Banning Prayer in Public Schools

We have prayer in public places very frequently: the Supreme Court, Congress, athletic events, state legislature meetings, and meetings of city councils and county commissions for example. So why should we not have prayer in public school classrooms? Because such prayers might allow religion to exercise undue influence over our children.

Both houses of the Congress of the United States begin each session with prayer. Members of a variety of religions are called upon to provide those prayers. Something very similar occurs in the US Supreme Court.

Before being called to active duty military, I served for 5 1/2 years on the city council of the city in which I live. We began each meeting with a prayer. On every occasion we asked for a volunteer from the audience to give a prayer. On some of those occasions the mayor or a member of the council was the person who volunteered to give the prayer.

If we have prayers in these public venues, why should we not allow prayer in public schools? The answer is that the having of such prayers may unduly influence children in the public schools toward an acceptance of religion.

Lest by the tenor of this post so far you think that I oppose prayer in public school, let me set the record straight. Banning prayer in public school is bunk. Allowing prayer in public school is under no circumstances an undue influence of religion on children. Rather, the banning of prayer in public schools not only takes from children an excellent opportunity to be more aware and understanding of other people's beliefs and feelings, it also unwittingly encourages general intolerance among public school students.

Here is a simple solution that would encourage school children to have a healthy respect for others' religious beliefs (and such a solution could easily be given the force of law) It would not be an undue influence of religion over public school students but would have a healthy inculcation for general tolerance of others beliefs. Let's assume a simple example of a class of 30 students. In other states the ratios would be different, but in Utah, the religious population ratios might be something like this:
  • 20 of those students would be Latter-Day Saint
  • 3 would be Catholic
  • 3 would be Protestant
  • 1 would be Jehovah Witness
  • 1 would be Jewish
  • 1 would be Muslim
  • 1 would be Atheist
Based on this, for every 30 school days, there would be the potential for 20 LDS prayers, 3 Catholic prayers, 3 Protestant prayers, 1 Jehovah Witness prayer, 1 Jewish Prayer, 1 Muslim prayer, and 1 day of no prayer. Yet ultimately it would still be up to each student (and his or her parents) what sort of religious devotion (if any) would occur on his or her assigned day.

The societal ratio of religious population would not matter. Rather, the religious ratio in each class would be the determining factor. Students of any religion not wanting to participate would not have to participate. Students (or their parents) who do not support prayer in public schools (or for any other reason) could designate their assigned day as a day for no prayer.

Using this mechanism, the beliefs of all can be celebrated as having value, and tolerance for various people and points of view would become enshrined in the public square. As it stands now, the lack of tolerance for public devotion--especially in the public schools--engenders a tendency toward lack of tolerance for many other things.

Latter-Day Saint students in Utah usually make up a majority of each classroom's population, but this would not be the case in other States in the U.S. But the point is, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that every religion would be respected in the classroom regardless of its relative size with relationship to society.

Under such circumstances, would the religious (or non-religious) majority of children in a school or classroom have a tendency to tease their fellow students in the non-religious (or religious) minority? Would the members of the predominant religion tease their fellow students who belong to other religions? No. It is likely that there would be less teasing than there is--for other reasons--in public schools today. It is my expectation that carefully administered prayer in public schools (as outlined above) would have a tendency to reduce bullying and teasing of every kind.

Everyone believes something. Many individuals believe that there is a God, while some do not. But whatever we believe as to the existence or non-existence of God, and as to our relationship with other people is our religion. Yes, everyone believes something, and thus, everyone has religion. So the attempt to quash public expression of religion turns out to be a public elevation of the beliefs of those whose religion esteems there to be no God.

The very idea that we should not have prayer in public schools because it may exercise undue influence on children's minds is an undue influence on their minds by insinuating that religion is dangerous and undesirable. The greater danger is for children to be taught that religion is inappropriate and that intolerance for religion is appropriate.


  1. My first impression of your idea is favorable. You mentioned that kids wouldn't be forced to participate. I think there would be a substantial portion of the religious kids that would choose not to participate just because of shyness. And, even though you believe there will be a general decrease in bullying and teasing, I expect that there would definitely be teasing of kids whose mode of worship is significantly different from the regional norm.

    Furthermore, trying to track the religious preferences of all the children in a classroom would bring its own set of challenges: privacy, bookkeeping, differing views of parents, etc.

  2. You're right about some of your concerns. It wouldn't at least initially be easy to get something like this going, because in a way similar to growing democracy in Iraq, it's something that the public school children wouldn't be used to.

    But over time it would engender a healthy public debate and a better understanding of our differences.

    The whole idea of bringing religious preferences into the open is to show that they are not as different or strange as we may have supposed, and this in itself would have a tendency to reduce teasing.

  3. SOunds like an excellent recipe for more government intervention.

    Can't we just leave religion to the home and family?

  4. It has nothing to do with government intervention, and everything to do with more home and family influence on their children's education.

    Government's only involvement is to keep track, if the student and his parents so desire, the student's preference for religious devotion.

    We've done a good job "intervening", if you'd like to use that term, in getting children of different races to respect each other. My suggestion would provide the same improvement in relationships between people of different religions.

  5. Great piece of semantics, but one of the interventions is in perfect alignment with the Constitution. They other is in perfect violation of the same.


    The following website summarizes 300 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including dozens of cases where the JWParents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions:


    This website summarizes 160 United States court cases and lawsuits filed by Jehovah's Witnesses against Employers:



Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog