Engel v. Vitale
From Free net encyclopedia
| Revision as of 19:11, 17 April 2006 Hydriotaphia (Talk | contribs) rev vandalism ← Previous diff |
Current revision Hydriotaphia (Talk | contribs) rev vandalism |
Current revision
| Engel v. Vitale | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.png Supreme Court of the United States | ||||||||
| Argued April 3, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||
| Government-directed, denominatially neutral and non-mandatory prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. | ||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Law applied | ||||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. I |
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is relatively non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. This was decided in a vote of 6-1, with Justices Frankfurter and White unable to vote.
The case was brought by the parents of students who complained the prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs and was supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including Madalyn Murray O'Hair's American Atheists . The prayer in question was:
- Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.
The plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer (even if students are not required to recite it) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth), which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The governments of twenty-two statesTemplate:Fn signed on to an amicus curiae brief urging affirmance of the New York Court of Appeals decision that upheld the constitutionality of the prayer. The American Ethical Union, the American Jewish Committee, and the Synagogue Council of America each submitted briefs urging the Court to instead reverse and rule that the prayer was unconstitutional.
Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, pointed out that the prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of its being a prayer. The majority further ruled that prescribing such a religious activity for school children is inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. That is, the program was created by government officials to promote a religious belief and therefore not permissible.
In response to the defendant's claims that: (a) the prayer does not respect any specific established religion; and (b) the prayer is voluntary, Black's opinion held that neither of these claims frees it from contradicting the Establishment Clause. The opinion held that the fact that it promotes a religion is sufficient to conclude it is in violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. Furthermore, the opinion held that the fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough to not promote any particular religion is not a sufficient defense, as it does still promote a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which is also a violation of the Establishment Clause.
See also
Notes
- Template:Fnb The amicus curiae was joined by the attorney generals of Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia.
External links