The murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut have renewed an old lament: God has been removed from the schools, and therefore, all manner of social and cultural chaos has occurred. It’s cause and effect, you see. For those who want to read the seminal case, it’s Engel v. Vitale (1962). The most recent doomsayer? Mike Huckabee, who said:
It’s an interesting thing, we ask why there’s violence in our schools but we’ve systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage? Because we’ve made it a place where we do not want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability. That we’re not just going to have to be accountable to the police, if they catch us, but we stand one day before a holy God in judgment.
The common knowledge that God has, somehow, been excised from school, would, upon careful reflection, seem to suggest that man has become more powerful than God, capable of evicting Him. This is, of course, nonsense. What Mr. Huckabee and others assert is that the influence of God, Christian values of peace and brotherhood, have been removed. God surely has not been removed, nor have those values, at least not in most schools.
School officials are legally constrained in only two primary ways: (1) they cannot proselytize, and (2) they cannot require students to engage in religious observation (most commonly, prayer). Obviously, a variety of related matters may fall under these two broader headings.
In practice, this basically means I—as a teacher—may not try to convert my students to any faith. This would include preaching whatever dogma I consider holy. Such practice would also be a violation of professional ethics and practice. If a math teacher, for example, is spending any portion of their very limited class time preaching rather than providing the best possible opportunity to learn math, that’s an obvious problem. The same would be true for talking about his family, his hobbies, or anything other than what he is hired to do. In such a case, we have a teacher who doesn’t understand his or her professional obligations and who may well want to be involved in a different profession.
Occasionally in my career, I have run across very earnest young teachers who believe that teaching provides them the opportunity and mandate to minister to their students. I have always, gently, convinced them otherwise, and when my gentle recitations of law and professional ethics have not worked, have engaged principals who have sorted out the issue a bit more forcefully.
It is the second prohibition that causes most of the trouble, for it is this that prevents mass prayers in the classroom and particularly, at athletic events and graduations. Some schools continue to flaunt the law and a variety of states have instituted daily “moments of silence,” as a thinly veiled subterfuge to bypass the law.
It’s unnecessary. Any student—or teacher—may contemplate God or pray essentially whenever they like in school. One of my favorite aphorisms is:
As long as there is algebra, there will always be prayer in school.
As long as their prayers are not preventing them from discharging their scholarly obligations or are not disruptive, prayer is perfectly acceptable. How would anyone know a given person was praying rather than daydreaming, thinking or merely resting their eyes?
Little Johnny may not, in the midst of English class, leap to his feet and cry, “Oh Lord, smite this evil English teacher!” Little Abdul may not roll out his prayer rug in the middle of social studies class, face Mecca, and loudly begin to pray. And little Suzie may not start dancing and chanting in the middle of Chemistry lab. In the same way, students may not read the Bible or any other religious text if such reading is disruptive, but they are otherwise unconstrained.
Students may read the Bible on their own time: between classes, at lunch, before and after school, etc., but they may not read the Bible when they should be reading assigned literature or other texts.
I trust, gentle readers, you can see the practicality and wisdom in these few restrictions? In a society of multiple faiths, in a society that practices tolerance for all faiths, it is important that schools remain essentially neutral and concentrate on providing the best possible educational opportunity. Students are free to practice their faiths, but not on instructional time. However, schools may offer classes on Biblical literature, teaching the scriptures in the contexts of their literary, social, archeological and historical properties, and such classes are widely offered across the nation, as they are in my high school.
I know that some schools try to prevent kids from Bible reading and other obviously legitimate, protected expressions of faith, but by and large, they are merely uninformed and overzealous rather than anti-religious. They are trying a bit too hard to obey the law, a body of law they obviously don’t know well. Such uninformed practices can usually be corrected by an infusion of accurate information and gentle persuasion.
What then is permissible? As a teacher of the mother tongue, it would be impossible for me to teach much of the literature written before the mid 1800’s without frequent reference to the Bible and to faith, and I do not shy away from it. Among my daily practices is the posting and discussion of a daily saying, an aphorism that helps my students to better understand literature and human nature. While I don’t generally use scripture, many aphorisms are plainly inspired by scripture, which I also mention to broaden their experience.
In exploring literature, I must also be a history teacher, which necessitates the mention and explanation of theology. Faith is so inextricably bound up in American culture and life I’d be negligent to omit mention, discussion and explanation of it.
Even in etymology, I must deal with faith and related concepts. Few students, and few adults, know that “amen” means “so be it” rather than “all done; where’s the food?”, or that “hallelujah” means “praise ye the Lord.” My students named “Joshua” are surprised to learn their name—in Hebrew–means “the Lord saves,” and those named “Jesus” are astonished to learn that their name–in Greek–also means “the Lord saves.” Few of my students know that “Catholic” means “universal,” that “pax vobiscum,” means “peace be with you,” or that “kyrie eleison” means “Lord have mercy.” They are equally surprised to learn that the classic Byrd’s tune “Turn, Turn, Turn” takes its lyrics directly from the Book of Ecclesiastes (3: 1-8).
As part of their cultural education each year, I play selections from Handel’s Messiah, which takes its lyrics directly from the Bible. Though Handel wrote the work because that was what sold at the time rather than out of deep religious devotion, my students can appreciate it for its musical, cultural and historical value and its artistic brilliance, or if they please, for it’s spiritual depth.
In my school a Bible club meet regularly and various religious observances such as “See You At The Pole” often take place. The faculty advisor of he club is careful to avoid and conflict with instructional time and participation is voluntary. All of this is perfectly legal and proper.
We often joke—sort of—that in Texas, the official religion is high school football. But in my school district there are no prayers at football games or other athletic contests. That’s important. How do we teach kids to respect and support the rule of law if we don’t demonstrate respect for it?
All students are free to find religious instruction and practice that suits them and their families at any time other than school hours. While I might be more informed about theological issues than some, I’m surely not a qualified minister or theologian. I can provide some insights and information they might not get elsewhere, but my students are far better served in religious instruction by qualified ministers than me or other teachers.
I know that some will argue that some schools apparently don’t teach students to behave properly and don’t enforce proper values. No doubt this is true, but it has never been true in any school where I have worked or about which I have knowledge. In such places, what we’re really talking about is incompetent administration rather than a lack of religious instruction or a refusal to hold daily prayers.
So I’m sorry Mr. Huckabee. It’s easy to blame problems on assumed cultural deficits in our schools, but the evidence just isn’t there to establish a cause and effect relationship. We know very little, at the moment, about the killer in Connecticut and why he chose that particular school. And when we know as much as we are ever likely to know, I very much doubt that a lack of religious observance in that—or any other school—will have anything to do with it.
We’ve removed God from schools? Not in law or in fact. Besides, we don’t have the power. We never did. That’s a delicious irony for anyone who imagines any law passed by man can affect God, isn’t it?
Joel said:
Here is something you might not like, the first public schools were founded by Religious institutions in order for the Gospel to be spread properly. Also, it wasn’t until 1962 that prayer was banned at school. We have had cultural problems since then.
Janis said:
Interesting article but Joel it appears you have missed the point. As a side note, the shootings in school situation has been occuring in the United States since the 1800’s, so there would be little correlation between lack of prayer and shootings.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Joel:
Thanks for your comment. There is no question that early schools–such as Harvard–were established as divinity schools, to train ministers. You did read the article? Prayer has never been banned in schools; it’s quite impossible, and no one of good will wishes it. Forced sectarian religious observances are restricted, a matter with which people of good will also agree. Far, far more has happened in our society since 1962 to cause cultural disorientation. Blaming cultural deficits on prayer that has truly never been removed from the schools is hardly a convincing–or logically sound–argument.
minpin06 said:
Excuse me for a minute while I search for the teeth that dropped out of my mouth while reading this column.
While I do that, I’m trying hard to keep the refrains of the Barack Hussein Obama, um um um out of my head. I have been haunted by Jamie Foxx adoring and idolizing Obama as our next Lord and Savior. I might be back in a minute, but then again, it’s unlikely. No, a math teacher doesn’t have any need to give religious lectures in the classrooms. No the history teacher doesn’t have to abide by real history, but is given free reign to teach the “new” history. Nope, the school principal should never advocate for any one religion over another. I thought that amongst conservatives that was already a given. I really am searching for any conservative that has done any religious teaching in the public school system. I can’t find any. Then again, I can hardly find any conservatives that have participated in the public school system, that hasn’t been intimidated by the leftist indoctrination public school system. I guess my search continues with no candidates in sight.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear minpin06:
Thanks for your comments! Unfortunately, I have experienced conservatives preaching in the classroom, which as you rightly note, is not what they should be doing. And may I help put your mind at ease: I really don’t think most American schools are bastions of crazed liberalism. Oh, indeed it exists, but I suspect in proportions more or less like the blue/red state divide.
In my own school, which is in a conservative community, there are surely strident liberals, but even they stick to teaching rather than indoctrination. I don’t talk politics with them as they’re generally not capable of keeping their temper during such discussions, but find that in terms of professional intent and practice, we’re pretty much on the same page.
Thanks again!
Pieder Beeli said:
I guess that makes you a snitch. Now being a snitch is not always a bad thing, but in this circumstance it most certainly is. You are being a snitch to the inmates who run the judicial and educational asylums.
Philosophically, religious neutrality–even in subjects like mathematics–is a piece of diabolical and incoherent fiction (see Roy A. Clauser’s, The Myth of Religious Neutrality).
If religious neutrality is philosophically incoherent, then it is judicially incoherent as well. This is easy to argue by other-than-Clauser means. There are only 7 basic world views (see, e.g., N. Geisler’s, World’s Apart: A Handbook on World Views). We have misinterpreted a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists to mean that a theistic world view is unconstitutional. Not only is Jefferson’s letter not The Constitution, but Jefferson’s letter was not to the Danbury atheist association. Further, the idea that government could avoid promoting a world view is incoherent. Rather is for a government to select a world view and remain consistent with the dictates of this world view. But it is only a theistic-minded government that can serve “to secure these [unalienable] rights” (quote from The Declaration of Independence).
What I am saying is that you are both a victim of a government education and you are functioning as an accomplice to the incoherent dictatorship of an atheistic government gone wild.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Pieder Beeli:
Thanks for your comment, but might I encourage you to read my comments more closely? I argue not for removing any mention of faith, or for “religious neutrality” as you term it. As I wrote, competent and complete discussion of faith in history, culture, literature, music and more is absolutely essential to English, humanities, history, social studies and a variety of other disciplines. What is inappropriate, and a violation of professional ethics and practice, is taking class time to preach the one true word, whatever one thinks that to be.
So, in stopping that, and in helping young, enthusiastic colleagues understand their legitimate duties and focus, I’m proud to be a “snitch,” as you put it. Doing what is right is what adults do. Avoiding being “snitches” is for children. Don’t we expect teachers to be responsible adults?
My students, who care to ask, know I am a Christian. They also know that religious indoctrination does not occur in my classroom as well as they know where and when to obtain the religious instruction and worship of their choice. This is a bad thing?
Pieder Beeli said:
If you were being governed by a coherent theistic government, the rules would be different. As it stands, you are governed by a chaotic, incoherent God-hating atheistic amalgam, for which you snitch and shill.You are functioning as an obedient child to the asylum-masters. In the very quote I quote of you, you actually DO ‘argue … for removing any mention of faith, or for “religious neutrality”’ Is theistic math equal to atheistic math? Not on the level of theories. Read Clauser. Aren’t the self-evident manifestations — to which The Declaration refer — self-evident? And do they not speak of the self-evidency of our Creator? Yet we should deny this in the government school indoctrination programs?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Pieder Beeli:
Actually, I’m afraid you have no real idea about the local governmental entity for whom I work and their ideals. I deny nothing. I use the scant time I have to teach the academic discipline I’m entrusted by the public to teach. In so doing, I often speak of religion and related issues, but I do not preach any specific doctrine or require religious oaths or worship. That’s not only against the Constitution, it’s an unprofessional and indefensible use of precious instructional time.
Indoctrination? Yes, but only if you count grammar, writing and speaking skills, and the ability to think effectively indoctrination.
Pieder Beeli said:
So is denying your students the “self evident” connection to natural law unveiled by “nature and nature’s God” (quotes from The Declaration) and reflected in both the order of the English language and in the ebb and flow of history unconstitutional? Do such assertions inappropriately “tak[e] class time to preach the one true word, whatever one thinks that to be”?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Pieder Beeli:
I deny my students nothing, except holding religious services in place of class time.
Pieder Beeli said:
So then you reveal the “self evident” connections to “nature and nature’s God” in whatever subject you teach?
Joel said:
Pieder Beeli,
I fail to understand your line of questioning. As Mike has said numerous times before, he is a public school teacher and as such does not impart any religious dogma nor any religious services. Isn’t that enough? Or do you feel that Mike has to tie everything he teaches to God or religion?
Pieder Beeli said:
So Joel are you basically telling me that the Christian thing to do is to unite the state with the religion of atheism?
Joel said:
Here is something that might get you riled. Short answer: Yes. If you want a longer answer which might not get you riled, ask nicely and I will tell you.
Pieder Beeli said:
Joel. Thank you for your honesty. It does not rile me. But I do think you see that we have at least the appearance of “a kingdom divided against itself.” It is a curious day when Christians push for the God-hating functional atheist protocol.
Joel said:
Well, first off, I am a Christian. Second, since you aren’t riled, here is part of the problem of trying to force religion down every one’s throat, they throw up and throw it back at you. The other part is the way the law as understood by that curious class of people known as lawmakers and more importantly law enforcers. Since the law enforcers, such as the Department of Education, deem that religion should not be taught in Public schools, we get exactly that.
All is not lost though. Through great good fortune we have something called home schooling. Now, this is not for every body, but it is out there.
Another way is private schools. Not every one can afford them, but it is out there.
The last is something that the left hates and do their level best to avoid is school vouchers. Now, strangely enough, there is not much out there FOR vouchers, but the idea is catching on. As more and more people are realizing that public schools are just not cutting it, the idea of school vouchers is becoming more popular and harder for politicians to ignore.
One of the big things local governments can do right now is stop accepting money from the Federal Government. Just as accepting money from the Mafia leads to strings attached, it is the same with the Feds. One of those strings is not allowing school prayer and kicking God out of school.
If you want to see a local school have school prayer and a higher emphasis on religion, get the local politicians to refuse money from the Feds and get them to issue school vouchers. Also, get your preacher in on creating a local school that can accept vouchers and private donations and private funds. You will have to get far more involved than you are right now. Good luck.
Pieder Beeli said:
Joel, you characterize me as religious, but the intolerant atheistic government you subtly deem to be non-religious. The reason none of my kids have set foot in a government schools is because of their religious indoctrination (which, of course, also coarsens the culture and contaminates the content). I’ve had enough of the mixing of the state and atheism. I wish you and other Christians would also reach your discontent and fight the hypocrisy by which our atheistic government is paraded as being religiously neutral.
Pingback: Soft Tyranny Times 2 | Stately McDaniel Manor