Freedom of religion is one of the five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It is extremely important to the social and civic fabric of the United States, and was a revolutionary idea over 235 years ago, and a dangerous idea for some present-day monarchies such as Saudi Arabia. The political leaders of the American Revolution took great pains to build this provision for freedom of religion and freedom of persecution into the constitution. Therefore, in order to be just and balanced toward all religions that are practiced in the U.S., the state and federal government must remain neutral on religious matters. I am not sure if God is a specifically dangerous concept, but I know that most religions have very strong moral codes that often draw rigid lines between what they consider right and wrong.
The freedom of religion in the First Amendment contains two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The topic of religion and religious practices in school calls into question the establishment clause in determining whether a school can propose an activity or not. The establishment clause of the amendment prohibits government from showing a preference toward one religion or another and thus forcing students to comply with a religious or spiritual practice would be a violation of the constitution. I believe that this is the most appropriate and fair approach to respecting the varied backgrounds and religious faiths that are present in any classroom. People come from all walks of life, and their cultures and beliefs should be respected.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Is God dangerous in the classroom?".
As Essex discusses, a teacher is free to express their religious convictions on a personal level, but not teach it as part of a curriculum. However, bringing up God and religious matters within the context of a classroom could be quite dangerous and open a debate that could easily become heated and difficult to control. For example, if a classroom contains Muslims and Christians and the discussion of religion is broached, it could create tension between classmates that could end in fighting or discrimination.
On the other hand, a central problem with the laws on prayer in schools is that they are black and white. If an activity is not supported constitutionally, it is then considered a “violation” to practice it. For example, school sponsored prayer is illegal to propose and enforce, and considered a “violation” as well as prayer at an athletic event (p. 21). Yet, student initiated prayer is “legal” and permissible. It seems an all or nothing approach to applying the First Amendment. Obviously, these are difficult issues and it is important to not leave any gray areas by which citizens and lawyers could manipulate the word of the law. However, on the other side, it seems too extreme and intolerant an attitude toward people who wish to worship in public spaces. A missing key seems to be mutual respect. Respect for others who do not wish to practice, or who practice other religions, is essential but often not exercised by deeply religious or conservative people.
The application of laws around separation of church and state is tricky. For example, Essex discusses cases where some citizens think that the school or government interpret tolerance as preference, which would be a violation of the establishment clause (p. 21-22). One of the more interesting and current cases in freedom of religion is whether or not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) in science and physics classes. ID supporters believe that their theory is non-biblically based and thus acceptable. Although it is a theory of quantum physics, many say that its religious “connotations” violate constitutional law (p. 38). I find the questions around separation of church and state fascinating. I also want to understand what role God plays in the lives of average Americans and what role does religion play in our society.
