ABSTRACT
In the years since the Engel v. Vitale case (1962) forbade the recitation of prayer in public school classrooms, educators developed increasing sensitivity to the volatile issues of religion and religious observance. This sensitivity led to misunderstanding about what is and is not allowable to say and do concerning religion in classrooms and on school grounds. Numerous court cases subsequent to Engel (cf. Abington v. Schempp, Wallace v. Jaffree, Smith v. Mobile, Mozert v. Hawkins) clarified allowable statements and practices; a coalition of organizations published guidelines conforming to court rulings (Haynes & Thomas, 1994). Nonetheless, educators continue to be confused about religious issues. Most opt to build a higher wall than is legally necessary between religion and the school. For example, teachers have forbidden students to bow their heads in silent prayer before lunch in the mistaken belief that such a practice is
illegal, although the “freedom of exercise” clause in the First Amendment clearly protects this practice. Teachers have not allowed students to talk about family religious practices in class, even when such a contribution to discussion might be highly relevant to the course material. Again, these teachers confuse the “establishment” and the “freedom of exercise” clauses (see case analysis for an explanation of the differences and tensions between these two clauses), thus unnecessarily banning from their classrooms an important facet of at least some of the students’ lives, as well as a rich part of history, culture, and democratic belief.
