A Show of Faith
At one point in this nation’s history, many schools displayed the Commandments on school grounds and sanctioned daily prayer as a reminder to reverence God’s word. School administrators placed the law near entryways, in courtyards and alcoves, and on lockers. Students prayed. These schools might have intended to demonstrate “true” Christianity yet did nothing to end the Jim Crow era, a period in which state law encouraged displays of intense hatred toward African Americans. And during this time when there was fervor for prayer in classrooms and the Commandments on school grounds, many were willing that African-American schoolchildren should suffer the indignity of being subjected to racial animus. They thought it just to needlessly oppress black students and failed to obey the Lord’s command in Matthew 22:37-40 (NKJV): “Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
An inevitable, natural decline occurs when man rejects God. Racism is rebellion because it defies God’s command to love. The idea, then, that God was neither present in American public schools nor acquiesced to bigotry is tenable. For, who can remove God from His abode? A few seminal cases in American jurisprudence lend insight to this premise.
In 1954, unequal treatment of black students became unconstitutional with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, where the Supreme Court held that state laws permitting segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment.[1] The case highlighted the inferiority of the schools, facilities, books, and access to education that black school children endured. The Court pointed out ways in which separate is inherently unequal. However, school segregation persisted, as many all-white schools refused to integrate. In Brown v. Board of Education II, the Court determined how desegregation should be carried out and with what oversight, but because the justices feared backlash if they decreed an immediate end to segregation, they capitulated and ordered desegregation to proceed with “all deliberate speed.[2][3]” This was an indirect way of allowing integration to proceed gradually. Though the ruling failed to mandate immediate integration, the outcome was still a victory in the fight for equal treatment of African Americans.
This ruling was also a modest step towards aligning with the Lord and adopting Christian values. Remember, bigotry has no place in the faith because intolerance condones racial preference, which is a backwards religious ideology that signifies confusion of face, and is therefore contrary to the Lord.
In 1962, social policy leaned towards liberalism again, as reflected in case law. This time the challenge was against prayer in public schools, which became unconstitutional when the Supreme Court issued another landmark decision. In Engel v. Vitale, the New York state legislature passed a law that encouraged students to begin the school day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and required saying a prayer written by the state board of regents:
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.”
Led by Steven Engel, several families of children attending New York public schools said the prayer contradicted their religious beliefs and sued William Vitale, the president of the school board. The Court ruled that because the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, state government officials may not create an official prayer to recite in the state’s public schools. Even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and students may remain silent or be excused from the classroom while it is recited, it is government-sanctioned prayer and, therefore, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[4]
The fact that the respondents argued that that the prayer was neutral because it did not adhere to a specific denomination is quite stunning. I am uncertain if they were asserting that the wording was ambiguous such that students could apply the prayer to any god. Maybe they thought nobody would know that they intended this prayer to be made to the God of Abraham. I do not know. What is certain, though, is the difficulty of arguing that praying to God is neutral because praying to the Almighty declares His sovereignty. Praying to God indicates that the petitioner acknowledges a predisposition to seek solace from the One who is able to grant his or her request.
In Acts, the council of religious leaders debated how to handle the apostles, who performed miracles in the name of the Lord. An angel of the Lord had freed the apostles from prison, and the apostles immediately went back to the temple to preach. The pharisees were mad but did not know how to keep the apostles from teaching. Then Gamaliel, one of the pharisees, said, “And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it — lest you even be found to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39 NKJV). He spoke well – man cannot overthrow God’s work. Advocacy for public school prayer was overthrown, but why? The scripture says, “For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil. (1 Peter 3:12 NKJV). Could it be that prayer in public schools came to naught because of pervasive and sanctioned unrighteousness? Let us examine one more case that may provide more insight and undo some misconceptions.
By 1980, social liberalism was increasingly more pervasive, and adherents, emboldened perhaps by victories in women’s reproductive health decisions, now targeted displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools. At issue in Stone v. Graham was a Kentucky law that required posting a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of every public school classroom.[5] Proponents of the law argued that “[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.[6]” The argument, though creative, failed to impress the justices. Their ruling – that posting copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky classrooms was unconstitutional because displaying the copies served no secular legislative purpose, a precedent established in Lemon v. Kurtzman[7], and, therefore, violated the Establishment Clause – was another defeat for Christians.[8] Once again, many conservatives bemoaned the decision, decrying it as another way to remove God from the public school system.
Is it true that the above-mentioned cases succeeded in removing God from schools? One certainty is that secularists devalue God. Hence, secularism is a concept that embodies separating religious institutions from the government. And often, secularists seemingly embrace humanism, another principal that tempts the Lord. Yet, I am not convinced that secularists are more anti-Christianity than prejudiced people of faith.
The Word tells us, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galations 3:28-29 NKJV). How, then, did the Stone ruling constitute moving further away from God, given this nation’s history? Also, consider the anti-busing protests in the 1970s and 1980s and segregated proms, with one occurring as late as 2013.[9] Where was the grace in these situations?
It is as if advocates of keeping the religious displays were (and are) blind to the fact that their hearts, when laid bare, embraced error in opposition to the Spirit of truth. Presumably, they wanted a mere symbol to confirm their covenant with God when, by their actions, they rejected Him. For it is written, “To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.” (Titus 1:15-16 NKJV). Unfortunately, the fight to keep religious symbols in public schools was a display of contradiction.
[1] Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 347 U.S. 488 (1954).
[2] Brown v. Board of Education II, 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
[3] This is not the first time this language appeared in American jurisprudence, though. Justice Frankfurter used the phrase “deliberate speed” five times and Justice Holmes once before that. It actually comes from the Latin motto “festina lente,” which means make haste slowly. Abraham Lincoln expounded upon this motto to justify supporting a slow end to slavery. Ogletree, Charles J. (2004, April 12). All Deliberate Speed. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2004/04/12/660/all-deliberate-speed/
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Definition of Festina Lente. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/festina%20lente
[4] Steven I. Engel, et al. v. William J. Vitale, Jr., et al., 370 U.S. 422-36 (1962).
[5] Stone v. Graham 449 U.S. 39 (1980).
[6] Id at 41.
[7] See Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 612-13 (1971).
[8] Stone v. Graham 449 U.S. 39 (1980).
[9] Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04/05/georgia-students-fight-segregated-proms/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a7ef5c275e44