Religious freedom, in belief and practice, has defined our civil society for more than 200 years. Clearly, our founding leaders understood the tyranny of religious coercion and moved to block it in all its forms. The First Amendment, heading the list of essential rights in our Constitution, sets out the “establishment” or “religion” clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Yet, despite these legal parameters, the debate over the constitutionality of religious activities − and their intersection with public life − rages on. And America’s classrooms are ground zero in the battle to interpret the law. Religious tensions are boiling over in our schools, as agitated parents seek to define what constitutes a violation of rights.
Even once-innocuous practices are now fiercely contested. On September 14th, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the right of children to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.” Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court heard this case (brought by the same atheist), but rejected it based on procedural grounds, never ruling on the constitutionality of the words. Now the Court may have another opportunity to weigh in. Meanwhile, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed resolutions reaffirming support for the phrase “one Nation, under God,” nearly unanimously.
The U.S. House of Representatives, on September 22nd, voted to reauthorize the Head Start preschool program, but not without a vicious debate over an amendment allowing faith-based service providers to make employment decisions based on religion. The votes fell along party lines, with a majority of Democrats opposing the religious-hiring amendment. Fortunately, at least for the time being, preschools will be able to retain their religious autonomy while receiving federal tax dollars.
On September 26th in Pennsylvania, parents sued a school system over a policy allowing high school students to discuss the concept of intelligent design as they learned about evolution. Parents were concerned that the “intelligent design” theory might infer an unnamed designer or architect (or “god” figure). Yet, in spite of the views of these vocal parents, a clear majority of Americans still supports teaching creationism in the classroom. A July poll from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 64% of Americans were open to teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools.
Closer to home, a group of parents represented by Called2Action (a local activist organization), has contacted a legal firm about New Age practices in a Raleigh elementary school. Parents at the school expressed concern that religious meditation (involving a “conscious breathing” activity with chanting) violated the First Amendment rights of their children.
There’s no question that interpretations over what constitutes religious expression − particularly in our public schools − have been fraught with controversy. What is considered innocent to some seems to violate the religious beliefs of another. All of which makes the simplicity and flexibility of choice extremely appealing. When we attach education dollars to the child and let parents decide, families are free to choose schools that support and affirm their religious beliefs −whatever they may be.
Lindalyn Kakadelis heads the North Carolina Education Alliance.
