*Engel v. Vitale*, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_decision> United States Supreme Court <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States> case that ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer> and encourage its recitation in public schools <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(government_funded)>. The case was brought by a group of families of public school students in New Hyde Park, New York <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Stephen Engel, a follower of Judaism <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism> ,[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale#cite_note-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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture>, and Judaic organizations.
n an opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black>, the Court ruled that government-written prayers were not to be recited in public schools and were a violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. This was decided in a vote of 6-1. The Court explained the importance of separation between church and state by giving a lengthy history of the issue, beginning with the 16th century in England. It then stated that school's prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of it being a prayer, and that prescribing such a religious activity for school children violates the Establishment Clause. The program, created by government officials to promote a religious belief, was therefore constitutionally impermissible. The Court rejected the defendant's arguments that people are not asked to respect any specific established religion; and that the prayer is voluntary. The Court held that the mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. The Court further held that the fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough not to promote any particular religion is not a sufficient defense, as it still promotes a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which still violates the Establishment Clause. Subsequent jurisprudence[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engel_v._Vitale&action=edit§ion=3> ] *Engel* became the basis for several subsequent decisions limiting government-directed prayer in school. In *Wallace v. Jaffree <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_v._Jaffree>* (1985), the Supreme Court ruled Alabama's law permitting one minute for prayer or meditation was unconstitutional. In *Lee v. Weisman <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman>* (1992), the court prohibited clergy-led prayer at middle school graduation ceremonies. *Lee v. Weisman*, in turn, was a basis for *Santa Fe ISD v. Doe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe>* (2000), in which the Court extended the ban to school-organized*student*-led prayer at high school football games. When Robert E. Lee, the principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence, Rhode Island <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence,_Rhode_Island>, invited a Jewish rabbi to deliver a prayer at the 1989 graduation ceremony, the parents of student Deborah Weisman requested a temporary injunction seeking to bar the rabbi from speaking. The question being review was whether or not this was constitutional. When the Rhode Island district court <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._District_Court_for_the_District_of_Rhode_Island> denied the Weismans' motion, the family did attend the graduation ceremony, and the rabbi did deliver the benediction. After the graduation, the Weismans continued their litigation, and won a victory at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The school district appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the prayer was nonsectarian and was doubly voluntary, as Deborah was free not to stand for the prayer and because participation in the ceremony itself was not required. Arguments were heard on November 6, 1991, and many court watchers thought that Justice <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_Justice> Anthony Kennedy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy>, who had been critical of the Court's decisions on school prayer, would provide the crucial fifth vote to reverse the lower court's ruling and deal a major blow to the twin separationist pillars of *Engel* and *Abington*. Decision[edit <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_v._Weisman&action=edit§ion=2> ] The 5-4 decision was announced on June 24, 1992. It was a somewhat surprising victory for the Weismans, with Justice Kennedy, far from joining the conservative bloc that favored rolling back restrictions on school prayers, writing the majority opinion that preserved previous Supreme Court precedents that sharply limited the role that religion could play in the nation's public schools. The Blackmun <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun> papers reveal that, as in *Planned Parenthood v. Casey <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey>*, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Kennedy switched his vote during the deliberations, saying that his draft majority opinion upholding the prayer exercise "looked quite wrong." Instead, Kennedy wrote an opinion that, while carefully circumscribed, squarely repudiated the school district's main arguments. He found much wrong with Principal Lee's decision to give the rabbi who was planning to offer the graduation invocation a pamphlet on composing prayers for civic occasions: Through these means, the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers. Even if the only sanction for ignoring the instructions were that the rabbi would not be invited back, we think no religious representative who valued his or her continued reputation and effectiveness in the community would incur the State's displeasure in this regard. It is a cornerstone principle of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence that it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government, and that is what the school officials attempted to do. 505 U.S. 577, 588 (citation omitted). Kennedy also noted that the nonsectarian nature of the prayer was no defense, as the Establishment Clause forbade coerced prayers in public schools, not just those representing a specific religious tradition. Addressing the State's contention that attendance at the graduation exercises was voluntary, Kennedy remarked that To say a teenage student has a real choice not to attend her high school graduation is formalistic in the extreme. True, Deborah could elect not to attend commencement without renouncing her diploma; but we shall not allow the case to turn on this point. Everyone knows that, in our society and in our culture, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions. A school rule which excuses attendance is beside the point. Attendance may not be required by official decree, yet it is apparent that a student is not free to absent herself from the graduation exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary," for absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years. 505 U.S. 577, 595. Finally, in answering the argument that participation in the prayer was itself voluntary, Kennedy formulated what is now known as the coercion test: The school district's supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction. A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it. And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting. Since adolescents are often susceptible to peer pressure, especially in matters of social convention, the State may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use direct means. The embarrassment and intrusion of the religious exercise cannot be refuted by arguing that the prayers are of a *de minimis <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis>* character, since that is an affront to the rabbi and those for whom the prayers have meaning, and since any intrusion was both real and a violation of the objectors' rights. 505 U.S. 577, 505 U.S. 577, Syllabus.The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause> does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by *theEstablishment Clause <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause>*. It is beyond dispute that, *at a minimum*, the Constitution *guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."* 505 U.S. 577, 587 (citations omitted and emphasis added).As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools. Our decisions in [Engel] and [Abington] recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy. 505 U.S. 577, 592 (citations omitted). The coercion test is now used, in addition to the Lemon test <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test> and Justice O'Connor's "endorsement or disapproval" test <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsement_test>, to determine the constitutionality under the Establishment Clause of certain government actions. The test "seeks to determine whether the state has applied coercive pressure on an individual to support or participate in religion."[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman#cite_note-2> Justice Blackmun's concurrence stressed that "our decisions have gone beyond prohibiting coercion, however, because the Court has recognized that 'the fullest possible scope of religious liberty,' entails more than freedom from coercion." 505 U.S. 577, 606 (citation omitted). Blackmun emphasized that even if no one was compelled, directly or indirectly, to participate in a state-sponsored religious exercise, the government was still without power to place its imprimatur on any religious activity. Justice Souter devoted his concurring opinion to a historical analysis rebutting the contention that the government could endorse nonsectarian prayers. He cited the writings of James Madison <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison> and pointed to the changing versions of the First Amendment <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution> that the First Congress considered as opposed to the version it eventually adopted. Souter, too, took issue with the school district's defense of non-coercive religious exercises, dismissing the position as without precedential authority. Justice Scalia's dissent argued against the coercion test: In holding that the Establishment Clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the Court - with nary a mention that it is doing so - lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school graduation ceremonies themselves, and that is a component of an even more longstanding American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally. As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the Court invents a boundless, and boundlessly manipulable, test of psychological coercion... 505 U.S. 577, 632. Scalia pointed to several historical examples of calling on divine guidance by American Presidents, including Washington's proclamation of the Thanksgiving holiday in 1789 and the inaugural addresses of both Madison and Thomas Jefferson <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson>. He disputed the Court's contention that attendance at high school graduation ceremonies was effectively required as part of social norms, and also the conclusion that students were subtly coerced to stand for the rabbi's invocation. In Scalia's view, only official penalties for refusing to support or adhere to a particular religion created an Establishment Clause violation. A broad reading of the Establishment Clause won out, but it seems to have its greatest current application in a public school context. The Court has ruled against the separationist position in several key funding cases since *Lee*, including the school voucher <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher> case, *Zelman v. Simmons-Harris <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris>*, 536 U.S. 639 (2002). However, a majority of the Court continues to maintain a strict ban on most forms of state-sponsored religious exercises in schools themselves, as evidenced by the 6-3 ruling in *Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_District_v._Doe>*, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), which struck down student-led prayers before public school football games. On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:08:27 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Yes, I am aware of who initially sued.....Do you? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:02 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I have no problem with the 10 Commandments being on the Alabama >> Courthouse, >> --- >> do you know who sued to have them removed? >> >> (as they are on our Supreme Court building) because that is a part and >> parcel of our heritage and culture. >> --- >> wrong ... America was created as a secular nation. >> >> >> I think it's equally wrong to ban all prayer from a school. >> --- >> do you know who sued to have prayer banned? >> or from singing xmas songs at plays during the holidays? >> or holding flagpole prayers before or after school? >> or handing out bibles to students? >> >> Today, there is controversy before a team plays a football game and >> prays. Or if a Pastor gives a benediction before any type of school >> event. Again, it is a part and parcel of our culture. >> --- >> correction ... it WAS part and parcel until ... well, you'll have to >> figure that one out for yourself. >> >> You're more than welcome not to participate, but to prevent such an act >> from happening at an event is misplaced. >> --- >> sorry ... American is a secular nation and so are our institutions. >> >> So are fat misguided buffoons who rail against Christianity and our >> society. >> --- >> we know who sued to take your precious religious sacraments out of the >> government and it's institutions. >> some don't forget. >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 2:52:53 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> I have no problem with the 10 Commandments being on the Alabama >>> Courthouse, (as they are on our Supreme Court building) because that is a >>> part and parcel of our heritage and culture. Islam is not. >>> >>> I think it's equally wrong to ban all prayer from a school. Today, >>> there is controversy before a team plays a football game and prays. Or if >>> a Pastor gives a benediction before any type of school event. Again, it is >>> a part and parcel of our culture. You're more than welcome not to >>> participate, but to prevent such an act from happening at an event is >>> misplaced. >>> >>> So are fat misguided buffoons who rail against Christianity and our >>> society. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:46 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Aabsolutely not. >>>> --- >>>> good. >>>> >>>> I just don't have a lot of respect for a fat buffoon trashing >>>> Christians. >>>> --- >>>> if it were muzzies promoting an islamic theocracy or jews promoting a >>>> judaic theocracy they would receive the same treatment ... but it's not >>>> the >>>> muslims or the jews, it's xians. >>>> >>>> it wasn't the muzzies who had prayer removed from the schools or the 10 >>>> commandments removed from an Alabama courthouse. >>>> How soon some forget. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 1:13:08 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Aabsolutely not. >>>>> >>>>> I just don't have a lot of respect for a fat buffoon trashing >>>>> Christians. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:59 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> are you prepared to govern America as a christian theocracy? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 12:40:36 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I got as far as Fat Boy's introduction. What an asshole. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:36 PM, plainolamerican < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF_n7RtHZ1A >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 9:19:32 AM UTC-6, KeithInTampa >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Joe Dan Gorman and Intellectual Froglegs' 17 February 2016 Show; >>>>>>>>> and it's a Good One! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/12/11/yes-unfortunately-ted-cruz-did-support-trans-pacific-trade-deal-tpa-with-video/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Most definitely worth a watch! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>>>> For options & help see >>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>>> >>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
