York's Establishment Of Its Regents Prayer example essay topic

SUMMARY Engle vs. Vitale was the first case brought to the Supreme Court that used the establishment clause to remove religious activities that until this point had been used as a part of public observances. The First Amendment bars any enforcement of any law "respecting an establishment of religion" and the Fourteenth Amendment makes this applicable to the States. For that reason, state officials can not write an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools, even if the prayer is nondenominational and students who wish to remain silent or be excused are allowed to do so during the recitation of the prayer. The parents of ten students brought this issue to the New York State Court maintaining that the use of the official prayer in the public schools was "contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children". The question that was reviewed by the Supreme Court of The United States was whether New York overstepped the boundaries when they financed a religious exercise. The New York Court said that "the prayer given does not conform to all of the tenets of the Jewish, Unitarian, and Ethical Culture groups.

The Supreme Court ruled that, though the prayer was nondenominational and students had the option of whether or not to recite the prayer and not be penalized for failure to do so, the state of New York and the school board had violated the Constitution of the United States and the rights of the students attending the public schools. Though many Americans still disagree with the verdict of the court, the ruling still stands today. OPINIONS The opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Black. The Court said: "Shortly after the practice of reciting the Regents' prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of ten pupils brought this action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children.

The New York Court of Appeals, over the dissents of Judges Dye and Full, sustained an order of the lower state courts which had upheld the power of New York to use the Regents' prayer as a part of the daily procedures of its public schools so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection. We granted certiorari to review this important decision involving rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments". The court continued by saying, "We think that by using pubic school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious; none of the respondents has denied this.

The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with the contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country 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". The Court concluded by saying, "There can be no doubt that New York's state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regents' prayer. The respondents' argument to the contrary, which is largely based upon the contention that the Regents' prayer is non-denominational and the fact that the program, as modified and approved by state courts, does not require all pupils to recite the prayer but permits those who wish to do so to remain silent or be excused from the room, ignores the essential nature of the program's constitutional defects. It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate hostility toward religion or toward prayer.

Nothing, of course, could be more wrong. It is true that New York's establishment of its Regents' prayer as an officially approved religious doctrine of that State does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others - that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago". The dissenting opinions were given by Justice Stewart. He said, "A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their teachers, and their country. The Court today decides that in permitting this brief nondenominational prayer the school board has violated the Constitution of the United States. I think this decision is wrong.

The Court does not hold, nor could it, that New York has interfered with the free exercise of anybody's religion. With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an official religion is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation". He continued by saying, "At the opening of each day's Session of this Court we stand, while one of our officials invokes the protection of God.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer. Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has upon assuming his Office asked the protection and help of God. The Court today says that the state and federal governments are without constitutional power to prescribe any particular form of words to be recited by any group of the American people on any subject touching religion. In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In 1952, Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer. Since 1865, the words IN GOD WE TRUST have been impressed on our coins. Countless similar examples could be listed, but there is no need to belabor the obvious. It was all summed up by this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being".

Justice Stewart concluded by saying, "I do not believe that this Court, or the Congress, or the President has by the actions and practices I have mentioned established an official religion in violation of the Constitution. In addition, I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation - traditions which come down to us from those who almost two hundred years age avowed their firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave new world". CONCLUSION Though the Bill of Rights would not allow a State or the Federal Government to adopt an official prayer and penalize anyone who would adhere to the recitation.

However, there was no proof that the state of New York gave anyone no option but to recite the prayer. I disagree with the courts decision. Though I do agree that the Church and State should be separated, I believe that the fact the students had the right to remain silent, which is a protection of their rights, indicates that there was no attempt to establish a "state" religion. Perhaps if there was a daily prayer said at the commencement of each school day in every state, there would be less violence and drugs in school. Even if only one person said the prayer, prayer is a powerful thing. I would have no objections to my student being invited to participate in a daily, non-denominational prayer to begin their day.