Teaching without Fear, Part 2: Talking About the Separation of Church and State

Facebook Ad (2)

You’re sitting in the teacher’s lounge and the topic of “church/state separation” comes up. What should you say?

I have found that when teachers and administrators raise the issue of the separation of church and state, they usually think it is a conversation-stopper – as in, “Oh that can’t be done in class—separation of church and state. End of discussion.”

The first thing I recommend you do is let them know that you also believe in a separation of church and state. Just say “Well I believe in the separation of church and state. I don’t want to see an official ‘Church of America’ like the Church of England. And, I don’t want to see clergy having any kind of legislative authority over our elected officials. Nor do I want to see the government having any kind of ecclesiastical authority over churches. I believe in the separation of church and state.”

But then, in a friendly tone, ask your colleagues some other questions that will cause them to think a little deeper about the issue:

1. What do you do if a church is on fire? Would a fire department violate the separation of church and state if it put out the fire? It would be the state aiding a church. Correct? Or, what about a synagogue that gets vandalized. Do you not call the police because, again, that would be a violation of the separation of church and state? Should religious institutions have their own police and fire departments?

1. How do we handle the fact that our state’s academic standards expect us to teach about religion, and expect students to understand something about the Bible? Is our Department of Education wanting us to violate the separation of church and state?

1. What about freedom of speech? Are you against your students’ freedom of expression just because they might express an opinion based on their religious thinking?

1. What about censorship? Should we censor parts of our history that show religion in a positive light?

Most likely your colleagues will agree that they don’t mean that kind of separation of church and state. You can agree about academic freedom to teach about religion even when it shows religion in a positive light. And you can agree that, while teachers need to be careful, students have tremendous freedom to express their faith at school. And, yes, police and fire departments should protect religious institutions.

You might, then, want to refer to what the Supreme Court said about the phrase “separation of church and state.” In the case of Lynch versus Donnelly having to do with the public display of a Nativity Scene, the Court made this comment:

“The concept of a ‘wall’ of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the ‘callous indifference,’ that was never intended by the Establishment Clause.” (emphasis added)

By having a conversation about the misused phrase “separation of church and state” you just may help your school become a more faith-friendly environment for students and teachers.

Reformation Day - October 31

Teach a Civics Lesson about Martin Luther - Teaching without Fear

Students know all about Halloween but they should learn about something else that is celebrated on October 31 that has had a MUCH bigger impact on the world.

October 31 is also Reformation Day. On that day in 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 objections to the Roman Catholic Church on a church door in Germany. As a civics lesson, students of all faiths and no faith should understand the freedom of religion they enjoy because of what Luther started.

CIVICS CONNECTION

Understanding the benefits of America's religious heritage to our civic life is important. Part of the American value system, rooted in Christian thinking, is that people not only have the freedom to hold to their religious beliefs, but can live by them and publicly express them as well.

In 1517, Luther had no intention of leaving the Catholic Church. But holding fast to his conviction against certain church practices and doctrines got him expelled.

At the time, governments in Europe enforced religious conformity for the Church. Luther wrote about why government authority should not be used to coerce belief. He argued, from Scripture, that people are responsible only to God for their religious beliefs.

To make his case, he quoted Jesus' statement in Matthew 10:28, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

He then wrote:

"Surely that [Matt. 10:28] is clear enough: the soul is taken out of the hands of any human being whatsoever, and is placed exclusively under the power of God. Now tell me this: would anyone in his right mind give orders where he has no authority?...It is impossible and futile to command or coerce someone to believe this or that."

Luther's revolutionary thinking about religious freedom spread throughout Europe and came to America with the Pilgrims, the Puritans, and eventually, America's Founders.

THOMAS JEFFERSON AGREED

Thomas Jefferson echoed Luther's thinking when he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. With the help of James Madison, it became law in 1786. Before this, Virginia taxed people to support churches.

Jefferson began the legislation with this theological assertion:

"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens [burdens], or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do."

After making his argument for freedom of religion, Jefferson's legislation stated:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever...nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." (Emphasis added)

CONNECTION TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom was an important influence on the drafters of the First Amendment three years later:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

As an example of how relevant Luther's and Jefferson's words are for today, we should all be concerned about religious tests expressed in Senate hearings (no matter what our political leanings are). (Here, and Here)

Every student in America needs to understand the Christian roots of the freedom of religious expression they might take for granted. Students will not seek to preserve what they do not cherish, and they will not cherish what they do not understand. October 31 - Reformation Day - is an excellent opportunity to teach a civics lesson about the connection between Martin Luther, religious freedom, the Bill of Rights, and their everyday lives.

Resources:

Video - A Fun, Animated History of the Reformation (National Geographic)

Parents - FREE Reformation Coloring Book for Children (PDF)

Book - Never Before In History: America's Inspired Birth

Library of Congress - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic

Videos - Provided by the Orange County Dept. of Education explaining Students’ Religious Freedom

Teaching without Fear, Part 1: The Supreme Court Supports Bible Reading

Facebook Ad (1)

Many people think that the Supreme Court has thrown the Bible out of public schools. They are surprised when they actually look at what the Supreme Court has said. 

The 1963 case that dealt with Bible reading in school is called Abington School District vs. Schempp. The Abington School District is north of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. At the time, Pennsylvania had a law requiring Bible reading at the beginning of each day. A man named Edward Schempp challenged the law and the Court agreed that the state cannot require somebody to read the Bible even if they are Christians - the state should not be in the business of requiring students to be devoted to a particular religious faith.

Since the Pennsylvania Bible reading law wasn't connected to academics but merely an exercise done every morning, the Court decided in an 8-1 decision in favor of respondent, Edward Schempp. It declared this type of Bible reading in the public schools to be unconstitutional. However, it didn't declare all Bible reading unconstitutional.

To clarify that it wasn't ruling out all Bible reading, the Court went on to write:

"...the State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."

Fast forward to today, all these years later, and many teachers and administrators are acting exactly as the court warned against. They are, in a sense, establishing a religion of secularism.

The Supreme Court went on to say:

"[I]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities."

Now, that's not just allowing it, that's encouraging it! That's saying it's worthy of study.

Practical Application

Teachers should not fear using the Bible as an academic reference in the classroom. When relevant to the academic topic I recommend educators cut and paste the appropriate Biblical passage from an online Bible. Put it into a Word document and include two other items: (1) a brief explanation tying the Scripture to the academic topic being addressed, and (2) a quote from their state's academic standard or law that supports the use of the Bible. If the educators' state has no specific reference, I recommend they quote the Supreme Court's supportive statement in Abington School District vs. Schempp.

34 States Allow for Opening the School Day in Prayer

Millions of public school students can begin their day with an opening prayer in the classroom. Shocking, isn't it? It's called a moment of silence, and thirty-four states allow it (and some mandate it).

Gateways to Better Education is now encouraging and equipping students to ACTUALLY PRAY during that moment of silence. We've created a School Prayer Card that students can keep in their pockets or backpacks. During the moment of silence, they can pull out the prayer card and silently pray the prayer. Imagine millions of students silently reading the prayer on our School Prayer Card.

You can download the School Prayer Card for free. CLICK HERE.

Visit our School Prayer Card webpage to find out if YOUR STATE mandates a moment of silence and what to do if your school doesn't observe it. Tell your friends about the School Prayer Card and download the free card today!

Changes to the Federal Guidance on Religious Expression — Should you be concerned?

In 2017, we began lobbying the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE) to update its Guidance on students’ and educators’ freedom of religious expression. We gave them a number of recommendations. To our delight, they used many of our recommendations and in the 2020 release of Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools. 

On May 15, 2023 the USDoE released its revisions of the Guidance. Should you be concerned about changes that were made? The short answer is, No.

What has changed in 2023?

For the most part, only slight wording changes were made to the Guidance that do not change the overall meaning. For example, references to the Bible, Torah, and Koran were replaced with “religious materials.” When referring to student prayer, the term “grace” was replaced with “a prayer or blessing.”

Due to the recent Supreme Court victory of our friends at First Liberty Institute, the updated Guidance references the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District ruling allowing educators to pray even if students see it. The Guidance now includes:

“...not everything that a public school teacher, coach, or other official says in the workplace constitutes governmental speech, and schools….may not prohibit those employees from engaging in prayer merely because it is religious or because some observers, including students, might misperceive the school as endorsing that expression.”

However, First Liberty attorney Keisha Russell expressed concern that “the administration’s new guidance relies on old propositions derived from the overturned Lemon   decision.” In Kennedy v. Bremerton, the Supreme Court overruled a precedent known as the Lemon test, which unnecessarily restricted religious freedom for over 50 years. She reiterated the importance of following the Court’s recent ruling and making sure that “any restriction placed on religious freedom by those outdated cases is restored to the fullest extent required by the First Amendment.”

The updated Guidance has pared down the section addressing the Equal Access Act allowing students to organize religious clubs. It removed a portion of the 2020 Guidance which stated that student clubs have the right to require club leaders to hold to the clubs’ religious beliefs. While this should be obvious, it is not specifically addressed in the Equal Access Act.  

The 2023 Guidance adds clarity about school choirs performing religious music:

“[P]ublic schools generally may allow student choirs to perform music inspired by or based on religious themes or texts as part of school-sponsored activities and events, provided that the music is not performed as a religious exercise and is not used to promote or favor religion generally, a particular religion, or a religious belief.”

It also adds a sentence encouraging schools to inform students of their religious freedom. It states that public schools may teach about religion “and promote religious liberty and respect for religious views (or lack thereof) of all.”