Should Texas Government Control Prayer Rooms In Public Schools?

“Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order” Reynolds v. United States (1878). The First Amendment to the United States Constitution includes different clauses one of those clauses is free to exercise religion. Over the years, the topic whether how much religion should be discussed or exercise in public school has been criticizing. Many controversies about religion in public schools, the most hear about is teaching the bible; the controversy is how can teachers teach students about the bible without violating their First Amendment and how relevant is the bible to their school curriculum. Another controversy should all students daily recite the Texas Pledge of Allegiance in the morning and can they opt out from practicing. There are many stories about parents and students against practicing the pledge of allegiance; there was a story about an eighth grader in Lewisville, Texas who didn’t want to participate in the pledge of allegiance because of religious and political reasons. Her teacher wanted her to stand up and participate; she even yelled at her student when she attempted to sit down, this action violated her First Amendment no one can prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Praying in public schools has also been a controversy throughout the years. In the United States, public schools are banned from conducting religious observances such as prayer.

              Recently Liberty High School in Frisco, Texas recently made headlines when the Texas Attorney General sent a letter raising constitutional concerns about a prayer room to the Frisco Superintendent. For many years, this classroom has been used for prayers, students can freely express their religion, and it’s open to all students. The Frisco Independent School District has said it didn’t violate any state or federal laws by having a prayer room and that the room is open to students of all faiths. Prayer rooms are just one-way public schools in Frisco and across Texas accommodate students and religion.  So why should the Texas Attorney General interfere with the Frisco Independent School District if they aren’t violating the first amendment?

The schools in Frisco are allowing students to express their freedom of exercise religion. Before the prayer room in schools were establish many students would leave school to go pray, sometimes up to two hours. Many students would exercise their freedom outside of school, so the schools decide it would be a great idea having a classroom dedicated to practicing your religion. Students can go during lunch or between classes. I believe that everyone should express their religion; our government shouldn’t influence decision from the schools. Having a prayer room in school is a great idea, it allows students to feel comfortable and spiritual. Prayer room saves money for the schools; because when a student doesn’t attend class it causes money, having the prayer room saves tax dollars. Texas government should consider prayer room in all schools; the prayer room could be a great opportunity to learn respect and also learn from other cultures because this classroom lets everyone practice their faith. The Texas Attorney General believes that the prayer room could be violating our constitution but no one is trying to make all students go to the prayer room is more as an option to attend. The students have a place where no one criticizes them or tries to influence them with religion.  We should respect everyone’s belief and practice. We can’t let our government dictate us on when or where we can practice our religion. We were born with our supreme laws and no one can take them away from you.

Commentary: Grits for Breakfast Blog

Scott Henson aka Grits is the author of the blog “The Grits for Breakfast,” in this recent blog “Why Grits still opposes a Texas texting ban” he writes about his feeling towards texting ban laws.  Grits feel that the government is creating stricter laws for distracted drivers who are utilizing their phones while driving, so the government can make money by issuing tickets. Grits mention that San Antonio police gave out 12,000 tickets for texting while driving, $200 each fine; in total, they raise about $2.4 millions in fines. So now law enforcement can do more traffic stops in order to make more money. He feels that he would cause more problems than solution. He provides evidence from a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that shows the increasing number in crashes in the state who had texting bans. This week, the legislation up in the Texas House Transportation Committee would decision on new texting ban laws; Grits isn’t in favor. He doesn’t approve texting while driving, but he thinks that anyone shouldn’t get stop randomly because they may have their phone next to them not texting receive a fine for it. I believe Grits has evidence to support this argument, I think he speaks for everyone. I agree with everything he said, sometimes we have our phone next to us and we may not use it, but cops can’t see what you're doing they just assume your texting base of your driving or your head position. I recommend everyone to read this blog it’s really good.