Religion in American Society

Over the years the role of religion in American society has generated a great deal of discussion and litigation. Beginning in the 1960's a number of Supreme Court cases created a stir among religious groups when rulings handed down by the high court limited the extent of religious influence in public settings, especially in schools.

Have these court rulings gone too far? What role should religion play in public schools? What should be permitted?

Those who believe the Court has been too restrictive in regards to religion in schools argue:

• The U.S. Supreme Court has replaced freedom of religion,” guaranteed by the Constitution, for freedom from religion. To ban school prayer diminishes the religious freedom of students who would like to pray and forces them to act according to the dictates of a non-religious minority.
  
  
• The U.S. Supreme Court has misinterpreted the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. A simple and voluntary school prayer does not amount to the government establishing a religion, any more than do other practices common in the U.S. such as the employment of Congressional chaplains or government recognition of holidays with religious significance and National Days of Prayer.
  
  
• School prayer would result in many societal benefits. The public school system is tragically disintegrating as evidenced by the rise in school shootings, increasing drug use, alcoholism, teen pregnancy, and HIV transmission. School prayer can help combat these issues, would instill a sense of morality and is desperately needed to protect our children.
  
  
• School prayer would address the needs of the whole person. Schools must do more than train children’s minds academically. They must also nurture their souls and reinforce the values taught at home and in the community.
  
  
• School prayer would allow religious students an opportunity to observe their religious beliefs during the school day. The U.S. Supreme Court has urged school cooperation with religious authorities for “it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.”

Obviously, many believe that the Court has struck a fair balance between the secular and sectarian world believe:

Public schools are intended for education, not religious observance or proselytization.

Prayer is school is already legal. Students are already allowed to pray on a voluntary basis (in a non-disruptive way) so formal school prayer is unnecessary.

School prayer may lead to intolerance. Public prayer will highlight religious differences of which students may have been unaware. Those students who abstain from school prayer may be ostracized.

School prayer is inherently coercive and cannot be implemented in a way that is truly voluntary.

The public school system is created for all students and supported by all taxpayers. It should therefore remain neutral on religious issues over which students and taxpayers will differ.

Since no formal school prayer could honor the tenets of all the religions practiced in the U.S., as well as various denominational differences, prayer is better left in the home and religious institution of the individual student’s choice. A related argument is that school prayer usurps the role of parents and religious institutions who desire to provide instruction in keeping with their own beliefs.

Where are you on this issue?

Gay Marriage

In our federal system, each state is empowered to determine for itself the many rules and regulations that govern our day to day lives. Over the last several years, some states have outlawed same-sex couples from getting married. An equal number have legalized gay marriage. In all, six states now have legalized that controversial act.

For some, this patchwork of laws is confusing and they insist that there should be some consistency across the nation. Some have proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would specifically define marriage as between a man and a woman. Others have hoped for a Supreme Court ruling that would declare existing state laws that prohibit gay marriage as unconstitutional. Others, who support same-sex marriage, feel that the federal approach works best for them because most national polls indicate that a majority Americans oppose it.

Supporters seek to have gay couples treated equally under the law and subject to the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive:

They point out, for instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for years often find themselves without the basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who legally marry - from the sharing of health and pension benefits to hospital visitation rights.



Opponents argue that:

that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable families and, ultimately, to children who grow up to be productive adults. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, they contend, will radically redefine marriage and further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in serious trouble due to high divorce rates and a significant number of out-of-wedlock births.



Should gay couples be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? Are we better served a state by state approach as exists now? Or should there be some unifying national consensus on this issue?

Lower the Drinking Age?

The former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, John McCardle, started a movement several years ago to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. Last year a hundred or so university presidents have signed a declaration supporting that idea. This has stirred a spirited debate at many colleges across the country.

McCardle says:

"It hasn't reduced or eliminated drinking. It has simply driven it underground, behind closed doors, into the most risky and least manageable of settings."



Some even in law enforcement think that this initiative has merit. Chief of Police Mark Beckner of Boulder, Colorado, which is home to the University of Colorado, sees merit in changing the law:

"The overall advantage is we're not trying to enforce a law that's unenforceable. The abuse of alcohol and the over-consumption of alcohol and DUI driving. Those are the areas we've gotta focus our efforts. Not on chasing kids around trying to give 'em a ticket for having a cup of beer in their hand."



On the other hand, MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) stands in opposition to a change in the law. Chuck Hurley, the executive director of MADD observes:

"The inconvenient truth is that a drinking age at 18 would cause more funerals. Nine hundred families a year would have to bury a teenager..."

"When the United States reduced its drinking age in the seventies it was a public health disaster. Death rates in the states that reduced their drinking age jumped 10 to 40 percent..."



In fact, when states changed the legal drinking age to 21, traffic fatalities among the affected population dropped 13%.

McCardle points out that while deaths on the highways have declined the number of non-traffic related deaths numbers around 3000 a year.

What do you think? What other points can you add to the discussion?