How Did Our School Teachers Lose Their Right to Pray?

For the first time in American history, two men face a criminal trial this month in Pensacola, Florida stemming from the action of praying before a meal at school. On January 28, 2009, Pace High School principal Frank Lay asked athletic director Robert Freeman to pray at a school day luncheon for the dedication of a new field house. Freeman prayed. Earlier that month, on January 9, 2009, Principal Lay and the Santa Rosa County School Board had entered into an agreement prohibiting the endorsement of or participation in prayers during or in conjunction with school events. Now both Lay and Freeman face criminal contempt of court charges which could result in 6 months in jail or a $5,000 fine, and they also might lose their pensions. Legal critics argue that the consent agreement is illegal on constitutional grounds, but until the judgment of federal judge Casey Rodgers is overruled in a higher court, or the judge changes her mind, it is the law of our land.


How did we get here? How is it possible that in America, the land of the free, it is a crime for school teachers to pray before a meal at school?

The Pensacola trial is remindful of the 2002 and 2003 trials of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was removed from public office over a Ten Commandments monument. Justice Moore’s official duties included being responsible for the displays of the Alabama State Judicial Building, and so he had placed in the rotunda of this building a granite monument with the Ten Commandments and 14 quotations from sources such as the Declaration of Independence, the National Anthem, the National Motto, James Madison, George Mason, William Blackstone, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. In the 2002 trial, Judge Myron Thompson ordered the monument removed. Thompson said that while the monument itself and other displays of the Ten Commandments might be permissible, it was Moore’s intention that made his action unconstitutional. Moore intended to express a traditional viewpoint that the Judeo-Christian God was sovereign over the laws of America. Thompson said that in regard to Moore’s ability to express this viewpoint, the constitution says no.

Justice Moore’s legal position was that while it would be inappropriate for him to use his office to proselytize, he did not lose his constitutionally protected right to acknowledge God. In fact, Justice Moore argued that his position as a state official and his oath of office made it his duty to acknowledge God. Moore considered the federal court order to be interfering with his constitutionally protected rights, his official duties, his oath of office as a Supreme Court Justice, and he also considered the federal court to be interfering with state’s rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court would never hear his case.

Lay and Freeman’s case is similar to Moore’s case in that it raises the question of whether public servants like Lay and Freeman lose their civil rights to acknowledge God once they take a job funded by government. Earlier this year, Pace High School student Mary Allen was elected as Student Body President. Apparently because her election involved teachers voting for her as well as students, she was forbidden to speak at graduation ceremonies because as a Christian, she might acknowledge God and give him thanks. Since when do elections cause citizens to lose their civil rights?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that it was unconstitutional for schools to officially compose prayers and require its recitation in public schools, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). The case with Lay and Freeman, however, is different. They composed no official prayer for recitation by others. Lay asked Freeman to pray, but did not tell him what to pray. The prayer was a spontaneous acknowledgment of God stemming from a long time tradition and heartfelt belief in Divine Providence. The question here is not whether they can force others to pray, but whether they have the liberty to pray in public as their conscience dictates.

Secularists have long tried to force their view upon society that the religion clauses of the First Amendment are about freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion. The religion clauses state: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Secularists argue for a broad reading of the phrase “an establishment of religion,” and they often misquote it as “the establishment of religion.” The success of the secularist position is seen in the Florida State Constitution which uses the definite article (the) instead of the indefinite article (an) in its religion clause. Secularists generally argue a view of government neutrality as being one where government should not be respectful toward theistic religion in any way. They want to eradicate religion from public view.

In contrast, people of faith usually argue that the Constitution prohibits partisan laws which would favor one sect of religion over another. They make the case that religion and government must interact at times because government is being carried out by individuals, many of whom are religious. In order to minimize the possibility of one religion persecuting another through the use of government authority, government should not pass laws that respect any particular establishment of religion over another. They want freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Sometimes secularists have turned to the Bible instead of the Constitution to make their case that religious practices such as prayer should be removed from public view. They point to the passage in Matthew 6:6, which says, “When you pray, go into your inner room, close your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” However, this passage is not a prohibition against public prayer. Rather, it addresses the hearts of hypocrites who loved to be seen praying in public. The passage urges people to develop a strong private prayer life, which is the true foundation for appropriate public prayers. There are examples in the Bible of Jesus and his disciples praying publicly (e.g., Matthew 19:13-14, Luke 3:21, Acts 1:24, 4:31, 6:6, 12:12, 13:3, 16:25, 20:36, 21:5, James 5:14), so this passage cannot be taken as a prohibition against public prayer.

I suppose it must be difficult for the non-Christian to understand the role that the public acknowledgment of God has in the life of a person of faith. The person who seeks life, liberty, and happiness through Jesus Christ incorporates the teachings of Jesus and his apostles into his life. Many of these teachings place an importance upon the public acknowledgment of God. For example, Jesus taught that everyone who confesses him before men, he will confess him before his heavenly father (Matthew 10:32-33), and he prohibits his followers from being ashamed of him (Mark 8:38). He also taught his followers not to put their light under a basket, but to let their light shine before others (Matthew 5:14-16). Jesus also said that what he taught in private should be amplified in public (Matthew 10:27). One’s very salvation is tied into the act of moving from private belief to public verbal profession (see Romans 10:9-10, with the heart, a person believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation).

Knowledge of such teachings awakens the conscience of a Christian, resulting in practices such as praying before meals, to acknowledge God as the provider. Take notice that there is no religious mandate in Scripture for praying before meals. Such prayers come from the liberty of conscience of the individual. When government attempts to prohibit such prayer, it is a violation of an unalienable right that all men possess to freely acknowledge their Creator. Bad laws like this result in feelings of enslavement. It is nothing less than tyranny by our rulers.

The work of conscience to cause one to acknowledge God is well illustrated by George Washington when he took his presidential oath of office. When finished saying the oath stated in the Constitution, Washington spontaneously added the phrase, “So help me God.” Although the phrase is not mandated by government, every President from George Washington to Barack Obama has recognized the liberty they have to add this prayer to the end of their oath of office.

It is troubling to see the courts for the last 50 years using a line of reasoning that says nothing religious can be involved where government money is involved. Such is clearly contrary to tradition. President Obama ended his inaugural speech as he does many of his other speeches, with an acknowledgment of God: “God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.” Like other Presidents, he also had religious pastors deliver prayers both before and after his speech. None of these actions have been adjudicated as government endorsement of an establishment of religion. Many courts around the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have a Crier which opens the court with a statement like, “God save the State and this Honorable Court.” Both houses of the Congress open their daily sessions with prayer. Congress employs chaplains, and so does the military, as well as state and federal prison systems. Again, such has not been adjudicated as being government endorsement of an establishment of religion, despite government funds being involved. The Declaration of Independence, the National Anthem, and the National Motto, all acknowledge God. Our coins have been impressed with the motto, “In God We Trust” since 1865. Even the Florida State Seal and State Flag have the state motto, “In God We Trust.” Such is all clear evidence for what the Supreme Court stated in Zorach v. Clauson 343 U.S. 306 (1952), “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” It is ridiculous for judges to reason that when government funds are involved, government must prohibit any expressions of speech that are deemed to be religious. In cases like Frank Lay and Robert Freeman, such reasoning leads to tyranny by the Judiciary, holding hostage government servants who apparently begin questioning themselves whether they will be put in jail for saying “God bless you” when someone sneezes.

Justice Potter Stewart issued the following warning in Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963):

For a compulsory state educational system so structures a child's life that, if religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage. Viewed in this light, permission of such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or, at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.

It clearly was not the intention of Congress in adopting the First Amendment to exclude anything religious. Such is evidenced by the fact that during the summer of 1789 when the First Amendment was being drafted, Congress enacted the Northwest Territory Ordinance, of which Article III says, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” A mere 7 years later, George Washington said in his farewell address (1796),

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

The eyes of our nation will be upon Pensacola on September 17, 2009 for the bench trial of Lay and Freeman before Judge Casey Rodgers. We need to have more than just the interests of the attorneys for the ACLU and the Santa Rosa School Board. They appear intent to safeguard the interests of the non-religious atheists and followers of the religion of secular humanism. What we need to be concerned about is the interest of anyone who might aspire to public service. All Americans should have equal access to such positions. Instead, it appears that there is the development of a religious test, a test of whether or not one is able to relinquish his right to acknowledge God in the performance of his civil duties. If by working for government, a Christian has lost his liberty to acknowledge God, there are only two courses of action. A person of faith must either withdraw completely from any stations of public office, waiting for the promised government of Christ where true liberty will reign, or he must engage in a revolt against oppressive government on the same grounds that our founding fathers did, attempting with the help of Providence to establish these liberties for all of society. A third course of action exists only if that liberty to acknowledge God has not yet been lost, and that is to attempt to repair the error. This third course of action is probably best for now, but how many arrests, fines, and jail incarcerations must be endured before we are able to secure these liberties? People of faith need to count the cost and be ready to pay the price of freedom.