Engel V. Vitale 1962 370 Summary

Religion is one of the most controversial issues in society today. The concern of allowing prayer in schools is an on-going debate and has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Religious school clubs, after school activities, curriculums, and moments of silence during school are just a few of the court cases that judges have administered. People in favor of prayer in schools believe that their children can only learn certain values through religious practice. On the other hand, an individual against religious practice in schools views this issue as an infringement on his or her children’s rights as Americans.

The case of Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).

They stated that religion unifies many people and puts faith into America. The State believed that the prayer would help bring out the spiritual side of children. The parents argued that the prayer quite simply violated the first amendment, the separation of church and state and requires that the government stay out of the business of prescribing religious activities of any kind. They argued that because not all students shared the same religious beliefs, the public schools should not be a place to preach religion, and believed that religious freedom of the students was being corrupted by providing time during school for prayer. The State rebutted that the prayer was completely optional, therefore was constitutional; if the prayer was against a child’s religion, or if they simply did not want to they did not have to take part in the prayer. A case very similar to this one took place rather recently. An excerpt from the pledge of allegiance states “one nation, under God.” A parent of a child attending pleaded that having said words in the pledge of allegiance is in violation of the Establishment Clause, and took it to the Supreme Court, this is the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. The Court's decision was that the excerpt did not violate the constitution because it is a symbol of our heritage and it is a

Abington School District v. Schempp is a 1963 Supreme Court Case that challenged religious prayer and teachings in Pennsylvania public schools. The Pennsylvania law made it a requirement for schools in all districts to read from the Bible (at least 10 verses) every day before class began. There was also a clause included in the state action that allowed for any child to be excused from the reading with specific permission from their parent or guardian. The question that this case asks is if it is unconstitutional for public schools to mandate children to partake in Bible teachings and practices before classes began. The reason this case was heard in front of the Supreme court is because the Abington School District wanted to reverse an earlier decision by a district court. The district court decided in favor of the Schempp family and found that forced prayer in public schools, even with an opt out clause, still violates the Constitution under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Once the case was heard in front of the United States Supreme Court, eight out of the nine justices agreed with the previous district court’s ruling and found that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

A couple of the families were Jewish, another family was atheist, one parent was Unitarian and the last parent was of an ethical culture society. The Parents were to believe that the school was violating the first amendment of the constitution and this was not right; that according to Thomas Jefferson there should be a separation of state and church. Never before had the public school board been argued against with prayer like issues ( Haas, pg 7-20).

In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.

A public school in New York during the start of each school day started with the Pledge of Allegiance and followed by a nondenominational prayer. The New York state law also allowed students to skip the prayer if found offensive. A parent of a student attending this school sued deeming the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Supreme Courts majority rule (8-1) claimed YES the public school sponsored prayer violates Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even with allowing students to skip the prayer, it was still considered unconstitutional. This case is important because Chief Justice, Earl Warren states that school sanctioned prayers, including any type of public promotion of religion, violates the Establishment

Intro- about 10 ten years ago, in the year 1951,the New York Board of Regents approved a “Quote” “nondenominational prayer”. It was 22 words long and The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of parent in New Hyde Park, New York Steven Engel was a parent in New Hyde Park, New York. He and a group of other parents objected to the daily speaking of the prayer, even though it was voluntary, at the start of each school day. Steven Engel and his group of supporting parents sued William Vitale, the president of the local school board. The parents reasoning was that this optional prayer didn’t align with the views of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The establishment clause states quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Originally, the Establishment Clause was only added to the Constitution to keep the federal government from establishing a national religion.

The case was about a group of students’ families in New York state. They complained about the voluntary prayer written by the state about the Almighty God. They stated that the prayers were contradicted their beliefs. The plaintiff led by Steven Engel, which is a Jewish, and the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the state's prayer in school policy. ("Engel v. Vitale." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 May 2017.) The parents were arguing that the prayer violated the law of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.("Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale." United States Courts. N.p., n.d.

A few other main talking point in this case, brought up by the majority, are that religion is very important to many American people and since there is no way to cover all the religions of Americans, the prayer should stay out of the government establishment, that violence like wars and other destructive events has happened when other governments tried to involve themselves in religious affairs, and the government involving in religion can mess with their sense of authority. The public may see less of a government official if they choose to use religion in their professional work. All these point made it easy to make the decision that the New York law was unconstitutional and prayer could not be involved in the schools curriculum ("Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale"). This case and many other court cases that are centered around religion violation in public school are often based off of certain aspects, beliefs, facts , and problems in the schools or the community.

The issue of school prayer is not one of religious freedom, as it is already legal for children to pray in school, either individually or in groups. Since the Engel decision in 1962, religious advocates have been assailing the Supreme Court for "taking God out of the classroom." In an effort to reverse this trend, conservative religious groups have been fighting for the passage of a school prayer amendment to gain greater leeway for religious activities in schools.

The ruling of the court was that the Regents prayer was violating the constitutional clause and there was a 6-1 ballot or vote by the majority. It was also said that by using the prayer in the public school as a recitation by the New York Regents, was inimical with the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution because the use of the Almighty God is religious. Moreover, it was held that the constitution clause is an interpretation to show that religion is for the individual and personal and should not be recognized in a civil way. To support the ruling the Supreme Court, assumed that the prayer was too brief to lay any exposure or danger that it would be wrong since the same kind of capability to exclude all other religions from it could eventually be used to create a religion that could reject all other denominations. The agreement was not anti-religious but moderately, it sought to affirm the separation between the church, and the government, and supplementary said that neither sides, the church nor government had a legitimate to propose an official prayer for any precise group. The Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe is analogous to the Engel v Vitale court case because it describes a prayer being recited before a football game instead of a classroom. “Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe High School's student council chaplain delivered a

Public schools are put in place to educate students tempt them into religious acts that were not chosen upon them individually, the judicial outlook of the matter is the courts find that prayers being set upon in schools is inappropriate and unconstitutional, the presidential outlook from (Murray v. Curlett) explains that students coming into school should not start the day with a prayer and should have neutrality, the executive’s feel that the practice of religions in schools singles out the kids who do not participate in religions at home and should be rethought altogether. Each branch separately has issues with the out coming of religion being shown so freely in public schools and can see the concerns worried parents may have about it, but the dispute seems so easily brushed off that even the laws passed behind it seems almost nonchalant.

Procedures from the U.S. department of Education constitutionally protecting prayer and beliefs in public k-12 schools are mandatory. In the early 2000’s, a school in New York was subject to discrimination because a kindergarten student completed a poster project that was censored by the teacher for religious themes. The family claimed it was a violation of the establishment clause, and freedom of speech by inhibiting the religious expression of the poster. The teacher claimed to have instructed the students to create a poster project based on the information covered in the class, though the parents were not informed of this. Therefore, this was not a justified claim to inhibition of religious freedom or freedom of speech. The project should not have included any religious themes that the student