Question

The supreme courts ruling in Engel v. Vitale did what

Answer 1

Engel v. Vitale was a challenge to the practice of prayer in public schools, on the grounds that the prayer violated some students religious traditions. The US Supreme Court held that the state of New York could not authorize or mandate public school prayer because the practice violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This decision ruled prayer in public schools unconstitutional.

More Information

In the early 1960s, the Board of Regents for the state of New York, the official government body overseeing public school education for the state, composed a non-denominational prayer to be recited at the beginning of each day by the principal, teachers and students of the New York public school systems. The Regents' intent to introduce a certain amount of religious and spiritual indoctrination was clear in the text of the prayer:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."

Soon after the schools introduced the prayer, parents of ten students in the Union Free School District No. 9, in New Hyde, New York, petitioned the state courts for injunctive relief against public prayer on the grounds that praying to "Almighty God" was a violation of their religious beliefs.

The trial Court upheld the Board of Regents' mandate, but ordered accommodations be made for students who were uncomfortable participating:

"This is not to say that the rights accorded petitioners and their children under the 'free exercise' clause do not mandate safeguards against such embarrassments and pressures. It is enough on this score, however, that regulations, such as were adopted by New York City's Board of Education in connection with its released time program, be adopted, making clear that neither teachers nor any other school authority may comment on participation or nonparticipation in the exercise nor suggest or require that any posture or language be used or dress be worn or be not used or not worn. Nonparticipation may take the form either of remaining silent during the exercise, or, if the parent or child so desires, of being excused entirely from the exercise. Such regulations must also make provision for those nonparticipants who are to be excused from the prayer exercise. The exact provision to be made is a matter for decision by the board, rather than the court, within the framework of constitutional requirements. Within that framework would fall a provision that prayer participants proceed to a common assembly while nonparticipants attend other rooms, or that nonparticipants be permitted to arrive at school a few minutes late or to attend separate opening exercises, or any other method which treats with equality both participants and nonparticipants."

The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the lower court ruling, and the case was appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Decision

By a vote of 6-1*, the Supreme Court held that the Board of Regents' creation of a prayer, although reasonably neutral and non-denominational, was a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the opinion of the Court, Justice Black explained the Founding Fathers' concern that allowing any intermingling of church and government could lead to a form of tyranny that infringes the rights of those whose beliefs are different from the vocal majority. The Court held that religion was in no part the business of government.

"The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. That same history showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith. The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate."

Justice Black went on to explain that the purpose of the First Amendment was not to destroy religion, but to protect the citizens from the religious tyranny the English had experienced at the hands of the state, and that the Colonists had determined to escape. In closing he quoted the author of the First Amendment, James Madison:

"[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_US_Supreme_Court_case_Engel_v._Vitale_about

Answer 2

Thank you! Do you think you could help me with like 3 more

Answer 3

Just make another thread