The following are compelling reasons to oppose any changes in the first amendment to allow for state-sponsored public prayer.

• Silent public prayers and the formation of religious clubs are already constitutionally protected . Consequently, there is no need to amend the first amendment to permit individual religious practices. in the public arena that the federal court system has long held to be constitutional.
• We agree with the President that a massive public education effort must be undertaken so that all public officials, particularly public school faculty and administrators. understand the parameters of constitutionally protected forms of religious expression. Too many Americans have come to the conclusion, based largely on inadequate information and deliberate misinformation, that public gatherings must be totally devoid of any religious activity. The educational campaign will enable all of us to enjoy more fully our considerable religious liberties without limiting the rights of religious minorities.
• Even the participation of students in so-called student initiated group prayers is not voluntary. Unless every student in the group voluntarily consents to the prayer(an unlikely possibility given the religious diversity of America),k some minorities will be compelled either to participate against their will or face public ignominy by leaving the room. The state should not place even one student in the extremely unpleasant position of having to choose between these two options.
• Some proponents of an amendment have equated the oppression that religious minorities will experience if the amendment is ratified with the typical adolescents' embarrassment about their hairstyle, acne or general appearance. This is an outrageous and offensive analogy that greatly minimizes the consequences of religious intolerance.
• Group prayers in the classroom, at graduation ceremonies, and during other public settings would make the state the final arbiter of the nature and content of these prayers. Since the public school system would have to approve all group prayers, including student delivered prayers, it would take on the influential position of legitimizing certain prayers, while invalidating others. This is a responsibility and privilege that the state should not posses.
• America is far too diverse for any school district to create a meaningful prayer that would not exclude some students' religious heritage. Either the prayer would include all the traditions represented in the classroom and therefore be virtually devoid of meaning or it would single out one tradition the exclusion of all others.
• Despite the claims of the religious right, the authors of the first amendment , particularly James Madison, were keenly aware of the need to preserve religious liberty for the multiplicity of established religious traditions. They recognized that the establishment of an official church or religion represented a form of coercion and jeopardized the central element of faith in these traditions. Moreover, as they appreciated from their own experiences, state sanction of one religion would severely restrict the freedom of all other traditions.
• State sponsored prayer would infringe upon parental rights to determine the religious upbringing of their children.
• Most mainline Protestant denominations, Jewish traditions, and other religions of America vehemently oppose the proposed changes to the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause. These include:
• National Council of Churches
• United Methodist church
• The Baptist Joint Committee (representing nine of the largest Baptist denominations)
• Episcopal Church
• Reform Conservative and Orthodox Judaism (The Union of American Hebrew Congregation, The Rabbinical Assembly, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America)
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• resbyterian church (USA)
• General conference of Seventh Day Adventists
• United Church of Christ
• Menonite Central Committee
• American Baptist Churches, USA