FIRST AMENDMENT: FREEDOM OF RELIGION
This activity explores the line between religion and public schools with a focus on the Supreme Court case Engel
v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Students will examine the question: Is school-sponsored prayer in public schools
unconstitutional?
About These Resources
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free
Exercise Clause. Learn more about these clauses in First Amendment and religion.
Analyze the facts and case summary for Engel v. Vitale.
Build arguments for both sides, starting with these talking points.
Use critical thinking skills and share reflections on the discussion questions.
Compare Engel v. Vitale to similar cases.
How to Use These Resources
This activity is a modified Oxford style debate.
1. To get started, have participants read theEngel v. Vitale facts and case summary.
2. Assign student attorneys to the issues listed in the talking points. They are suggested points– not a script–
for the debate. Student attorneys are encouraged to add their own arguments.
3. All other students are jurors who deliberate (and may refer to these talking points) during the open floor
debate. They debate among themselves in the large group or smaller groups and come to a verdict after the
attorneys present closing arguments.
FIRST AMENDMENT AND RELIGION
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise
Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of
"establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of
England.
Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist
religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor
inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice
does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v.
Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children
whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding
interest in protecting public health and safety.
Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to
resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.
Check out similar cases related to Engel v. Vitale that deal with religion in schools and the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment.
FACTS AND CASE SUMMARY: ENGEL V. VITALE
Facts and case summary for Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
School-sponsored prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.
FACTS A New York State law required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of
Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their
dependence upon God. The law allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if
they found it objectionable. A parent sued on behalf of his child, arguing that the law
violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the
states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
ISSUE Whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
RULING Yes (8-1)
REASONING The majority, via Justice Black, held that school-sponsored prayer violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The majority stated that the provision
allowing students to absent themselves from this activity did not make the law
constitutional because the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent government
interference with religion. The majority noted that religion is very important to a vast
majority of the American people. Since Americans adhere to a wide variety of beliefs, it is
not appropriate for the government to endorse any particular belief system. The majority
noted that wars, persecutions, and other destructive measures often arose in the past
when the government involved itself in religious affairs.
CONCURRENCE Justice Douglas
In his concurrence, Justice Douglas took an even broader view of the Establishment
Clause, arguing that any type of public promotion of religion, including giving financial aid
to religious schools, violates the Establishment Clause.
DISSENT Justice Stewart
Justice Stewart argued in his dissent that the Establishment Clause was only meant to
prohibit the establishment of a state-sponsored church, such as the Church of England,
and not prohibit all types of government insolvent with religion. In particular, he found that
the nondenominational nature of the prayer and the "absentee" provision removed
constitutional challenges.
TALKING POINTS
Question:
Is school-sponsored, nondenominational prayer in public schools unconstitutional?
Engel (Student) Vitale (State)
1. Does nondenominational, school-sponsored prayer force religion on impressionable children?
Affirmative. Yes.
Although the government may have a legitimate
interest in certain religious matters concerning
adults, e.g., providing chaplains to the military or
to prisoners on death row, there is a difference
when the government involves itself with
religious matters concerning children. Children
are particularly impressionable, and school-
sponsored prayers may lead such children to
embrace a religion that neither their parents nor
they would otherwise choose.
Negative. No.
The prayers prescribed for recitation before the beginning of
class are short and nondenominational in character. There is
no lengthy discussion as to what they mean. They simply
recognize the country's dependence upon God. Theological
discussions are not held in the classrooms of these schools.
Such discussions are left to religious instruction classes
outside of the public schools, which parents may or may not
wish their children to attend. There is no way that such a short
prayer can be considered enough to "coerce" an
impressionable mind into accepting a particular faith.
2. Does school prayer that is nondenominational constitute governmental interference in religion?
Affirmative. Yes.
The First Amendment does more than just
prohibit the establishment of an official state
religion, e.g., the Church of England.
Recognizing the importance of religious beliefs
to those who hold them, the Amendment is
meant to prohibit any governmental interference
with religion. Any prayer, even if it is
nondenominational, may still be offensive. On
the one hand, they might not be in conformity
with the tenets of a given religion. On the other
hand, devout persons might feel that these
prayers trivialize religion. It is simply not the
government's job to become involved in
religious affairs.
Negative. No.
The First Amendment does not prohibit every interaction
between government and religion. By providing for a
nondenominational prayer, the state was very careful to choose
a prayer that was mindful of the many diverse beliefs of those
who attend New York's public schools. The prayer simply
acknowledges dependency on and appreciation of a divine
being, God. Adherents to all faiths can interpret this provision
in light of their own faith traditions. Even if a person were an
atheist or an agnostic, that individual does not have to say the
prayer. If anyone feels strongly opposed, that person may be
excused. A nondenominational prayer of this sort, without
adherence to any particular creed, is not the same as a
government "establishment" of religion.
3. Does nondenominational prayer in schools have an adverse impact on religion?
Affirmative. Yes.
The First Amendment was enacted to prohibit
the government from becoming involved in
religion. A brief overview of history shows that
governments have often manipulated religion to
achieve political goals, and, in doing so, often
have oppressed nonconformists. Moreover,
government involvement in religion may
adversely impact religion because it involves
temporal authorities imposing their views on a
Negative. No.
The mere use of a nondenominational prayer can hardly be
equated with the type of governmental interference with religion
that, historically, was responsible for the oppression of
dissidents and an adverse impact on religion itself. The prayer
at issue does not even conform to any one creed, but is aimed
at being acceptable to all. Therefore, it does not seem logical
to say that the prayer can adversely affect religion. Since this is
the extent of the government's "interference," certain "slippery
slope" arguments do not seem applicable.
matter that is not their area of expertise.
Religion benefits when the government is left out
of it.
4. Is the option to leave the classroom or remain silent during a prayer a false choice that could have
negative consequences for students who do not participate?
Affirmative. Yes.
The school prayer at issue in this case is not
saved because of the absentee provision. The
First Amendment protects absolute, not
qualified, rights. The Amendment forbids
government interference with religion. The
Amendment cannot allow this interference and
then permit violators to get around it by allowing
objectors to remove themselves. Moreover,
those who remove themselves may be subject to
ridicule and forced to feel shame for their
actions.
Negative. No.
Even if some students are strongly opposed to the prayer in
question, the state shows respect for that students' rights by
allowing the students to be absent from the room during the
prayer. Students also may remain silent during the prayer if
they feel that leaving would subject them to ridicule. The
majority of people in the State seem to be in favor of the
prayer, so it would seem unfair for a minority of persons who
oppose it to inflict their will on the majority, especially when the
State has already provided means to protect the rights of
dissenters in these cases.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Use these questions to start thoughtful discussion on the issue of religion in schools.
1. Where is the line between religion and public schools?
2. Where do school-sponsored prayers fit in, and is the practice of praying at school constitutional if the prayer
is nondenominational?
3. What if students are allowed to remain silent or leave the room during the prayer?
4. Is school-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional?
SIMILAR CASES
The following cases are related to Engel v. Vitale and focus on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Providing bus rides to parochial school students is constitutional.
The School Board of Iwing Township allowed its buses to transport children to a Catholic school. The Supreme Court rejected an
Establishment Clause challenge to this practice, and held that the School Board was merely providing a financial benefit to the children
and their parents, and was in no way promoting religious beliefs that are associated with the parochial school.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
School-sponsored Bible reading before class is unconstitutional.
A Pennsylvania law required that each school day open with the Pledge of Allegiance and a reading from the Bible. The law permitted
students to absent themselves from this activity if they found it objectionable. Citing Engel, the Court held that school-sponsored Bible
reading constituted government endorsement of a particular religion, and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.
Westside Community Schools v. Mergers, 496 U.S. 226 (1990)
Public schools may not prohibit student religious groups from meeting on school grounds after hours.
Westside School District prevented a student religious club from meeting on its property after hours, citing First Amendment concerns.
The club argued that the school's action violated their Free Exercise rights and the federal Equal Access Act. The Equal Access Act
was passed by Congress to ensure that any school receiving federal funds could not prevent religious and other groups from using
school property after hours. The Supreme Court upheld the Equal Access Act against an Establishment Clause challenge, saying that
"neutrality" and no "hostility" to religion is all that is required by the First Amendment.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
Students may not use a school's loudspeak er system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer.
Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and
spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events
was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A
majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially
sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action was school-sponsored prayer because
the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.
Zelma v. Simmons Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)
Certain school voucher programs are constitutional.
The Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program allowed certain Ohio families to receive tuition aid from the state. This would help offset the cost of
tuition at private, including parochial (religiously affiliated) schools. The Supreme Court rejected First Amendment challenges to the
program and stated that such aid does not violate the Establishment Clause.
