Separation Of Church And State

Separation of church and state means that the government cannot exercise its authority in establishing a national religion.

Schools constitute a local extension of the government which therefore cannot make religion mandatory for all students. This clause of the First Amendment is the “Establishment Clause”. But don't forget the "Free Speech Clause"

let's dive deeper into the Free Speech Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment guarantees individuals, including students, the right to express their opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints freely. In public schools, this means that students have the right to express their religious beliefs, including discussing their faith or mentioning God in class, as long as their speech does not disrupt the educational environment or infringe upon the rights of others. Students can also wear Christian clothing or have Christian clubs and promote them just like any other club via the school website or intercom. Public schools are considered government entities, so they must respect students' free speech rights while maintaining a balanced and respectful environment.

The Establishment Clause, also part of the First Amendment, ensures that the government, including public schools, does not establish or promote any particular religion. In the context of public schools, this means that educators and administrators cannot promote, endorse, or favor any specific religious belief over others. They must maintain a neutral stance and treat all students fairly, regardless of their religious background. This is crucial to uphold the principle of separation between church and state and to ensure that public schools remain inclusive and welcoming to students from various faith traditions or those with no religious affiliation.

For example, a Christian student has the right to express their beliefs by discussing their faith or mentioning God in classroom discussions, assignments, or personal conversations. However, a public school cannot require religious participation, or favor Christianity over other religions. The goal is to respect individuals' religious freedoms.

In essence, the Free Speech Clause protects students' right to express their faith and beliefs, while the Establishment Clause ensures that public schools do not promote or endorse any particular religion nor non-religion such as atheism. This delicate balance helps maintain an inclusive educational environment that respects individual rights and upholds the principles of the Constitution.

SUPREME COURT RULING

The Christian Club issue went all the way to the Supreme court in 2001. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian club and stated that christian clubs must be allowed to meet in public schools after class hours. "The majority found that excluding the club was unconstitutional discrimination based on the club's views. Letting the meeting take place would not be an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion", the court ruled in Milford vs Good News Club.

This is the governing case for christian clubs and has been upheld by the courts ever since. The Constitution's First Amendment protects free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Supreme Court Says Religious Clubs Can Meet at Public Schools

By ANNE GEARAN⁠1

WASHINGTON, June 11, 2001
The Supreme Court ruled for a Christian youth group today in a church-state battle over whether religious groups must be allowed to meet in public schools after class hours.

In a 6-3 decision that lowered the figurative wall of separation between church and state, the justices said a New York public school district must let the Good News Club hold after-school meetings for grade-school children to pray and study the Bible.

Justice Stephen Breyer, usually a moderate-to-liberal vote on the court, joined the five most conservative members in partial support of the religious club's request. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

The majority found that excluding the club was unconstitutional discrimination based on the club's views. Letting the meeting take place would not be an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion, the court ruled.

The Constitution's First Amendment protects free speech and the free exercise of religion, but it also bars government establishment of religion.

Christianity Over Other Religions?
The Milford School District in upstate New York had argued that allowing the Good News Club to hold what school officials called "the equivalent of religious worship" at the school would amount to a school endorsement of Christianity over other religions. The Good News Club said the school was discriminating against it based on its views.
The youth group's members range from age 5 to 12, and its meetings include Bible stories, prayers and teaching children to "give God first place in your life." The club has met at a local church since the school denied its 1996 request to use the school building after 3 p.m. on school days.

A Contentious Issue
The Supreme Court has long wrangled with the question of religion in the public schools. The justices banned organized prayer during class hours in the early 1960s, and in the past decade banned clergy-led prayer at high school graduation ceremonies and student-led prayer at high school football games.

But the court also ruled in 1993 that a New York public school must let a religious group use its building to show Christian movies during evening hours.

In cases involving the use of public money for church-run schools, the justices allowed taxpayer-funded computers and remedial help by public school teachers at religious schools.

The Milford school has had a policy since 1992 allowing community use of its building after class hours for "social, civic and recreational meetings" and other uses for the community's welfare. The Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and 4-H Club are among the groups that have met at the school.

The school district's lawyers contended that because the Good News Club's members were grade-school age and the meetings would be held immediately after school, some children might be confused into believing the school district endorsed the club's religious message.

Allegations of Discrimination
The Good News Club contended the school was discriminating against it while allowing other groups such as the Boy Scouts to teach moral values at the school building. A federal judge and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school district's policy.

Today, the Supreme Court reversed that decision and sent the case back to the lower court.

By letting other groups use the school after hours, school officials created a public forum, the court found.

"When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school's limited public forum on the ground that the club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority
The case is The Good News Club v. Milford Central Schools, 99-2036.

1 ABC News

This term has been misinterpreted over the years. Our founding fathers never meant to separate state and church, but instead just wanted to make sure that the government does not interfere with religion. Especially that it does not officially establish one particular religion or denomination over another or establish non-religion over religion.

Separation of church and state’ is a well-known phrase. However it is not found in the constitution of the United States.

Here is what the First Amendment states in the Establishment Clause:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The intent of our founding fathers was to protect religion from government and not to exclude and separate religion from government.

However, the Everson v Board of Education of Ewing case (1) changed all that in 1947. That case introduced the term “separation of church and state” for the first time in history.

While it does not appear that making religion an outlaw in public schools was the intent of the founders, nor was it the practice in America before 1947, the Everson case set the stage for other challenges to religious practices in public schools. Daily prayer and Bible reading were challenged and dismissed from public schools in the early 1960s. Other forms of the official religious expression became legally unwelcome in public schools with the elimination of graduation prayers in 1992 and prayers before football games in 2000.

Religious Freedom for All

Thomas Jefferson introduced the bill for establishing religious freedom which passed in 1779 and was strongly supported by James Madison who stated:

...the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of everyman; And it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate (2).

Evidently those founders strongly believed in free will. That's why they wanted to make sure that religion is not made mandatory but is able to arise out of personal conviction. They wanted to assure that people have the right to choose and were not required to be religious.

The early founders came out of Europe which had state churches. These government endorsed state churches levied mandatory church taxes on people. That’s exactly what our forefathers wanted to prevent in the new colonies. Plus they were leary of government’s fingers in faith decisions which they wanted to reserve for clergy.

The state churches in Europe, to this day, work to some degree with the government. The supreme court in Germany for instance still decides if catholic or lutheran believers get to take sacraments if they choose not to pay the church tax or if doctors in lutheran hospitals can keep their job if they remarry (And, by the way, the answer is no in both cases) (3).

Another problem with state churches is that the government has the ability to influence upper management staff of christian hospitals, schools, charities and even churches. State churches are so entangled with politics that their very faith, their doctrines are affected by political motives. Their ecumenical movements can result in inadvertently supporting down-right anti christian trends⁠6. Real faith can easily get lost in such multiple agendas. Jesus hat nothing good to say about the church sate connection of the pharasees. Attending church for social reasons, position or prestige which easily happens in a state church can result in a watered down version of the gospel.
God likes us all in or out, not half hearted. "But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!" Rev. 3:16 NLT

We do not want to create lukewarm christians who go through the motions of school prayer without truly seeking God.

If religion is not mandated people see a more loving and pure version of the faith.

Should our glorious faith be reduced to an obligatory prayer people might resent? Would that be religious performance with little substance?

These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men. (Isaiah 29:13)

In 1 Corinthians 13 Jesus tells us to be loving and kind. While we have our rights to exercise our free speech in schools we need to be aware of being considerate towards others and their beliefs.

Why not turn our eyes and hearts toward our full rights to exercise our faith in voluntary christian clubs and inviting those nonbelievers in who are truly interested.

Focus on the Free Speech and Exercise Clause

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the separation of church and state focuses as much on guaranteeing the free exercise of faith as it does on making sure it’s not government endorsed.

Congress shall make no law…….prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The question is: Do we want to challenge interpretations of separation of Church and state or do we want to truly make a difference and fully utilize the right to free speech and free exercise of faith.

Students have the right and opportunity to freely meet and discuss faith on school grounds. Our courts and schools have faithfully upheld this right.

So why not work on establishing and growing Christian clubs instead of debating about whether the Supreme Court was right in how they interpreted Jefferson statement.

Respecting the Supreme Court Decision

Even though we might not agree with the Supreme Court decision we need to consider Jesus’ teaching on the temple tax in Matt. 17: 24:

“After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two drachma temple tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"

"Yes he does," he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak."What do you think Simon? ”he asked. “ From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes–from their own children or from others?"

“From others," Peter answered.

“Then the children are exempt," Jesus said to him. "But so that we may not cause offense, Go to lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Jesus did not agree with paying the tax but he still instructed Peter to pay the tax in order to avoid people being offended. In the same veign we need to respect the Supreme Court decision about separation of church and state and how they applied it to the establishment clause.

But keep in mind that separation of church and state really only affects christian teachers, staff and administration- not our students. Our students can never violate the establishment clause because they are not held to those standards.

So let's not get hung up on this term. Instead focus on the task at hand of helping our students. And focus on the free speech and free exercise clauses which provide full legal protection and rights.

Christian clubs are legal and fully endorsed by many government and national agencies.

Setting up and growing christian clubs in schools does not violate the establishment clause nor does it violate the separation of church and state. Christian clubs are regulated and fully endorsed by the free speech and free exercise clauses. Separation of church and state only applies to school staff not students.

At a time when Americans are deeply divided over the meaning of “separation of church and state,” a ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals provided a much-needed case study in how the First Amendment’s establishment clause is supposed to work. In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel dismissed a challenge by atheists to the display of a cross-shaped beam at the National Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum at Ground Zero in New York City.

As the court explained, “the Establishment Clause is not properly construed to command that government accounts of history be devoid of religious references.” The First Amendment, in other words, separates church from state – but not religion from public life⁠ (4).

“The fact is there is nothing wrong with Jefferson referring to the Establishment Clause as a wall between church and state in his famous Danbury Baptists letter. Jefferson was simply describing in a colorful way disestablishment, which in simple words means religion can no longer be an auxiliary of government control.

The words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” means in simple words that no power was invested in Congress to established a national church and to compel by law worship of its tenets, which in return disallows the “free exercise” of religion. This is the “wall” the First Amendment erects Jefferson was referring to.

References:

1 Everson vs Board of Education of Ewing TP. 330 U.S. 1, 15-16
2.http://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/madison/james-madison-religion-must-be-left-to-the-conscience-of-every-man-and-this-right-is-an-unalienable-right
3 http://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/steuern-recht/recht/bundesverfassungsgericht-staerkt-kirchen-den-ruecken-kirchliche-selbstbestimmung-vor-kuendigungsschutz/11007104.html
4 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/cross-at-ground-zero-history-lesson-or-state-religion
Ruth, Janet 2016. One Nation Under God: A Christian Argument in Favor of Separation of Church and State"

How many christian leaders think we should be in public schools?

According To A Barna⁠1 Research Report From 2014:

95% of pastors believe that christians should get involved in helping public schools.

80% of church going christians across all denominations feel the same way.

50% of public school teachers attend church at least monthly.

25% of churches offer mentoring or after-school programs.

50% of churches offer support for educators who attend their church.

Reasons Why People Don’t Volunteer In Public Schools According To Barna:

44% say they don’t have children in the school.
18% say public schools don’t want christians to help.
17% don’t know how to help.
16% say public school needs more prayer and religious values, not academic support.
6% public school is contrary to their belief.
7% doubt they can make a long-term difference⁠.

https://www.barna.com/research/public-schools-christians-are-part-of-the-solution/
percentages don’t necessarily add up because people could choose more than one category.

Are You Worried About Kids Attending Public School?

Do you wonder how Christians fare in public school?

Do you want to witness to students and bring them hope?

Are you afraid that your kids may become friends with the wrong kids?

Does a secular environment concern you?

Do you worry that they may lose their interest in God and church?

What if they stop attending youth group?

What if they get confused in a religiously pluralistic environment?

What if they question the existence God altogether?

Where Do You Turn For Answers?

You can't change the secular nature of our public schools, but you can change the microenvironment of a student at school. Help students find other Christian friends and surround themselves with good people. Set up Christian clubs inside public schools so our kids can support each other. It's like a Christian fortress to protect kids from negative influences as much as possible. A Christian club also serves as a launchpad to touch the hearts of non-Christians who so desperately need to hear the gospel.

Safety Ring For Non-Christians

While offering sanctuary for Christians shouldn't why not send out lifelines to non-Christians as well? Be the light students need. Young people question life and search for answers at any student age. Why not engage in their journey to adulthood and provide answers teachers may fear to tackle. You have the opportunity to provide another option to the secular nature of public schools.

Reach Our Public School Kids with God's Love

You will feel empowered and emboldened to reach our kids in public schools with the powerful message of God. Christians have far reaching rights in public schools. You will be astounded to find out how many Federal an civic organizations support Christian clubs. As long as the club is voluntary and operates during non-instructional school hours you are allowed to teach any Bible story and talk about God as if you were in church.

Are you a Parent, Pastor, Church leader or Concerned Adult

Then I'd like to encourage you to provide support for our students and get the book Bring the Light to School. It will explain step by step how to get into public schools. It's difficult to maintain faith in a secular environment without a Christian community. Whether you are a parent, grandparent, pastor, church leader or any concerned adult you're called to live out the Great Commission. Be that salt and light our students so desperately need. Why travel afar to share the love of God when the opportunity is so great in our own backyard?

HISTORY OF CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATION

Here is what the First Amendment states in the Establishment Clause:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Where then did the term: “Separation of Church” originate?

It stems from Thomas Jefferson’s use of the phrase “wall of separation between Church and State⁠1” as he tries to explain the First Amendment religion clauses to the Danbury Baptist Association in a letter:

Jefferson wrote:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.(1)"

The first time the Supreme Court cited the phrase, “Wall of separation between church and state” was in 1947 in the case Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing (2). Since this term did not exist in the congressional records they used it from the private letter of Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association quoted above. Subsequently the Supreme Court ruled that a wall of separation between church and state exists based on that personal letter rather then the constitution

As a result, the Supreme Court created an erroneous precedent, ruling that law could be created from a personal letter instead of the Constitution. Even if a letter was considered a law in the United States, the Supreme Court misinterpreted what Jefferson wrote. Jefferson's words were used as a legal precedent despite being used out of context.

This redefinition of Jefferson's original meaning has provided the basis for the Supreme Court's definition of separation of church and sate. However not one of the ninety Founding Fathers stated, argued for or against, or even referred to such a phrase when they debated for months about the specific words to use when writing the First Amendment. Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789 reveal that none of these men, including Thomas Jefferson, ever used the phrase, "separation of church and state (3)."

Two days after Jefferson wrote his “wall of separation” metaphor he attended church services held in the House of Representatives where the Speaker’s podium was used as the pulpit. This was no isolated event either as he continuously attended church services held on government property during his two terms as President. President Madison also attended church services in the House on Sundays. Even the Treasury building was used as a church on Sundays where John Quincy Adams was known to attend (3).

1 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861) (Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist wait wait how many questionsAssociation⁠)
2 Board of Education vs Ewing T.P. 330 U.S. 1, 15-16
3 http://www.federalistblog.us/2010/11/_defending_jeffersons_wall_of_separation_metaphor/
Read more at Christian Post, Separation Of Church And State Is Not In The Constitution

PTA Resolution on Teaching About Religion in Public Schools

Whereas, The National Congress of Parents and Teachers declares in its Statement on Principles: "We believe religion is fundamental in our American tradition as a basic factor in personal and social behavior and that every child is entitled to the opportunity to develop a religious faith;" and

Whereas, Thousands of homes provide neither religious experiences for the young for whom they are responsible nor opportunity for religious experience in church; and

Whereas, The public schools share with the home the responsibility to provide each child the opportunity to achieve the finest possible preparation for living; and

Whereas, The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States permit the study of religion and of the Bible from a literary and historic viewpoint, presented objectively as part of a secular program of education; and

Whereas, Misinterpretation of the Supreme Court decisions has caused confusion and even rebellion in many communities and school; and

Whereas, Many educators have felt it advisable to minimize or omit religious content in the school curriculum because of general misunderstanding of the purpose of such study; therefore be it

Resolved, That the National PTA, its state branches, and local units develop educational programs designed to promote understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the reading of the Bible and the use of prayer in the public schools; and be it further

Resolved, That the National PTA help its state branches and local units to implement such programs by supplying them information about investigated educational materials and legal programs on teaching ABOUT religion being used presently in many school systems; and be it further

Resolved, That the National PTA, its state branches, and local units initiate conference and cooperation between religious and secular groups to produce intelligent action in order that every child may experience the highest advantages in character and spiritual education

The Bible & Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide

The guide has been endorsed by the following organizations:
American Association of School Administrators American Federation of Teacher
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
Anti-Defamation League
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs
Christian Educators Association International
Christian Legal Society
Council on Islamic Education
National Association of Evangelicals
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
National Council for the Social Studies
National Education Association
National School Boards Association
People for the American W ay Foundation
Union of American Hebrew Congregations

The Search for Common Ground
Ending the confusion and conflict about the ible and public schools would be good for public education and for our nation. But finding common ground will not be easy because Americans have been divided about this issue since the early days of the common school movement. “Bible wars” broke out in the 19th century between Protestants and Catholics over whose version of the Bible would be read each morning in the classroom. Lawsuits in the 1960s led to Supreme Court decisions striking down devotional Bible-reading by school officials. More recent conflicts have involved differences about the limits of student religious expression and the constitutionality of Bible courses offered in the curriculum.

Two Failed Models
If school districts are going to move from battleground to common ground on issues concerning in the schools, they must move beyond the extremes that often dominate the debate. On one end of the spectrum are those who advocate what might be called the “sacred public school” where one religion (theirs) is preferred in school practices and policies. Characteristic of the early history of public education, this unconstitutional approach still survives in some school districts.
In more recent decades, there are those on the other end of the spectrum who push for what looks to some like a “religion-free zone” where religion is largely ignored in public schools.

A Third Model of Fairness and Respect
The sponsors of this guide reject both of these models and offer another approach – one in which public schools neither inculcate nor inhibit religion but become places where religion and religious conviction are treated with fairness and respect.
In this third model, public schools protect the religious-liberty rights of students of all faiths o none. And schools ensure that the curriculum includes stud about religion as an important part of a complete education. This is a vision of public education that is both consistent with First Amendment

The Bible
The advice offered in this guide draws on this shared vision and relies on recent consensus principles and broadly supported by many educational and religious organizations.

The focus here is on the Bible because of the need to address the conflicts and confusion surrounding the Bible in the public-school curriculum. There are, of course, scriptures of other faith communities important to millions of Americans and worthy of study in a well-balanced curriculum. The constitutional and educational guidelines offered below apply to study about these scriptures as well.

The Bible and the Religious-Liberty Rights of Students
Many Americans continue to hold the mistaken view that the Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s concerning prayer and devotional Bible-reading prohibited students from expressing their faith in a public school. Actually, the Court did not eliminate prayer or the Bible from public schools; it barred state-sponsored religious practices, including devotional use of the Bible by public-school officials.

Student Religious Expression
In “Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law,” 35 religious and civil liberties organizations give the following summary of the rights of students to express their faith in a public school: Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly o silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.

Student Religious Clubs
The Equal Access Act, passed by Congress in 1984, ensures that s tudents in public secondar schools may form religious clubs, including Bible clubs, if the school allows other extracurricular groups. The Act is intended to protect student-initiated and student-led meetings. Outsiders may not “direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend” student religious clubs, and faculty acting as monitors may be present at religious meetings in a nonparticipatory capacity only.

The guidelines on “Religious Expression in Public Schools,” issued by the U.S. Department of Education, give the following guidance for interpreting the Equal Access Act: The Equal Access Act is designed to ensure that, consistent with the First Amendment, student religious activities are accorded the same access to public school facilities as are student secula activities. Based on decisions of the Federal courts, as well as its interpretations of the Act, the Department of Justice has advised that the Act should be interpreted as providing, among othe things, that:

Student religious groups at public secondary schools have the same right of access to school facilities as is enjoyed by other comparable student groups. Under the Equal Access Act, a school receiving Federal funds that allows one or more student noncurriculum-related clubs to meet on its premises during noninstructional time may not refuse access to student religious groups.
A meeting, as defined and protected by the Equal Access Act, may include a prayer service, Bible reading, or other worship exercise.
A school receiving Federal funds must allow student groups meeting under the Act to use the school media – including the public address system, the school newspaper, and the school bulletin board – to announce their meetings on the same terms as othe noncurriculum- related student groups are allowed to use the school media. Any policy concerning the use of school media must be applied to all noncurriculum-related student groups in a nondiscriminatory manner. Schools, however, may inform students that certain groups are not school sponsored.
A school creates a limited open forum under the Equal Access Act, triggering equal access rights for religious groups, when it allows students to meet during their lunch periods or other noninstructional time during the school day, as well as when it allows students to meet before and after the school day.

Distribution of Religious Literature
An increasing number of students are requesting permission to distribute religious literature, including Bibles, on public-school campuses. According to the guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education:
Students have a right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates on the same terms as they are permitted to distribute other literature that is unrelated to school curriculum or activities. Schools may impose the same reasonable time, place, and manner or other constitutional restrictions on distribution of religious literature as they do on nonschool literature generally, but they may not single out religious literature for special regulation.

The Bible and the Public-School Curriculum
Educators widely agree that stud about religion, where appropriate, is an important part of a complete education. Part of that study includes learning about the Bible in courses such as literature and history. Knowledge of biblical stories and concepts contributes to our understanding of literature, history, law, art, and contemporary society.

What do the courts say?
The Supreme Court has held that public schools may teach students about the Bible as l ong as such teaching is “presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.” The Court has also held that religious groups may not teach religious courses on school premises during the school day.

The U.S. Department of Education guidelines reiterate that public schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, including the Bible or other during the school day. In keeping with the First Amendment’s mandate of governmental neutrality toward religion, any study of religion in a public school must be educational, not devotional. This principle holds true whether teaching about the Bible occurs in literature, history or any other class and whether the course is required or an elective. A relatively small number of lower court decisions have dealt directly with the constitutionality scripture.” These rulings show that the constitutionality of such classes is highl dependent on such factors as how the class is taught, who teaches it, and which instructional materials of Bible classes in public schools. and lessons are used.

How the class is taught: Any class about the Bible must be taught in an objective, academic manner. The class should neither promote nor disparage religion, nor should it be taught from a particular sectarian point of view.

Who teaches the class: A superintendent or school board should select teachers for a class about employment of such teachers to an outside committee that selects teachers based upon their religious beliefs or perspectives. Teachers should be selected based upon their academic qualifications, rather than their religious beliefs or nonbeliefs.the Bible in the same manner all other teachers are selected. Teachers should not be disqualified, however, simply because they have received religious training. Funding for an elective course in religion may be provided by outside sources as long as the funds are contributed with “no strings attached.”

Which instructional materials are used: Decisions concerning instructional materials, including 17
which translation of the Bible may be used, should remain under the control of the board of education.
18 The Bible may be used as a primary text, although it probably should not be the only text for a course.
Schools should avoid the use of instructional materials and lessons that are of a devotional nature, such as those used in a Sunday school. Supernatural occurrences and divine action described in the Bible may not be taught as historical fact in a public school.
The Bible may or may not be confirmed by evidence outside of biblical literature.

Teaching about the Bible
If teachers are to understand clearly how to teach about the Bible – and to feel safe doing so – then local school boards should adopt policies on the role of study about religion in the curriculum. The policy should reflect constitutional principles and current law, and should be developed with the full involvement of parents and other community members. Parents need to be assured that the goals of the school in teaching about religion, including teaching about the Bible, are academic and not devotional, and that academic teaching about the Bible is not intended to either undermine or reinforce the beliefs of those who accept the Bible as sacred scripture or of those who do not. Faith formation is the responsibilit of parents and religious communities, not the public schools.

In recent years, a consensus has emerged among many religious and educational groups about the appropriate role for religion in the public-school curriculum. In 1989, a coalition of 17 religious and educational organizations issued the following statements to distinguish between teaching about religion in public schools and religious indoctrination:

The school’s approach to religion is academic, not devotional.
The school may strive for student awareness of religions, but should not press for student acceptance
of any religion.
The school may sponsor study about religion, but may not sponsor the practice of religion.
The school ma expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not impose, discourage, or encourage any particular view.
The school may educate about all religions, but may not promote or denigrate any religion. The school may inform the student about various beliefs, but should not seek to conform him or her to any particular belief
When teaching about the Bible in a public school, teachers must understand the important distinction between advocacy, indoctrination, proselytizing, and the practice of religion – which is unconstitutional – and teaching about religion that is objective, nonjudgmental, academic, neutral, balanced, and fair – which is constitutional.

Which Bible?
Selecting a Bible for use in literature, history, or elective Bible courses is important, since there is no single Bible. There is a Jewish Bible (the Hebrew Scriptures, or Tanakh), and there are various Christian Bibles – such as Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox – some with additional books, arranged in a different order. These differences are significant. For example, Judaism does not include the Christian New Testament in its Bible, and the Catholic Old Testament has 46 books while the Protestant has 39. There are also various English translations within each of these traditions. To adopt any particular Bible – or translation – is likely to suggest to students that it is normative, the best Bible. One solution is to use a biblical sourcebook that includes the key texts of each of the major Bibles or an anthology of various translations. At the outset and at crucial points in the course, teachers should remind students about the differences between the various Bibles and discuss some of the major views concerning authorship and any particular belief. The historicity of many persons and events described in compilation of the books of the Bible. Students should also understand the differences in translations, read from several translations, and reflect on the significance of these differences for the various traditions.

Which interpretation?
The Bible is interpreted in many different ways, religious and secular. For example: In Judaism, the Hebrew Bible is typically read through the eyes of various rabbinic commentators. For Roman Catholics, the authoritative interpretation of the church is crucial for understanding the Bible. Some Christians and Jews use the findings of modern secular scholarship to interpret the Bible, while others reject some or all of modern scholarship.

Because there are many ways to interpret the Bible – religious and secular – public-school teachers should expose students to a variety of interpretations. Teachers should allow students to encounter the text directly (like any primary source), and then draw on the resources of different religious and secular interpretative traditions for understanding it. To do this effectively requires the use of secondary sources that provide a discussion of the various religious and secular approaches to the Bible.

Teacher selection and preparation
Teaching about the Bible, either in literature and history courses or in Bible electives, requires considerable preparation. School districts and universities should offer in-service workshops and summer institutes for teachers who are teaching about the Bible in literature and history courses. When selecting teachers to teach Bible electives, school districts should look for teachers who have some background in the academic study of religion. Unless they have already received academic preparation, teachers selected to teach a course about the Bible should receive substantive in-service training from qualified scholars before being permitted to teach such courses. Electives in biblical studies should only be offered if there are teachers academically competent to teach them.

For the future, we recommend changes in teacher education to help ensu e that study about religion, including the Bible, is done well in public schools. Literature and history teachers should be encouraged, as part of their certification, to take at least one course in religious studies that prepares them to teach about religions in their subject. Teachers who wish to teach a Bible elective should have taken college-level courses in biblical studies. Eventually, religious studies should become a certifiable field, requiring at least an undergraduate minor. State departments of education will need to set certification requirements, review curriculums, and adopt appropriate academic standards for electives in religious studies.

The Bible and literature
Academic study of the Bible in a public secondary school may appropriately take place in literature courses. Students might study the Bible as literature. They would examine the Bible as the would other literature in terms of aesthetic categories, as an anthology of narratives and poetry, exploring its language, symbolism, and motifs. Students might also study the Bible in literature, the ways in which later writers have used Bible literature, language, and symbols. Much drama, poetry, and fiction contains material from the Bible.

Bible electives in literatur
A literature elective in the Bible would focus on the Bible as a literary text. This might include the Bible as literature and the Bible in literature. A primary goal of the course would be basic biblical literacy – a grasp of the language, major narratives, symbols, and characters of the Bible. The course might also explore the influence of the Bible in classic and contemporary poems, plays, and novels. Of course, the Bible is not simply literature – for a number of religious traditions it is scripture. A “Bible Literature” course, therefore, could also include some discussion of how various religious traditions understand the text. This would require that literature teachers be adequately prepared to address in an academic and objective manner the relevant, major religious readings of the text.

The Bible and history
The study of history offers a number of opportunities to study about the Bible. When studying the origins of Judaism, for example, students may learn different theories of how the Bible came to be. In a study of the history of the ancient world, students may learn how the content of the Bible sheds light on the history and beliefs of Jews and Christians – adherents of the religions that affirm the Bible as scripture. A study of the Reformation might include a discussion of how Protestants and Catholics differ in their interpretation and use of the Bible.

In U.S. history, there are natural opportunities for students to learn about the role of religion and the Bible in American life and society. For example, many historical documents – including many presidential addresses and congressional debates – contain biblical references. Throughout American history, the Bible has been invoked on various sides of many public-policy debates and in conjunction with social movements such as abolition, temperance, and the civil rights movement. A government or civics course may include some discussion of the biblical sources for parts of our legal system.
Learning about the history of the Bible, as well as the role of the Bible in history, are appropriate topics in a variety of courses in the social studies.

Bible electives in history
An elective history course that focuses on the Bible is a difficult undertaking for public schools because of the complex scholarly and religious debates about the historicity of the Bible. Such a course would need to include non-biblical sources from a variety of scholarly perspectives. Students would stud archeological findings and other historical evidence in order to understand the history and cultures of the ancient world. Teachers who may be assigned to teach a history course focused on the Bible need a great deal of preparation and sophistication.

Unless schools are prepared to design a course that meets the above requiements, they will face legal and educational challenges. In view of these requirements, most public schools that have offered a Bible elective have found it safer and more age-appropriate to use the Bible literature approach discussed earlier in this guide.
Schools must keep in mind that the Bible is seen by millions of Jews and Christians as scripture. For adherents of these faiths, the Bible makes sense of events in terms of God’s purposes and actions. This means that the Bible may not be treated as a history textbook by public-school teachers but must be studied by examining a variety of perspectives – religious and non-religious – on the meaning and significance of the biblical account.

As we have already noted, sorting out what is historical in the Bible is complicated and potentially controversial. Teachers who teach a history course focused on the Bible need to be sensitive to the differences between conventional secular history and the varieties of sacred history. Students must learn something about the contending ways of assessing the historicity of the Bible. They cannot be uncritically taught to accept the Bible as literally true, as history. Nor should they be uncritically taught to accept as historical only what secular historians find verifiable in the Bible.

Sometimes, in an attempt to make study about the Bible more “acceptable” in public schools, educators are willing to jettison accounts of miraculous events. But this too is problematic, for it radicall distorts the meaning of the Bible. For those who accept the Bible as scripture, God is at work in history, and there is a religious meaning in the patterns of history. A Bible elective in a public school ma examineallpartsoftheBible,aslongastheteacherunderstandshowtoteach aboutthereligiouscontent of the Bible from a variety of perspectives.

The Bible and world religions
Given the importance and influence of religion, public schools should include study about religion in some depth on the secondary level. As we have suggested, such study may include study about the Bible, where appropriate, in history and literature courses as well as in elective courses that deal with the Bible.

However, a course that includes study about the Bible and its influence will not educate students about religion generally. Just as there is more to history than American history, so there is more to religion than the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity. Public schools should also include study about other religious faiths in the core curri culum and offer electives in world religions. Because religion plays a significant role in history and society, stud about religion is essential to understanding both the nation and the world. Moreover, knowledge of the roles of religion in the past and present promotes cross-cultural understanding in our

Increasingly diverse society
Some school districts require that high schools offering a Bible elective also offer an elective in world religions. There is considerable merit in this approach. This gives students an opportunity to learn about a variety of religions and conveys to students from faiths other than the biblical traditions that thei religions are also worthy of study. It is important for public schools to convey the message that the curriculum is designed to offer a good education, and not to prefer any religious faith or group.

Elementary education
The study of family, community, various cultures, the nation, and other themes and topics important in elementary education may involve some discussion of religion. Elementary students are introduced to the basic ideas and practices of the world’s major religions in a number of textbooks and curriculums used in public schools. These discussions of religion focus on the generally agreed-upon meanings of religious faiths– the core beliefs and symbols, as well as important figures and events.Such discussions may include an introduction to biblical literature as students learn something about the various biblical faiths. This early exposure to study about religion builds a foundation for later, more complex discussions in secondary school literature and history courses. Such teaching is introductory in nature; elementary education is not the place for in-depth treatment of religion. Stories drawn from various religious faiths may be included among the wide variety of stories read by students. But the material selected must always be presented in the context of learning about religion. But if such instruction is undertaken, it must be done academically and objectively by a qualified teacher. Children would need to understand that they are studying about what the people of a particular religious tradition believe and practice. Devotional books intended for faith formation or religious education may not be used in a public- school classroom. As in secondary schools, a balanced and fair curriculum in the elementary grades would not limit study about religion to Judaism and Christianity, but would include a variety of the world’s major religious faiths.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no single Bible. There is the Jewish Bible (the Hebrew scriptures or Tanakh), and various Christian Bibles – such as Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox – some with additional books, arranged in a different order. The use of the term “Bible” in this document is meant to be inclusive of the various versions and translations.
See “Religious Liberty, Public Education, and the Future of American Democracy,” a statement of principles sponsored by 24 religious and educational organizations. For a full text of the statement and a list of sponsors, contact the First Amendment Center
One court has permitted elective Bible courses at the elementary level.
See “Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law,” endorsed by 35 religious and religious-liberty organizations, and “Religious Expression in Public Schools,” a directive issued by the U.S. Department of Education. Copies of the joint statement are available from the American Jewish Congress, 15 East 84th St., Suite 501, New York, NY 10028. For the guidelines issued by the U.S. Dept. of Education, call (877) 433-7827.
Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990).
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).
“Religious Expression in Public Schools,” Department of Education, Letter from Secretary Richard Rile
The constitutionality of the Equal Access Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Westside Community
The requirements of the Equal Access Act are described in detail in “Equal Access and the Public Schools: Questions and Answers,” a pamphlet sponsored by 21 religious and educational groups. The full text is available from the First Amendment Center.
School District of Abington Twp v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963). See Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S.
(August 10, 1995) (original emphasis).
See Hall v. Board of Commissioners of Conecuh County, 656 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1981); Gibson v. Lee County School Board, 1 F. Supp.2d 1426 (M.D. Fla. 1998); Chandler v. James, 985 F. Supp. 1062 (M.D. Ala. 1997); Herdahl v. Pontotoc County School District, 933 F. Supp. 582 (N.D. Miss. 1996); Doe v. Human, 725 F. Supp. 1503 (W.D. Ark. 1989), aff’dwithout opinion, 923 F.2d 857 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 922 (1991); Crockett v. Sorenson, 568 F. Supp. 1422 (W.D. Va. 1983); Wiley v. Franklin, 468 F. Supp. 133 (E.D. Tenn. 1979), supp. op., 474 F. Supp. 525 (E.D. Tenn. 1979), supp. op., 497 F. Supp. 390 (E.D. Tenn. 1980); Vaughn v. Reed, 313 F. Supp. 431 (W.D. Va. 1970). Compare Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1979) (holding unconstitutional a school course in which students participated in transcendental meditation ceremonies).
Schempp, 374 U.S. at 225; Graham, 449 U.S. at 42; Hall, 656 F.2d at 1002; Gibson, 1 F. Supp. 2d at 1432; Chandler, 985 F. Supp. at 1063; Herdahl, 933 F. Supp. at 592; Human, 725 F. Supp. at 1508; Crockett, 568 F. Supp. at 1427; Wiley, 497 F. Supp. at 392, 394; Vaughn, 313 F. Supp. at 433; Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1979) (holding unconstitutional a school course in which students participated in transcendental meditation ceremonies).
Wiley, 497 F. Supp. at 394. See also, Gibson, 1 F. Supp.2d at 1433-34; Herdahl, 933 F. Supp. at 595. Crockett, 568 F. Supp. at 1431. See also, Gibson, 1 F. Supp.2d at 1433; Vaughn, 313 F. Supp. at 434. Herdahl, 933 F. Supp. at 593-594; Wiley, 468 F. Supp. at 152.
Wiley, 468 F. Supp. at 152.
Wiley, 497 F. Supp. at 393.
Crockett, 568 F. Supp. at 1431. See also, Gibson, 1 F. Supp.2d at 1433; Herdahl, 933 F. Supp. at 598-
Crockett, 568 F. Supp. at 1431. See also, Gibson, 1 F. Supp.2d at 1433.
Chandler, 985 F. Supp. at 1063.
Herdahl, 933 F. Supp. at 595 & n.9, 600. See also, Hall, 656 F.2d at 1002-1003; Wiley, 468 F. Supp. at
This consensus statement, as well as extensive guidelines and resources for teaching about religion in public schools, can be found in Finding Common Ground: A First Amendment Guide to Religion and Public Education by Charles C. Haynes and Oliver Thomas. Finding Common Ground is available at cost from the First Amendment Center.
Gibson, 1 F. Supp. 2d at 1434; Herdahl, 933 F. Supp. at 596, 600; Wiley, 474 F. Supp. at 531.
Wiley v. Franklin, 468 F. Supp. 133 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

“The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide” is published by:
National Bible Association www.nationalbible.org
First Amendment Center www.freedomforum.org

National Bible Association
The National Bible Association, whose mission is “encouraging everyone to read the Bible,” was formed in 1940 as an independent, not-for-profit, non-partisan educational association. The Association seeks to work with all those interested in the knowledge of biblical stories and concepts as they contribute to ou understanding of history, literature, law, art, and contemporary society. Through its Education Program, the Association seeks to serve as a public library for the Bible providing information and resources. The Association’s web site is located at www.nationalbible.org - AOL keyword “National Bible.” For more information about the work of the Education Program, contact Chuck Stetson, Vice Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Education Committee, National Bible Association, 1865 Broadway, New York, NY 10023. E-mail address: cpstetson@nationalbible.org.

First Amendment Center
The First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., is an independent operating program of The Freedom Forum. The center’s mission is to foster public understanding of and appreciation for First Amendment rights and values.
Through its Religious Freedom Programs, the center helps schools and communities throughout the nation address issues concerning religion and values in public education. “The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide” is one of a series of consensus documents on religious liberty and public education published by the center. For more information about the work of the Religious Freedom Programs, contact Dr. Charles C. Haynes, Senior Scholar, Freedom Forum First Amendment Center 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, V A 20009. E-mail address: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Separation Of Church And State