I chose the civil liberties because I think that it is important for someone to choose their own religion and beliefs without causing any trouble. Having the freedom to speak, choose your own religion and to vote for whomever you want to vote for is important to the American people. I chose the subcategory “The Free Exercise Clause”, because it upholds the rights of the American people to decide on any religious belief and to be able to exercise their beliefs without getting in trouble with the law. One example of a public policy that is designed to protect the civil liberty is the “moment of silence” in schools. The moment of silence is done in all the schools in the morning during the announcements and there is silence for 60 seconds with no sounds or interruptions. This gives everyone the opportunity to pray, meditate or even just sit and think without being disturbed. I support this policy because everyone has their own right to pray without disturbing the rights of others and those who don’t chose to pray also have the right to sit without disturbing the ones who are praying. The article that I chose to write about was originally written in the American School Board Journal paper and was written by Edwin Darden in 2008. The title of the article is “Is Silence in the Classroom Really Golden”? He explains that having silence in the classroom is great to have but are we having it in our classroom just for religious purposes? He asks if a mandatory “moment of silence” in public schools is for students to relax and get focused for the day ahead, or is it an invitation to pray. One could argue the opposite could be true, is it an opportunity to relax or an excuse to encourage students not to pray? This is the type of issue that the courts struggle with when it comes to these types of topics.
The First Amendment to the U.S. forbids government entities, such as the public schools, from favoring religion or prohibiting it unnecessarily. There is a thin line that comes in the issues like the moment of silence. The courts have looked at it in different ways to see what is actually going on during the moment of silence. They take into the consideration what time of the day it is being done, how long is the silence and how often it is being done. In the article it looks as though the courts are trying to determine and take into consideration how each person feels about the moment of silence. They are trying to observe and see how the time is spent whether heads are bowed or whether the students just sit and think about things that are on their mind. I don’t think that it can hurt anyone for 60 seconds of silence. I don’t see the moment of silence as being ONLY prayer time. I have seen it in public schools being used for all different types of things such as children laying their head down, bowing their head, drawing or just sitting there in a daze as if they are in deep thought. Looking back on my school days, I don’t see where the moment of silence has changed in the past 10 years. If anything I think that there are some people who don’t see the point in “wasting” those 60 seconds on being silent. As for changing over the years it is still the same. If you consider looking farther back than 10 years, some 20 or 30 years ago, times were very different and the argument for separating church and state was a much different one. Prayer was still allowed in some schools and the idea of changing it to a moment of silence was not very well received by a very large portion of American citizens. Many parents removed their children from the public school systems for that reason alone. Some public schools now allow student led prayer at events such as ball games and before school hour meetings. When it comes to the federal courts, public schools must obey the two legal requirements “let it be”, and “push it away”. These are the two clashing and equally forceful commands that are within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution explains briefly about the “religion clauses”. The religion clauses were created to explain certain rules on how faith and the government interact. One clause gives the citizens the right to freely exercise their religion; the other prohibits the government from being involved in religion which includes the publicly funded schools supported by tax money. The duty to uphold the Constitution is an important is at stake when prayer is allowed in public schools. The laws are different when the schools are not funded by the state. Private and religious or parochial schools are not subject to the same laws because they are not funded by the government and therefore do not present a conflict between church and state. The government sponsors the public school system, so it must stay neutral which is known as separating church and state. Religion based, parochial and private schools are not the same because they are not supported by the state so they are able to pray and observe religious holidays and practices that the public schools do not participate in.
Currently it is my opinion that to have more government involvement or mandates regarding prayer or the observance of a moment of silence would be counterproductive. Sometimes the more we try to take something apart and analyze it the less effective it becomes. The laws and safeguards are in place and have worked for the majority of the people for more than a decade. You can always find someone who is ready to find fault with the majority or who would like to fight for a change just for the sake of a fight but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Everything has been done in good faith to uphold the law regarding separation of church and state without denying completely the right of the people to pray if they like without offending others, so leave it alone.