Jean Decety and colleagues assessed altruism┬áand moral cognition in six countries. ┬áParents in religious households reported┬áthat their children expressed more┬áempathy and sensitivity for justice in┬áeveryday life. However, religiousness was┬áinversely predictive of childrenÔÇÖs altruism┬áand positively correlated with their┬ápunitive tendencies.

Prosocial behaviors are ubiquitous across societies. They emerge early in ontogeny

The current language of the Pledge of Allegiance as written in our federal laws states, ÔÇ£I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.ÔÇØ

Forty-four states have laws that require public school classes recite the Pledge of Allegiance or mandates to school districts to set aside time for its recitation. Three of the six states without these laws have bills in their legislature to add required recitation. Children who attend public school from Kindergarten through 12th grade hear that we are a nation, ÔÇ£under GodÔÇØ over 2,000 times. Although the Supreme Court said students cannot be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in violation of a sincerely held religious belief, a daily recitation declaring the nation is, ÔÇ£under GodÔÇØ sends the┬ámessage to students that the government endorses theistic religion and non-theistic students are outsiders to patriotism.

History and tradition, often cited as support for religious references in government action, support a Pledge of Allegiance without the words, ÔÇ£under God.ÔÇØ Neither the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, nor the version Congress recognized in 1942 as the official national pledge of the United States, contained any reference to God.ÔÇØ ÔÇ£Under GodÔÇØ was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 after the Knights of Columbus, the worldÔÇÖs largest Roman Catholic fraternal organization, persuaded members of both houses of Congress that the suggested religious reference would combat the threat of communism.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION:┬áThe Pledge of Allegiance should be returned to its original form, as the inclusion of ÔÇ£under GodÔÇØ in the daily patriotic school exercise isolates non-theistic students, or unfairly and unnecessarily compels them to comply.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional attempts to inject prayer or other forms of devotional practices into public schools. The Establishment Clause forbids school-sponsored prayer. Classroom prayers and Bible readings are unconstitutional, even if students are excused from participating. Inclusion of prayer as part of the official school program gives government power over religion. Even supposedly neutral prayers privilege religion over non-religion and are unacceptable.

Public school teachers and administrators must remain neutral concerning religion while carrying out their duties. It is unconstitutional for teachers or school employees to pray with or out loud in the presence of students or to encourage religious activities in school. Teachers and other school officials have no individual First Amendment right to use their official positions to proselytize in school.

Public schools cannot include invocations or benedictions at graduation ceremonies, regardless of who delivers the prayer. It does not matter whether or not attendance at the graduation ceremony is voluntary, since the pressure for students to attend this milestone event is effectively coercive. School-sponsored prayers at other school events, including athletic events, are likewise unconstitutional, even if the prayers are student-led.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: As representatives of the government, teachers and administrators may not lead students in prayer; however, the right of a student to voluntarily engage in a non-disruptive private prayer has never been infringed.

Public schools must teach science, not religion, in science classes. Laws banning teaching evolution are unconstitutional. ÔÇ£Balanced TreatmentÔÇØ laws that require teachers to give ÔÇ£creation scienceÔÇØ or ÔÇ£Intelligent DesignÔÇØ equal classroom time to evolution are equally unconstitutional.

Because of consistent federal court defeats, creationists no longer approach policymakers using ÔÇ£creation scienceÔÇØ terminology, but Biblical teaching must stay out of our public school science classrooms however it may be rebranded. If government-funded schools teach creationism, the government appears to endorse Bible-based religion, trampling on the principles of separation of religion and government.

The controversy of the teaching of evolution is a political one, not a scientific one. Evolution is a sound and basic scientific principle that belongs in every stateÔÇÖs science curriculum and textbooks.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: Public schools and schools funded with taxpayer money should teach the scientifically undisputed principle of evolution.

Students deserve sex education programs that provide the information and skills necessary to make informed, responsible, and healthy decisions to reduce unintended pregnancy, partner-on-partner violence, STIs and HIV. Sex education in publicly funded schools must be medically accurate and free from religious influence. Abstinence-only sex education is religiously motivated and ineffective. Eighty-eight percent of students break their abstinence pledges. Two-thirds of high school students have had sex.

Comprehensive sex education leads to a measurable reduction in early sex, unprotected sex, and number of sexual partners.

Abstinence-only programs lead to no measurable reductions in early sex or number of sex partners, and lead to a measurable increase in unprotected sex. American youth deserve medically sound sex education programs that address their needs.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: All students should receive non-biased, medically accurate sex education through programs that give them the tools to make informed decisions concerning their sexual and reproductive health irrespective of their religious affiliation.

Non-theist, secular student groups are entitled to the same rights and protections as other extra-curricular student groups.

At the college level, non-theist groups occasionally face harassment, discrimination, and limitations on available funding and other resources. Public colleges and universities are obliged to protect the first and fourteenth amendment rights of students.

In secondary schools, secular student groups are protected by the Equal Access Act, which ensures that all student groups are treated equally and enjoy equal access to resources. Public institutions of higher education must also remain viewpoint-neutral toward religion and other ideologies, in providing resources for student groups. Non-theist student groups deserve equal access and protection.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: All students and student groups, regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs, should be treated equally, enjoy equal access to institutional resources, and protections on campuses.

Public funds should not support parochial schools, either directly or indirectly through voucher programs. Vouchers provide citizens with direct funding to apply to private school tuitions. Scholarship funds and other tax deduction programs fund private religious institutions indirectly by allowing taxpayers to claim tax credits on their personal income taxes, reducing the amount paid to the state and shifting the money to the private school of the taxpayerÔÇÖs choice. Both programs allow for the public funding of religious educations. Seventy-six percent of private schools in America have a religious affiliation, serving 80 percent of private school students; ┬áthus, vouchers are primarily subsidies for religious schools. In 2001, in Zelman v Harris, a closely divided Supreme Court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to vouchers. The Secular Coalition believes Zelman was wrongly decided and stresses that the Court ruled only on the constitutionality of voucher programs, rather than their wisdom or unintended consequences in a pluralistic nation.

Private schools receiving public funds through voucher programs are not subject to all federal civil rights laws and do not face the same public accountability standards public schools must meet, including those in Title IX, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act. Although a portion of publicly funded vouchers pay for staffing costs, private school employment practices are not subject to anti-discrimination laws.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION: Taxpayer money for education should never fund a religious education or religious education institution.