In the early 1950s, the New York Board of Regents twice recommended that school boards of the state approve a new resolution that would call for the reading of the Pledge of Allegiance, along with a prayer, in classrooms before the before the start of the day. The prayer did not specify any certain faith, but required the students to recognize their dependence on an “Almighty God”. By July of 1958, the Union Free District Number 9, Town of North Hampstead, adopted a resolution that stated the “Regent’s Prayer” would be recited in the school daily. The Board of Education for this school stated they were not violating any individual rights because of the non-denominational nature of the prayer, and because a student could be excused from the prayer if they had the approval of their parents. However, these concessions did little to appease those opposed to the resolution. One of the parents opposed was Steven Engel, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit to come. In fall of 1958, Engel visited his son’s school, and saw his son during the recitation of the prayer with his head bent down and hands clasped together. As this is not the traditional Jewish way of prayer, Engel was upset to see that is son had been praying in a fashion that was not accepted by their Jewish faith. Engel, along with four other parents, decided to file a suit against the school with the New York State Court on the basis that the use of an official prayer in the school conflicted with the personal beliefs, religions, and religious practices of themselves and their children. Although supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, the plaintiffs were not immediately successful. Their case was met with three losses, first in the New York Supreme Court in 1959, then in the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in 1960, and in 1961, the Court of Appeals, the highest court of New York. Finally, the case was brought before the United States Supreme Court in 1962, where the judges voted six to one in favor of Engel with two abstaining from the decision. In the case, the plaintiffs argued that state laws that required or permitted the use of the Regent’s prayer should be struck down, as they were composed by government officials as part of a government program in an attempt to further religious beliefs, violating the Establishment clause of the First Amendment if the United States Constitution. The Court judges concurred, with the majority saying that while the resolution allowed students to excuse themselves from the prayer, it did not make the law constitutional, because the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent any government interference with religion whatsoever. Religious beliefs in the United States are diverse, so the government should not endorse any particular religion because of the probability of alienating others.
…show more content…
Emphasized the court’s ruling was not against religion, but sought to protect an individual’s religious freedom from government intrusion.
Religion should be left to the people themselves and those the people look to for spiritual guidance.
A broader stance on the establishment clause should be taken, and any type of public promotion, including giving financial aid to religious schools, violates the clause.
The only dissent came from Justice Stewart, who argued that the establishment clause was only meant to prevent the creation or adoption of a state-sponsored church, not to prohibit all types of government involvement with religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp, similar case to Engel v. Vitale happened in 1963.
Pennsylvania enacted laws that required, in effect, that the Holy Bible be read without comments, at the opening of each public school on each school day.
Like the public school in New York, students could be excused with the written consent of their parents. The Schempp family, of Unitarian faith, filed a lawsuit, believing their rights were and would continue to be infringed upon unless the statute were declared unconstitutional, as it violated the First Amendment. Bible reading were contrary to the religious beliefs the family held. The father of the Schempp family believed that excusing his children would not be satisfactory, as it might negatively affect their relationships with both their
Emphasized the court’s ruling was not against religion, but sought to protect an individual’s religious freedom from government intrusion.
Religion should be left to the people themselves and those the people look to for spiritual guidance.
A broader stance on the establishment clause should be taken, and any type of public promotion, including giving financial aid to religious schools, violates the clause.
The only dissent came from Justice Stewart, who argued that the establishment clause was only meant to prevent the creation or adoption of a state-sponsored church, not to prohibit all types of government involvement with religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp, similar case to Engel v. Vitale happened in 1963.
Pennsylvania enacted laws that required, in effect, that the Holy Bible be read without comments, at the opening of each public school on each school day.
Like the public school in New York, students could be excused with the written consent of their parents. The Schempp family, of Unitarian faith, filed a lawsuit, believing their rights were and would continue to be infringed upon unless the statute were declared unconstitutional, as it violated the First Amendment. Bible reading were contrary to the religious beliefs the family held. The father of the Schempp family believed that excusing his children would not be satisfactory, as it might negatively affect their relationships with both their