Are America's public educational institutions anti-religious?

This article addresses the claim that America's public educational institutions are too frequently anti-religious. Examples are given, regarding why various people believe that anti-religious attitudes exist, especially in the public schools. To the extent that some educators are anti-religious, the issue of whether this arises out of animosity toward religious people or ignorance is discussed. The article addresses the fact that historically religious people have often been disliked, because religious people tend to take stands on issues that disturb one's conscience. Nevertheless, educators should respect and tolerate religious people not only because religious people are human beings, but because religion may possess some of the answers to the ills that face American society today.

Feeling ostracized by a public school system which forbids most forms of religious expression in the schools and teaches a relativistic morality that is an anathema to millions of religious people in America, a myriad of religious Americans have resorted to homeschooling their children. An estimated 2% of American children are homeschooled and that number is growing annually (Ray,1996). The homeschool movement is certainly one of the great educational events of the 1990. In a similar manner the number of Protestant schools soared during the 1970s and the 1980s reaching 32, 000 by 1985 (Barton, 1994). These two trends are indicative of the displeasure that many religious people have with the public schools. Indeed, a large number of religious people have looked for alternative ways of educating their children, because they feel that America's public educational institutions are anti-religious. Are religious people justified in this belief?

Certainly, there are many examples of actions taken by teachers and principals in the public schools that appear anti-religious in nature. It has become almost common-place to hear testimonies of Bible study clubs blocked from having access to their schools, children suspended for bringing a Bible to school, children forbidden from reading the Bible on a school bus, and children forbidden from giving their friends Christmas cards. (Bryant, 1992; Gow,1989; Group,1989; Lambert,1996). None of these school actions are legal, but they nevertheless are common occurrences (Religious Group, 1990; Religious Meetings, 1990; Schools Opened, 1990). In addition, most religious people assert that values taught in public elementary and secondary schools are not neutral, as educators claim, but are anti-religious in nature (Decter, 1995; Olasky, 1988). Religious people frequently cite educators' insistence on teaching about "safe sex" at the expense of abstinence as an example (Fox, 1992; Lebacqz & Blake, 1988; Spiro, 1988). Teachers often forbid students from doing any papers on the life of Christ (Savage, 1995). In addition, school boards and local governments have been caught discriminating against religious groups who rent space from them, either by charging them more or restricting them more than other groups (David, 1994).

In all fairness, the social agenda of many public schools probably does oppose a number of religious values. But part of the blame may lie with religious people themselves. For a myriad of Catholics, Jews, and Protestants have fled the public schools to attend private schools and to educate their children at home. As a consequence of this, the percentage of religious parents, teachers, and students in public schools is less on average than would otherwise be the case. Consequently, the curriculum and social agenda of the schools reflect this fact.

Numerous religious people believe that anti-religious sentiment is often even more obvious at the post-secondary level of education. Some of the incidents of reduced religious freedom of expression are downright embarrassing to a democracy. Recently, for example, the NCAA declared that it was illegal for a college football player to celebrate a touchdown by kneeling in the endzone (Adande, 1995; Bagnato, 1995). Under this rule, a player who exercised his religious freedom in this way would be assessed a fifteen yard unsportsman-like conduct penalty the first time he engaged in this action. If he kneeled down in this fashion a second time, he would be ejected from the game (Bagnato, 1995). Only when Liberty University sued the NCAA did the NCAA eventually back down from this capricious edict (Adande, 1995; Bagnato, 1995).

What is unclear is whether these ostensibly anti-religious acts result more from animosity toward religious people or ignorance of the law or even ignorance or religion. There are some indications that ignorance does play a role in the way that some school-workers have treated religious people. Research indicates that many public school teachers have inadequate knowledge of what religious expressions are legally permissible in the schools (Gow, 1995; Sisemore, 1994). Sixty-seven percent of Americans believe that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the First Amendment to the Constitution (Buzzard, 1982). In fact, this statement never appears in the Constitution. The First Amendment reads:

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

The phrase "separation of church and state" did not appear until the nineteenth century, when leaders of the Baptist church feared that the Congregationalist denomination was going to be named the official church of the United States (Barton, 1995). Finally, many people in America scarcely have any knowledge of Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, or other major religions. Americans frequently stereotype religious people and their concerns in negative ways, largely because of their lack of knowledge regarding what various religious groups really do believe (Jenkinson, 1995). Most Americans would struggle to differentiate between a Charismatic and a Pentecostal, or between an Evangelical and a Fundamentalist. Yet, these are some of the most basic Christian concepts. Doerr & Menendez (1991), for example, compare Lutheran schools to those of the Amish. Such a comparison reinforce the stereotypes that many Americans have of religious people of being right-wing fanatics. It is not always clear whether ignorance or anti-religious sentiment stands behind a particular stereotype of religious people. Indeed, ignorance often leads to animosity directed at something one does not understand. The tension that exists between the races proves this fact again and again. It may be that educating people regarding the freedom that religious people actually want would probably dampen a good deal of the animosity that some Americans today have towards religious people.

But there are also indications that something more than ignorance of religious people and their beliefs is at work. The views of some religious people have historically irritated the conscience of many Americans. This is no less true today. And this fact cannot be underestimated. In the 1850s, many Americans resented the outcry of thousands of preachers who asserted that slavery was wrong and that Americans had a duty to put an end to slavery. But theses voices led to the historic revival of 1857 and eventually ushered in the election of Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. In the 1960s, many Americans resented the non-violent demonstrations led by a Baptist preacher named Martin Luther King. But his weekly church sermons rallied many African-American Christians, many White Christians, and others to take a stand for civil rights. Today many Americans resent the pro-life stance that Christians take regarding abortion. As long as religious people are around, Americans cannot do just anything they please without a chorus of voices saying that some actions are wrong. Numerous Americans do not like religious people for this reason. They do not want to hear about what is right and what is wrong. After all the argument goes, "It is none of their business." The answer to this irritation of conscience today appears to be attempting to limit religious expression to inside one's household and inside the church. But this can hardly be called religious freedom.

In a land in which pre-teenage pregnancies increased 553% between 1963 and 1988 and the juvenile murder rate has soared over 400% since 1965 (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 1992; U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1993); this hardly appears the time to tell American students to leave their religious beliefs outside school doors. Indeed, religion could make a major contribution to helping solve the ills of our society (Nichols, 1994).

References

Adande, J. A. (1995). When Giving Thanks draws a Penalty. Washington Post. 1 September. Bagnato, A. (1995). NCAA Sued over Ban on End

Zone Prayers. Chicago Tribune. 1 September. Barton, D. (1995). The Myth of Separation. Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilders.

Barton, D. (1994). America: To Pray or not to

Pray? Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilders. Bryant, T. School's Ban of Religious Club Disputed. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 17 November.

Buzzard, L. R. (1982) Schools: They Haven't Got a Prayer. Elgin, Illinois: David C. Cook Publishing.

David, P. (1994). High Court Rules for Va. Church. Washington Post. 7 June.

Decter, M. (1995). A Jew in anti-Christian America. First Things, 56, 25-31.

Doerr E. & Menendez, AJ. (1991). Church schools and public money. Buffalo: Prometheus.

Fox, P. C. (1992). Safe? A comment on AIDS. Plough, 30, 11-12.

Gow, H. B. (1995). The Religious Rights of Students. Chicago Defender. 6 September. Gow, H. B. (1989). U.S. Religion under attack? Chicago Defender. 23 May.

Group Helps Girl Riding on Bus. (1989). Washington Times. 20 October.

Jenkinson, E. (1995). Myths and Misunderstand

ings Surround the Schoolbook Protest Movement. Contemporary Education, 62 (2), 70-73.

Lambert, B. (1996). High Court won't Hear School Appeal on Bible Club. New York Times. 17 December.

Lebacqz, K. & Blake, D. (1988). Safe Sex and Lost Love. Religious Education, 83, 201-210.

Nichols, H. (1994). A few Moments of Silence each day could hardly Hurt, and may even Help. Boston Globe. 20 November.

Olasky, M. N. (1988). Prodigal press: The antiChristian bias of the American news media. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.

Ray, B. D. (1996). National Home Education Research Institute Facts. Salem: National Home Education Research Institute Religious Group Entitled to Rent Space in Schools, High Court says. (1990). Atlanta Constitution. 10 October.

Religious Meetings in Schools. (1990). Washington Post. 6 June.

Savage, D. S. (1995). Court rejects Student Plea on Jesus as Topic. Los Angeles Times. 28 November.

Schools Opened to Bible Groups. (1990). San Francisco Chronicle. 5 June.

Sisemore, P. (1994). Elementary Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding Religion and Education Compared with the American Population as a

Whole, and Related Legal Decisions, University of Hawaii, Manoa.

Spiro, J. D. (1988). AIDS: A focus for teaching sexual responsibility and ethical decision-making. Religious Education, 83: 162-250.

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. (1992). Statistical Abstracts of the United States. Washington D.C.: Dept. of Health and Human Services.

U.S. Dept. of Justice. (1993) Age-Specific Arrest Rate and Race-Specific Arrest Rates for Selected Offenses, 1965-1992. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice.

WILLIAM H. JEYNES

Department of Education

University of Chicago

Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056

Copyright Project Innovation Fall 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved