A bill has been presented by over one hundred members of the House of Representatives called the "Religious Freedom Amendment." This bill would permit prayer and other religious expression on public property. However, it will not become mandatory. The bill officially promises:
             "To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people's right to pray and to recognize their religious belief, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. The government shall not require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, initiate or designate school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."
             There has been much opposition to this bill. Those who oppose argue that this bill is not constitutional due to the guarantee of separation between church and state. However, this argument is not valid. The bill wouldn't force students to conform to a religion that they are not a part of, it would allow students who do participate in such practices to do so as they pleased, and not feel that they have to fit their religion into a set of rules. In fact, this bill would simply be an extension of the First Amendment, the right to freedom of speech.
             Prayer should be allowed in schools. If somebody wants to be able to speak freely about what is on his or her mind, the First Amendment allows him or her to, pending it doesn't put anyone around them in danger of physical harm. Right now, there are many restrictions placed on the practice because Supreme Court Judges, who (being appointed rather than elected) don't even really represent the people, decided that a single objector to religious speech would be able to censor the rest of the student body. This is unfair also at the opposite end of the spectrum. When pious peoples are the minori
             ...