Freedom of Religion

The Establishment Clause of the Constitution states that the national government must not officially support any establishment of religion. The Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution grants everyone the right to free exercise of religion. With respect to school prayer, these two clauses can conflict with each other: the Establishment clause calls for a wall between state and religion, but the Free Exercise clause allows all individuals to hold their religious beliefs freely. Clearly, prayer should not be mandatory in schools, since this simultaneously violates both clauses: the state is creating legislature dictating religious activity, and a certain religious practice is being enforced on all individuals. This can be observed in the landmark case of Engel v Vitale in 1962, in which the Supreme Court ruled that New York's practice of beginning school days with a prayer drafted by school officials violated the Establishment Clause. But when the issue is focused on the voluntary participation in prayer, the tension emerges: this voluntary exercise of religion in schools seems, to some, to violate the Establishment Clause's separation of church and state, while others see this as an affirmation of the rights granted by the Free Exercise Clause.
Completely suspending the practice of prayer in schools would be seem by some as constituting the involvement of the state in the religious beliefs. Hence, the best solution, if it proved to be tranquil and un-hindering to the liberties of others, would be to allow the voluntary practice of prayer by all individuals who choose to participate, as long as no political or politically social ties are associated with it (e.g. teachers advocating the prayers for propagation of a certain religion). In this manner, the state would not challenge the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause, since it would, respectfully, not advocate or denounce any single religion, nor would it be involved in any religious establishment; instead, it would merely assert religious neutrality, while keeping a check on the religious practice to ensure that it does not become involved in state affairs or become imposing upon other individuals.
In this blog, the author argues that the founding fathers intended for a freedom of religion, rather than a freedom from religion. He states that the founding fathers were God-fearing men who knew the importance of religious morality and who based the principles of the Constitution from the ethics of the Bible. This author firmly believes that religion (i.e. Christianity) should be a vital part of government. This belief seems honorable and moral, but fallacies pervade it: this is under the basis that all the citizens are following one religion, and furthermore, that all the citizens are in fact religious; moreover, this author is stating that morality arises from religion, even though, as one can bluntly see from past human history, even though the unadulterated teachings of religions attempt to instill people with morality, people cannot be changed into cleansed persons: corruption, greed, cupidity, and ultimate self-desire will interminable manifest themselves within all people. To continue, besides the fact that the author does not put weight on the natural principle that humans cannot be forced into absolute morality, the author seems to overlook the fact that morality stems from an individual's own nature, influenced by their own condition, not merely by teachings from the Bible. Even if the author's idea were held to be true, if only one religion is tied to the government, it goes against the logically interpreted intent of the Constitution's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. I say logically interpreted intent because to think that the founding fathers were completely accepting of all beliefs and dogmas (notice I disuse the term tolerant, for that is what they probably intended) is somewhat idealistically and imprudently childish. The founding fathers were of the Christian faith, even though they had differing sects, and hence they most likely advocated that principle dogma. But, due to the tyranny of England's state church system, they instituted tolerance in the Constitution. Now, converging back to the issue of logically interpreted intent: what i mean by this is that, in the present day, individuals posses many differing beliefs and religions/religious sects, and thusly the government must be fair to all, in order to ensure that civil liberties are equally proportioned among all citizens. In order to achieve this, the government must tolerate all religions, as the founding fathers accepted, and they must not officially support one religion, even though the founding fathers most likely advocated the Christian dogma. Thus, i do agree with the author of the blog concerning the intent of the founding fathers, but in order for the current system of equality and democracy to function within the state, the religion clauses must be interpreted in such a fashion as to inhibit the state from religious affairs, ensuring that all people will be given the right to freely exercise their beliefs, without the state dictating one central religious doctrine. Then, with respect to school prayers, the religious freedom of choice should be upheld by those who choose to participate, but the state should not interfere in the activities, lest they diverge from the Constitution, but it should most certainly exercise a check on them so that the boundary between church and state is not crossed.