Parents who support school prayer also favor arming teachers

A new sociological analysis suggests that American parents who advocate for teacher-led prayer in public schools also tend to favor specific types of security measures to prevent school shootings. These parents are more likely to support arming teachers and installing metal detectors compared to parents who oppose school-sponsored prayer. The research appears in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion .

Following the tragedy of a school shooting, public discourse in the United States often fractures into two distinct camps regarding prevention. One side typically advocates for structural or policy-based changes. These often include banning specific types of firearms or expanding mental health screenings. The opposing side frequently focuses on infrastructural interventions. These proposals usually involve increasing the number of armed personnel in schools or hardening the physical security of the buildings.

Simultaneously, a subset of American political and religious leadership often frames these events not as a failure of policy, but as a spiritual failing. This narrative suggests that the removal of religious observance from public education has left a moral vacuum. Proponents of this view argue that this vacuum invites chaos and violence.

Samuel L. Perry and Andrew L. Whitehead conducted this research to investigate the relationship between these two seemingly distinct debates. Perry is a sociologist at the University of Oklahoma, and Whitehead is a sociologist at Indiana University Indianapolis. They sought to determine if a parent’s desire for religion in schools predicts their preferred method for stopping gun violence.

The researchers drew upon the theoretical framework of Christian nationalism. This ideology posits that American civic life should be fused with a specific expression of Christianity. Previous scholarship indicates that adherents to this worldview often perceive a need to defend their social order against encroaching chaos.

Free daily newsletter

Within this framework, violence is not always viewed negatively. Instead, it can be seen as a tool for maintaining order. The concept of “righteous violence” suggests that the appropriate response to a “bad guy with a gun” is a “good guy with a gun.” Perry and Whitehead hypothesized that parents who want to return prayer to classrooms would also support solutions that introduce more firearms into the hands of authority figures.

To test this theory, the authors analyzed data from the American Trends Panel. This survey was fielded by the Pew Research Center in the fall of 2022. The sample included over 3,400 parents of children under the age of 18. The survey is nationally representative, meaning it accurately reflects the broader population of American parents.

The survey asked parents to evaluate the potential effectiveness of various strategies to prevent school shootings. One category of solutions was structural. This included banning assault-style weapons and improving mental health screening. The second category was infrastructural and gun-centric. This included allowing teachers and administrators to carry guns, stationing police or armed security in schools, and installing metal detectors.

Parents also answered questions regarding their views on prayer in public education. They chose between three options. The first option was that teachers should not be allowed to lead students in prayer. The second was that teachers should be allowed to lead Christian prayers, provided other religions are also included. The third was that teachers should be allowed to lead Christian prayers even if other religions are excluded.

The analysis revealed a clear pattern regarding infrastructural solutions. Parents who supported teacher-led Christian prayer were more likely to believe that arming school personnel would be effective. This held true regardless of whether they wanted exclusive Christian prayer or inclusive prayer. These parents also expressed greater support for installing metal detectors and stationing police in schools.

The researchers found that the specific type of prayer support did not matter as much as the general desire for prayer. Parents who favored “inclusive” prayer held views on school safety that were statistically indistinguishable from those who favored “exclusive” Christian prayer. The primary dividing line was between parents who wanted some form of teacher-led prayer and those who rejected it entirely.

The study did not find a strong statistical link between support for prayer and opposition to structural policies like weapon bans. Initially, it appeared that prayer supporters were less likely to support bans. However, once the researchers accounted for political conservatism, that association largely disappeared. This indicates that opposition to gun bans is driven more by political ideology than by views on school prayer.

The researchers observed that political ideology interacts with these views in specific ways. Among parents who identified as conservative, support for armed security measures was consistently high. This was true regardless of their stance on prayer.

In contrast, parents who identified as liberal showed more variation. Liberal parents who opposed school prayer were very skeptical of armed security. However, liberal parents who supported school prayer were more open to these gun-centric measures. This suggests that for some on the political left, religious views may bridge the gap toward more conservative security policies.

The authors argue these findings illustrate a worldview where spiritual and physical defenses are intertwined. For parents who see school shootings as a result of moral decay, policy fixes like background checks may seem insufficient. Instead, they appear to favor a dual approach. This approach combines the spiritual protection of prayer with the physical protection of armed authority figures.

This perspective aligns with the rhetoric often used by politicians who champion Christian nationalist ideals. The study quotes several leaders who explicitly connect the absence of prayer to the presence of violence. For example, the authors cite North Carolina politician Mark Robinson. Robinson suggested that if a prayer vigil had occurred before a shooting rather than after, the violence might not have happened.

The preference for metal detectors among this group is also notable. The researchers suggest this fits a narrative of external threat. Metal detectors operate on the assumption that danger comes from the outside. They are designed to catch “bad guys” at the door. This differs from mental health screenings, which imply that the danger might be internal or systemic.

There are limitations to this study. The data used is cross-sectional. This means it captures a snapshot of public opinion at a single moment in time. Consequently, the researchers cannot definitively prove that wanting prayer causes a person to want armed teachers. It is possible that a third, unmeasured factor drives both opinions.

Additionally, the survey did not ask parents directly why they preferred certain solutions. The researchers inferred the connection to “righteous violence” based on previous sociological theory. Future research could benefit from asking participants to explain the reasoning behind their policy preferences in their own words.

The authors also note that while the study focused on Christian prayer, the dynamics could be different for other religious groups. The current data did not allow for a robust analysis of parents from non-Christian backgrounds. Exploring how Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu parents view these trade-offs represents a potential avenue for future inquiry.

Despite these caveats, the research provides a new lens for understanding the stalemate in American gun politics. It suggests that for a large segment of the population, the debate is not merely about the Second Amendment or school safety statistics. It is also about a deeper cultural and theological understanding of order, protection, and the role of religion in public life.

The authors conclude that proposals to arm teachers are part of a broader cultural narrative. This narrative perceives school shootings as a symptom of a godless society. In this view, reintroducing prayer is seen as a necessary step to restore moral order. Arming teachers is seen as the necessary physical enforcement of that order.

The study, “Gun Problem or God Problem? Support for Teacher-Led Prayer in Public School and Solutions for School Shootings,” was authored by Samuel L. Perry and Andrew L. Whitehead.