Christians just like them. The possibility of serious theological differences is dismissed, and if they do arise they are ignored as relevant. In this way, people can genuinely wonder what is wrong with official prayers, because it doesn't occur to them that anyone important would disagree with the prayers enough to really object.

School Prayer: the Courts, the Congress and the First Amendment

Although many of America's founders did not believe in the sort of god which fundamentalists today believe, almost all did believe in the existence of a god. Nevertheless, few thought that the state should be involved with directly fostering this belief. This is why they made the effort to lay down principles of religious freedom and equality for everyone, without the spectre of government coercion hanging over their heads.

Sometimes, in today's atmosphere, secularists can lose sight of the fact that religious people and theists can be just as committed to the fundamentals of religious liberty as anyone else. They forget that you don't need to be an atheist to be in favor of the separation of church and state.

One of the values of Alleys' book is that he includes extensive selections from the arguments on both sides of the controversy and from the actual congressional record, providing readers a direct look into the deliberations on this matter from all perspectives. In this way, people can learn the real, substantive history behind the debates in a way that isn't possible with the typical propaganda which the Religious Right promotes.

Important product disclaimer information about this About site.