A great illustration of why organized, faculty-led prayer in public school is not a good thing to do. "An anti-Semitic Easter cartoon", a Chattanooga Times Editorial, contains this paragraph:
"Regardless, the cartoon merits use as an object lesson for everyday life. National and local leaders at all levels -- political, civic, corporate, educational and institutional -- often display stunning insensitivity to Jews and people of other faiths through their presumptions, thoughtless or otherwise, in religious references. In public functions here, for example, many people lead group prayers that are needlessly exclusive of other faiths. Regardless of the presence of Jews, Hindus, Muslims or others, they pray in the name of "our Lord Jesus Christ," rather than "my" Lord. Many never pray to a universal God. President Bush on Thursday welcomed our liberated EP-3 aviators home from China in time "for Easter," probably without knowing if any crew members were Jews who instead observed Passover."
In June of 1999, the Rutherford County Steering Committee voted 7-0 on a Hamilton County Resolution to ask the state's legislators in Washington, DC. to try and get a constitutional amendment passed 'bringing back' prayer in school.
There was two stories in the local print media Monday, June 7 1999 concerning prayer in school. The Tennessean had a story where local high school students of high standing commented that by a large majority they felt student-led prayer in school is fine and needed. That day's DNJ had a story concerning a speaker addressing the county commission's steering committee on the speaker's prayer-in-school initiative.
Why is prayer-in-school a bad thing? Read an AP wire story in that same DNJ titled "Mission aims to draw Jews to Christianity". Catholic, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish and any of other's followers are parents who pay taxes for public schools. Schools they want their children to attend but be insulated from the religious leanings of faiths not of their own.
A Brief History of Engel vs. Vitale, The case that really began the issue of the Separation of Church and State. In our Linebaugh Library there is a wonderful book written for the younger folks. It is one of a series of books on Landmark Supreme Court Cases. The one I will be referring to is Dewey Decimal System number 344.7307 titled Engel vs. Vitale, Separation of Church and State, written by Carol Haas.
Much like our local county's wheel tax history, there is a lot of 'incorrect' memories and beliefs around the nation's "stand" against prayer in school. Most folks believe and will tell you the ACLU is to blame. The truth of the matter is that as early as 1921, with the case of a California family objecting to a folk-dancing class they felt violated their children's religious beliefs, Parents have asked for and used the laws available to demand protection from religious doctrine in their children's Public schools. In 1947, fifteen years before Engel vs. Vitale decision was reached, a taxpayer by the name of Everson sued his local government in New Jersey because it allowed county tax revenue to be used to pay for buses that was then used to transport kids to both a public school and a PRIVATE school. Parents had raised funds to buy the buses and the government paid them back with money from taxes.
In 1948, Vashti McCollum of Champaign, Illinois, was unhappy because the public school her son attended received religious instruction once a week from local clergy during school hours in the classroom. Her son and others wishing to be excused from such instruction had to attend study hall elsewhere in the building. Mrs. McCollum sued the state of Illinois, arguing her and other's tax money were being spent on religious classes. The Supreme Court agreed with her in the landmark case McCollum vs. Board of Education In 1952 Zorach vs. Clauson, dealt with a similar issue, just off school property. Students were dismissed from school during school hours to receive religious instruction.
This led up to Engel vs. Vitale. In the early 1950's the School Board of New Hyde Park, New York adapted a Regent's Prayer: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our county." The Board of Regents created the twenty-two word, eight second, prayer to encourage stronger moral values in the classroom. Sound familiar in the context of our recent history? The Regents felt they were in the right because they felt that:
Five Parents with a total of ten children in the New Hyde Park School District found the prayer so offensive they filed a lawsuit against the school board. The objecting parents had varied religious backgrounds. Two were Jewish, one was Unitarian, one was a member of the Ethical Culture Society and the fifth was an atheist. The parents argued that the school prayer violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits the government from passing laws establishing a religion. One of the parents were named Engel. The school board chairman was William Vitale, JR. Cases are 'named' after the plaintiff and defendant in alphabetical order, so this one became known as Engel vs. Vitale.
County Commissioner and Steering Committee Member Carol Cook made a comment tonight during the steering committee meeting that our county was founded on religious freedom. She was about 'half-right'. Settlers from England and Europe made the trek across the Atlantic and founded Our county was for freedom from religion, specifically the Church of England. Another Steering Committee Members, Jerry Baxter made a comment that everyone should be able to pray to the 23rd Psalm, that everyone knows "God's Prayer". As a 'summer assignment' JD and I checked out "The World's Religions, Understanding the Living Faiths" by Reader's Digest, with consulting editor Dr. Peter B Clarke from our Linebaugh Library. This book is numbered 291 in the Dewey Decimal System. Our research shows most religions other than Christianity do not have a 23rd Psalm.
Separation of Church and State was an idea embraced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They believed there should be a wall between government and each person's own private religious beliefs. They believed the two should NEVER overlap. The phrase "wall of separation" was first used by Thomas Jefferson. He used it to explain why, as president, he could not declare a national religious day of fasting. A religious ceremonial day approved by the Federal Government would cross over that wall of separation between church and state.
The original Constitution passed in 1788 mentioned religion just once. Article VI states "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States." Many of the writers of Our Constitution sensed that, as written, the Constitution would not fully protect many of the liberties they and others had fought so hard to achieve. An agreement was reached. Delegates would pass the Constitution, a Preamble and seven articles, if amendments were added later to precut personal freedoms.
James Madison wrote twelve amendments, ten of which were adapted in 1791 and became Our "Bill of Rights". Freedom of religion was the very first freedom in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The amendment contains sixteen simple words: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, they are vague and can mean different things to different people. These vague words leave us all, including the Supreme Court, with many questions. What constitutes the establishment of religion? What is an abridgment of or decrease in our freedom of religion?
The Bill of Rights is short and simple. It was intentionally designed to be flexible and open to interpretation. The Founding Fathers did not want to predict what society would be like in the decades and centuries to follow. By not making hard-and-fast rules, they have allowed each Justice of the Supreme Court to make his or her own decision on what is Constitutional at the particular moment in time they are deliberating.
The guarantee of religious freedom in the First Amendment is made of two parts. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another or from sponsoring a specific church or religion. The Free-Exercise Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that place burdens on individuals because of their religious beliefs. The two clauses are often in conflict. Together they state no religion can be supported, but none can be inhibited or stifled either. It became the Supreme Court's job the balance the two clauses.
The Supreme Court had to look at two different things when trying to interpret the Constitution and Engel vs. Vitale. First, what was the intention of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Keep in mind public education did not even exist when the Constitution was written. Second, the Justices had to consider whether the intent of the Founding Fathers would fit in the current society. Over 200+ years, the number of different religions had increased and beliefs had become more varied. Justice Brennan noted in 1963, "practices which may have been objectionable to no one in the time of Jefferson and Madison may today be highly offensive ... to the deeply devout and the non-believers alike."
Imagine every school day beings with a prayer over the intercom and then announcements. Participation is not required but you decide that prayer in school goes against the way your were raised or what you believe. You have three choices:
The Engel plaintiffs felt that options one and two were not options at all. They deny your basic right to freedom of religion and leave you no choice of religious instruction. The third option is far worse because it draws attention that you are 'different' from others. One Engel parent placed an ad in the Nassau County newspapers asking for other parents to join them in their suit and about fifty other parents joined in.
Several organizations wrote 'friend of the court' brief in support of the Engel plaintiffs, among them the ACLU and the Synagogue Council. Nineteen state Attorney Generals also submitted briefs in support of the Engel side. The initial suit was in 1959 in the New York Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court ruled in favor the the school board but instructed the board to make suitable arrangements for students preferring not to participate. The parents then petitioned the United States Supreme Court who agreed to hear the case.
The New York State Board of Regents voted unanimously in favor of the twenty-two-word prayer Regent's Prayer in 1951.
June 25, 1962 - The Vote The Justices announced they ruled in favor of Engel 6-1. Justice Potter Stewart voted for the school board, Justice Byron White decided not to vote because he was a new appointee and Justice Felix Frankfurter was ill.
Justice Black wrote the majority opinion. He wrote, "The Regent's Prayer was unconstitutional because it involved the government's singling out a particular religious practice and "placing its official stamp of approval" on it. This was a direct contradiction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The government was never given the power to support any religious activity. The mistreatment of citizens in sixteenth-century England in the name of religion was evidence of the conflict such support could create. The court agreed that compared to the role in religion over two hundred years ago in England, the prayer was insignificant. But the Court argued it was still a violation of a citizen's rights, regardless of the prayer's length or importance. Even though it took only 30 seconds or so of a teacher's day, that teacher's salary was still paid by public monies. In response to prayer supporters arguing no student was forced to prayer, Justice Black responded with Any time government places its power, prestige and financial support behind a particular religious belief, the belief is no longer voluntary.
The Court's decision in 1962 took Americans by surprise. Newspapers were flooded by angry letters from readers. Members of Congress and clergy all said the decision shocking and tragic. North Carolina Representative Roy A. Taylor wasted no time in suggesting a constitutional amendment. Representative L. Mendel Rivers of South Carolina accused the Court of "officially stating a disbelief in God Almighty" by their decision. Evangelist Billy Graham said he was shocked and disappointed in the decision, calling it "a most dangerous trend". He added that if it were "followed to its logical conclusion, prayers can not be said in Congress, chaplains will be taken from the armed forces and the president will not place his hand on the Bible when he takes the oath of office." These predictions did not come true. The Catholic Church saw nothing positive about the decision but Jewish leaders applauded it.
Congressional reaction to Engel vs. Vitale was strong and swift. New York Republican Congressman Frank J. Becker called it the most tragic decision in the history of the United States. He immediately introduced a constitutional amendment that would allow voluntary prayer in government or public schools. He introduced another amendment a year later when the Court ruled that Bible-reading was not permitted in schools.
The House Judiciary Committee was chaired by Emanuel Celler from Brooklyn, New York. He was opposed to religion in schools. In fact when he learned of the Engel vs. Vitale decision, he said the Court had no other choice but to ban prayer as it violated the First Amendment. The House Judiciary Committee held eighteen days of hearings. The committee heard testimony from religious leaders, politicians and lawyers. Public response was overwhelming. It is believed the primary cause of defeat of Becker's amendment was the more than 220 constitutional law professors who argued that amending the Bill of Rights was unconstitutional. They maintained the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to provide basic fundamental rights without interference from elections and majority votes. Attorney Leo Pfeffer of the Synagogue Council commented "if you open the door for constitutional amendments because a particular decision at a particular time is unpopular, the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights to ride out periods of passion will have been destroyed."
By the end of the congressional session of 1964, one hundred and fifty-one resolutions supporting prayers had been introduced by one hundred and fifteen legislators from the House of Representatives. The Senate introduced eleven of their own. In 1966, Senate Majority Leader Everett L. Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois, introduced a voluntary prayer amendment. His version specifically prohibited a government officer from dictating what was to be included in the prayer. The two-thirds vote need to pass the amendment fell nine votes short. A powerful petition drive in 1971 rekindled interest and Ohio Congressman Chalmers Wylie introduced another amendment, but it failed by twenty-eight votes.
In middle Tennessee or Northern Alabama your son or daughter will be in a class dominated by Southern Baptist and Church of Christ's. But imagine you are transferred to New York City. Would you be so gung-ho for school prayer if 87% of your children's classmates are Orthodox Jews? Or you are moved to Boston. You son's classroom now contains 85% Catholic and Hail Marys are said in Latin every morning. How much in favor of prayer-in-school would YOU be then?