Define the establishment clause explain how the question of prayer in public schools is affected by this clause

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment  

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  

These opening words of the First Amendment to the Constitution set forth a dual guarantee of religious liberty. Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause operate to protect the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of all Americans. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court has stated that the Establishment Clause was intended to accomplish this end by erecting a "wall of separation between Church and State." Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).

If you decide to pray alone then that’s fine but if a teacher or person of authority in the school leads the prayer, you may decide not to follow along. If no one complains then it shouldn’t be an issue but if for some reason a student feels like the school or figure of authority is prioritizing one religion over the other then Jurisprudence may determine that the right is being infringed.  

Explanation:

The Establishment Clause is a limitation upon the United States Congress which prevents it from passing legislation establishing a state religion, making it illegal for the government to promote a specific religion and taxing.  

The establishment clause also includes, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and petitions.  

Jurisprudence will help us understand all the important cases on the establishment clause which states congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  Jurisprudence demonstrates how the Supreme Court reasons its way through prayer in public schools.  

Whether it is legal to pray in school depends on the context. If you decide to pray alone then that’s fine but if a teacher or person of authority in the school leads the prayer, you may decide not to follow along. If no one complains then it shouldn’t be an issue but if for some reason a student feels like the school or figure of authority is prioritizing one religion over the other then Jurisprudence may determine that the right is being infringed.  

A very important Supreme Court decision is called Lemon v. Kurtzman, from 1971. Right off the bat, the Lemon decision is a little complicated because it combines two sets of facts, although they both involve public money and parochial schools.  

In one case in Rhode Island, the state was using taxpayer funds to pay teachers in parochial schools in an effort to educate Rhode Island children, which is generally a good goal.  

In the other case in Pennsylvania, the state was paying teachers in private schools to provide secular education services.  

The Supreme Court in Lemon vs. Kurtzman devised a three-prong test to see if the state law violates the First Amendment religious freedom clauses. Under the first prong, the Court looks to see whether the law in question has a secular legislative purpose.  

In this case, the purpose of the law was educating children, which you remember, is one of the powers reserved to the states, and for the most part, is a secular purpose.  

Under the second prong, the Court examines whether or not the law's principal or primary effect neither enhances nor inhibits religion.  

Here again, the Court found that paying private school teachers or using private school facilities did not necessarily promote religion or prevent students from worshipping as they wanted to.  

The third prong requires that the law under consideration does not create excessive entanglement between a church and the state.  

This is the one where both the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania laws got into trouble. In Rhode Island, the school buildings where the children were learning were full of religious imagery, and two-thirds of the teachers were nuns.  

The Court paid close attention the fact that the people involved were kids, ruling, "This process of inculcating religious doctrine is, of course, enhanced by the impressionable age of the pupils in primary schools particularly. In short, parochial schools involve substantial religious activity and purpose."  

In Pennsylvania, the problem was different. The Court ruled that in order to make sure that the teachers were not teaching religion, the state would have to monitor them so closely that it would be excessive entanglement and give the state way too much control.  

They ruled that, "The very restrictions in surveillance necessary to ensure that teachers play a strictly non-ideological role give rise to entanglements between church and state."

architecture i think.

i hope this !