Teaching without Fear, Part 3: Addressing Religious Holidays at School

Facebook Ad (3)

Thanksgiving and Christmas will soon be here. Do you need to strip them of their religious meaning when you recognize them in a public school? No, you don’t.This question was addressed in the federal court case of Lynch versus Sioux Falls School District. The school district had a very common-sense approach to handling holidays. It stated:

“Music, art, literature, and drama having religious themes or basis are permitted as part of the curriculum for school sponsored activities and programs if presented in a prudent and objective manner and as a traditional part of the cultural and religious heritage of the particular holiday.”

The ACLU didn’t like it and sued the school district. And…the ACLU lost at the local level. It appealed to the federal level, and lost again. In its ruling the Court wrote:

“We view the thrust of these rules to be the advancement of the students’ knowledge of society’s cultural and religious heritage as well as the provision of an opportunity for students to perform a full range of music, poetry, and drama that is likely to be of interest to the students and their audience.

“It would be literally impossible to develop a public school curriculum that did not in some way affect the religious or nonreligious sensibilities of some of the students or their parents. School administrators should, of course, be sensitive to the religious beliefs or disbeliefs of their constituents and should attempt to avoid conflict, but they need not and should not sacrifice the quality of the students’ education.”

Sadly, in too many schools today the quality of the students’ education is being sacrificed because of misinformation. People are saying, “We can’t do this! The courts are all against it! It’s illegal! We’re going be sued!”

The fact of the matter is, the courts have supported appropriate inclusion of religion in the curriculum, whether it involves studying about it or recognizing it in relation to a holiday.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

1. See if your school district already has a policy regarding recognition of holidays. If so, be sure to quote the policy on any holiday-related assignments or communication going home to families.

2. If your school district doesn’t have a policy regarding holidays, recommend your school board adopt the Sioux Falls School District policy which has already stood the test of ACLU lawsuits.

3. When communicating with students, parents, and colleagues, refer to acknowledging or recognizing a holiday. You should not celebrate it. Not everyone celebrates a particular holiday, but anyone can recognize it in fun and educational ways that include music, art, literature, and drama.

To purchase Gateways Holiday Cards to share with colleagues or your children’s teachers visit our SHOP.

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

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 some 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 of 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. Right? 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?

2. 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?

3. 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?

4. 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.

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

  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.

Students need to Understand Teachers' Freedom to Teach about Religion

By Nixie Laremore

Teachers aren’t the only ones who have erroneous thinking about the so-called “separation of church and state;” many students, too, think that classrooms must be “religion-free zones.”      

When I was assigned to substitute-teach a high school American Literature class, the students were reading Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. Finally, I would be able to really teach a class and not just babysit in the teacher’s absence! Previously, I taught American Literature and The Scarlet Letter at a Christian school in Pennsylvania. Hawthorne’s compelling portrayals of poisonous hidden guilt and revenge as compared to rejuvenating open confession and forgiveness were still vivid in my mind. Although I was now substituting in public schools, I knew I could and would discuss these overtly religious themes of the book during class. I knew I could because any topic inherent in literature- however controversial- may be objectively discussed. I knew I would because to intentionally NOT discuss such valuable life topics would be a huge disservice to the students and would be rooted only in fear. I wasn’t afraid. Besides, I couldn’t imagine getting any pushback from the students or the faculty. As a substitute, I would be lucky if anyone paid any attention at all to what I said in the classroom.  

After a quick review, I mentioned that Hawthorne’s writings contained many references to the Bible. Specifically, I told the class I wanted to explore the many alleged similarities between Hester in The Scarlet Letter and Queen Esther in the Bible. “First, notice how their names sound similar!  Are there other similarities perhaps Hawthorne wanted us to notice?  Does anyone in the class know the story of Esther from the Bible to help us start comparing the two?” I asked. Immediately, a young man in the middle of the classroom raised his hand. “You do know this is a public school, right? Maybe because you’re a substitute you don’t know this, but I am pretty sure you are not allowed to be talking about the Bible in a public school classroom.”

“Your assumption that talking about the Bible is not allowed in public schools is very common, but it is also very wrong. You are mistaken,” I responded. “The facts are that teachers and students may talk about the Bible in any classroom, especially when the Bible is connected to the study at hand…like in our study of The Scarlet Letter.” Have you checked your facts regarding academic and religious freedom in public schools? Are you confident when teaching about the Bible, or are you silently obeying assumed restrictions? 

Not only is the Bible an appropriate part of the study of literature, but the Bible is also appropriate in the study of art, music, science, government, history, language, and culture. You are free to objectively teach about how the Bible intersects with these disciplines, and in most cases, your state’s academic standards direct you to do so.

Nixie Laremore is a teacher and champion for religious freedom.

For more help on this topic visit:

The Free Speech and Academic Freedom of Teachers in Public Schools

Teachers’ Rights on Public School Campuses

FAQ’s Regarding Religious Freedom in Public Schools

Graduation Prayers in Public Schools

Sample Board Policy re: Religious Expression in Public Schools

California State Board to Rewrite History