Lone Star College
The Engel v Vitale Court Case
The Skirmish of Religion in Public Schools
Guadalupe Juarez
Federal government
Professor McLendon
20 June 2018
The Engel v Vitale Court Case
The Skirmish of Religion in Public Schools “A New York State law required public school’s to open each day with the Pledge of
Allegiance and a non-denominational of prayer in which the student recognized her dependence upon God” (Facts and Case Summary). The court case Engel v Vitale has to do with the “separation of church and state” implicating that’s there should be a detachment between the people’s view on religious freedom and government. Engel v Vitale was a case that was involved in litigation by the parents of students who
…show more content…
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 …show more content…
The School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp was a decision that did not forbid the reading of the Bible in a public school what was illegal was the required readings of the Bible as a religious exercise. Many religious leaders and other people similar to those have said that the government “have taken God out of schools!” but in reality they didn’t they just have forbidden religious exercise that break the First and Fourteenth Amendment. The government has a neutral ground that they do not intend to be contrary towards religion or to aid in establishing worldly or secularism in the schools. The government did not prohibit the Bible reading as an independent or individual act by teachers or students. There is no illegal action for students to be disallowed to bring a Bible to school and read it silently during their spare time. Also a teacher should have the same freedom. Prayer and the reading of the Bible are both very personnel acts of worship. Reading the Bible can be taken in private and public places because it is a private act which is most significant to a person. The religious intention of the Bible reading is a form of communication between God and a person on earth. When the Bible reading becomes an empty ritual, it decreases the influence or effectiveness of the communication. The
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 appeals court decision came almost 40 years to the day after the Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. In that case, the court ruled it unconstitutional for public schools to allow prayer, even though the prayer was non-denominational and students were allowed abstain from the exercise. When
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
The Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe stated that student-led/ student-initiated prayer at high school football games violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. The Baptist religion was promoted in the Santa Fe Independent School District in Texas, which is located between Galveston and Houston. A teacher handed out flyers for a “revival meeting” which involved reading the bible and other Catholic things. They offered prayer up to God at graduations, assemblies, and football games. One mormon student and mother filed suit against the school district. Also, one catholic student and mother filed suit against the school district. Their lawsuit involved that the Establishment Clause was violated many times. They did not
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.
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
The prayer was, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country” (Oyez 1). The state of New York approved the prayer, and the prayer was nondenominational. Children whose parents did not want them to recite the prayer did not have to participate, and were excused; reciting the prayer was voluntary. Therefore, the prayer was not mandatory and was supposed to serve as a purpose of moral education only for those who wanted to acknowledge God as the source of all blessings. However, New York Lawyers argued that the prayer offended the Establishment Clause, suggesting that the state of New York was officially approving a religion by approving the prayer. This action eventually led to the Supreme Court ruling the prayer as unconstitutional. With the success of ruling Engel v. Vitale unconstitutional, the case set a precedent for many more court cases in which the Supreme Court used the Establishment Clause as a jurisdiction for removing religious practices in public schools.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional.
In conclusion, I believe that the decision made in the Supreme Court case of Engel v. Vitale was correct. Although this case was the springboard for many of the more radical ideas of the likes of Madlyn Murray O’Hare, this case did uphold the ideas and beliefs of America’s Founding Fathers. Many have made the dispute over school prayer out to be a point of division in our nation. Yet the majority believes religion should be a part of our school systems. According to an article by John C. Green and James L. Guth, a “1983 Gallup poll found 81% of the “aware” public favoring a
Vitale (1962) Holding: School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment. In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities. The case was brought by a group of families of public school students in New Hyde Park, New York, who complained that the voluntary prayer written by the state board of regents to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs. Led by Steven Engel, a Jewish man,[1] the plaintiffs sought to challenge the constitutionality of the state's prayer in school policy. They were supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including rabbinical organizations, Ethical Culture, and Jewish organizations. The acting parties were not members of one particular religion; despite being listed in the court papers as an atheist, plaintiff Lawrence Roth later denied that and described himself as religious but uncomfortable with prayer.[2] The five plaintiffs were made up of three Jews and two self-proclaimed "spiritual" people who did not belong to any one organized religion. The prayer in question
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
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.
After a five year court battle, the courts ruled that the public school districts cannot let students lead crowds in prayer before football games. The reasoning was because the prayer is happening on government land at school sponsored events, that they are pushing the constitutional requirement that separates church from state.
Prayer plays such a big role in many people’s lives. It happens each and every day and multiple times throughout the day. Even though it can play a huge role in someone’s life, it cannot be practiced in schools. Prayer in school has been a very controversial topic for many years. According to Steven K. Green, “On June 25, 1962, the United States Supreme Court decided in Engel v. Vitale that a prayer approved by the New York Board of Regents for use in schools violated the First Amendment by constituting an establishment of religion (Green 1).” It has since then been taken out of school preventing teachers to preach or teach about religion.