School prayer

School prayer in its common usage refers to state-approved prayer by students in state schools. Depending on the country and the type of school, organized prayer may be required, permitted, or proscribed.

Prayer done by private individuals by themselves when on state grounds is generally considered to be a form of free expression, and restrictions against it generally have been removed or struck down in modern democracies. However, totalitarian countries such as North Korea and, in its time, the Soviet Union have taken action against private religious expression in schools.

United States

Main articles: Education in the United States and Religion in the United States

In the United States, public schools are prohibited from sponsoring religious observances such as daily prayer. Prayer itself is not forbidden while at school. Regarding the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the courts have consistently ruled that students' expressions of religious views through prayer or otherwise cannot be abridged unless they can be shown to cause substantial disruption in the school.

Controversy in United States

The issue has been controversial in the United States since the early 20th century. In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, school days, in some parts of the country, customarily opened with an oral prayer or Bible reading. From time to time, religious minorities would object to the particular observance performed in the local schools. For instance, in the Edgerton Bible Case (Weiss v. District Board (1890), the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Catholics, who challenged the use of the King James Bible (developed by a Protestant country) in Wisconsin public schools. This ruling was based on the state constitution and only applied in Wisconsin, but, like other challenges elsewhere in the country, provided a precedent for later federal rulings.

Those rulings were two landmark Supreme Court decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) (which included the well publicised case of Murray v. Curlett), establishing the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools. Following these two cases came the Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). This ruling established the so-called "Lemon test" which states that in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, any practice sponsored within state-run schools (or other public, state-sponsored activities) must:

1. Have a secular purpose;
2. Must neither advance nor inhibit religion as its primary effect, and;
3. Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Attempts at reinstatement

Reinstatement of state-sponsored prayer has been attempted in different forms in a number of areas of the U.S. Some jurisdictions have introduced a "moment of silence" or "moment of reflection" when a student may, if he or she wishes to, offer a silent prayer.

Since the 1990s, controversy in the courts has tended to revolve around prayer at school-sponsored extracurricular activities. Some courts have allowed student prayers from the podium at graduation exercises, but, in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe [2000], the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling invalidating prayers conducted over the public address system prior to high school games at state school facilities before a school-gathered audience.

Proponents of school-sponsored prayer are largely, but not exclusively, Christians of various denominations; however, some major Christian denominations are opposed to the practice. Many of the key cases against government-sponsored school prayer have been filed by Christians in regions of the country where they are a minority, such as the Catholic and LDS (Mormon) families who filed in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe in the overwhelmingly Southern Baptist Texas Gulf Coast. hi

United Kingdom

Main articles: Education in the United Kingdom and Religion in the United Kingdom

In England and Wales, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states that all pupils in state schools must take part in a daily act of collective worship, unless their parents request that they be excused from attending. The majority of these acts of collective worship are required to be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character", with two exceptions:

• Religious schools, which should provide worship appropriate to the school's religion (although most religious schools in the UK are Christian.)
• Schools where the Local Education Authority's Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education has determined that Christian worship would not be appropriate for part or all of the school.

Despite there being a statutory requirement for schools to hold a daily act of collective worship, many do not. OFSTED's 2002-03 annual report, for example, states that 80% of secondary schools are not providing daily worship for all pupils.

Canada

British Columbia

Prior to 1944, in British Columbia, the Public Schools Act (1872) permitted the use of the Lord’s Prayer in opening or closing school. In 1944, the government of British Columbia amended the Public Schools Act to provide for compulsory Bible reading at the opening of the school day, to be followed by a compulsory recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. This amendment appeared as section 167 of the Public Schools Act, and read as follows:

167. All public schools shall be opened by the reading, without explanation or comment, of a passage of Scripture to be selected from readings prescribed or approved by the Council of Public Instruction. The reading of the passage of Scripture shall be followed by the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, but otherwise the schools shall be conducted on strictly secular and non-sectarian principles. The highest morality shall be inculcated, but no religious dogma or creed shall be taught. 1948, c.42, s.167

The compulsory nature of the Bible reading and prayer recitation was slightly modified by regulations drawn up by the Council of Public Instruction. These regulations provided that either a teacher or student who has conscientious ground for objecting to the religious observances may be excused from them. The procedure to be followed in such cases was outlined in the regulations, which follow in full:

Division (15)—Scripture Readings (Section 167)

15.01 Where a teacher sends a written notice to the Board of School Trustees or official trustee by whom he is employed that he has conscientious objections to conducting the. ceremony of reading prescribed selections from the Bible and reciting the Lord’s Prayer (as provided by Section 167 of the Public Schools Act), he shall be excused from such duty, and in such case it shall be the duty of the Board of School Trustees or official trustee concerned to arrange with the Principal to have the ceremony conducted by some other teacher in the school, or by a school trustee, or, where neither of these alternatives is possible, by one of the senior pupils of the school or by some other suitable person other than an ordained member of a religious sect or denomination.

15.02 Where the parent or guardian of any pupil attending a public school sends a written notice to the teacher of the pupil stating that for conscientious reasons he does not wish the pupil to attend the ceremony of reading prescribed selections from the Bible and reciting the Lord’s Prayer at the opening of school, the teacher shall excuse the pupil from attendance at such ceremony and at his discretion may assign the pupil some other useful employment at school during that period, but the pupil so excused shall not be deprived of any other benefits of the school by reason of his non-attendance at the ceremony.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms received royal assent. Section 2 of the charter guaranteeing freedom of conscience and freedom of religion trumped Section 167 of the Public Schools Act (1872).

The challenges to Christian opening and closing exercises occurred mainly in Ontario with the crucial case being fought in The Ontario Court of Appeal in 1988.

Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (Director)

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the use of the Lord’s Prayer in opening exercises in public schools offended the Charter s. 2(a). 1988. (1988), 65 O.R. (2d) 641, 29 O.A.C. 23 (C.A.).

The education regulations did not require the use of the Lord's Prayer and there was an exemption provision. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the regulation infringed religious freedom because schools could use only the Lord's Prayer rather than a more inclusive approach. The exemption provision actually stigmatized children and coerced them into a religious observance which was offensive to them.

The Ontario Court of Appeal was persuaded by the argument that the need to seek exemption from Christian exercises is itself a form of religious discrimination. The judges described as insensitive the position of the respondents that it was beneficial for the minority children to confront the fact of their difference from the majority.

In 1989, Joan Russow challenged, in the British Columbia Supreme Court, the Public Schools Act (1872)’s requirement that in British Columbia all public schools were to be opened with the Lord’s Prayer and a Bible reading. The argument was similar to the Zylberberg case and the result was the same with the offending words in the act being struck out as being inconsistent with freedom of conscience and religion guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Russow v. British ColumbiaThe B.C. Supreme Court follows Zylberberg case to strike down use of the Lord’s Prayer in schools. 1989. (1989), 35 B.C.L.R. (2d) 29 (S.C.) The British Columbia Supreme Court incorporates the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Zylberberg in its entirety.

From 1871 to 1989, observance of school prayer had declined.

With the unfavorable court decision, the requirement for Christian morning exercises was replaced with the following clauses found in the School Act (1996) in British Columbia.

Conduct:

76 (1) All schools and Provincial schools must be conducted on strictly secular and nonsectarian

principles.

(2) The highest morality must be inculcated, but no religious dogma or creed is to be

- taught in a school or Provincial school.

France

As a declared 'laicist' (roughly 'religiously neutral', secular) state, France has no school prayers. In fact, public servants are advised to keep their religious faith private, and may be censured if they display it too openly. The French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools goes beyond restricting prayer in schools and bans the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols by pupils in public primary and secondary schools.

Turkey

The predominantly Muslim country of Turkey is in the public sphere a strongly secular nation. In this regard, it is much like France, on whose system of laicism its founder Kemal Atatürk modelled the rules on religion when he reformed his country in the early 20th century. School prayer is therefore unknown, and suspected religious motivations can cause serious difficulties for public servants. Although, courses of religion and morals (which are dominantly Islamic) are compulsory to all students during the last years of elementary and throughout high school during which various Islamic prayers and verses are taught and tested for.

See also

• Separation of church and state
• Moment of silence
• Madalyn Murray O'Hair