Engel V Vitale

As well as the lawsuit filed by Alton Lemon, this incident involved two other cases that fell under the same issue, Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DisCenso. Both conflicts involved a state law passed, through the Non- public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968, by the state of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. This act gave the government permission to fund religious based or parochial schools. Although the schools provided textbooks and instructional materials for secular subjects, a Pennsylvania instructor believed that this act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Lemon argued that that by providing this money

At first, Engel’s case was refused by Justice Bernard S. Meyer because he concluded that school prayer did not interfere with the public’s rights under the First Amendment. Later with the time, Engel did not give up on the case and took it to the Supreme Court instead of the New York Court of Appeals where it was reviewed for the second time. Finally, on June 25, 1962, the final decision was given and it declared the law unconstitutional (“Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale” 1). The opinion of the court was 6-1 in were six of them were concurrence and one of them dissented (Skelton 1). The author of the people who were concurrence was William Orville Douglas. Douglas and the other five of them supported Engel and the parents because they agreed that the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause were being violated; even if students were excused from performing the prayer. Most of the court also believed that“not every religion recognizes a God, so some are necessarily excluded even with this wording” (Skelton 1). In a national survey by the Nation’s School journal, it was found that “...50 percent of school administrators returning the questionnaire wanted the Engel decision reversed ; 48 percent of them supported it” (Dierenfield

The Court case Engel v. Vitale originated in a New York school where students and their parents felt their rights were being violated when the school implemented a mandatory prayer. Five decades later, Engel continues to be reviled by a good number of televangelists and politicians who take every opportunity to rail against the “godless public schools.” Eliminating school-sponsored prayer, they argue, set America on the road to moral and spiritual

Notаbly absent from the opinion, as it was in Plessy, is any citаtion to a Supreme Court cаse that considered whether the prаctice of segregating schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Аmendment. It was an open question for the Court.

Starting in kindergarten, we have allocated thirty seconds of every morning to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I remember hearing the announcement to do the Pledge, and sighing because I had to stand and perform this seemingly pointless task. As a little kid, I didn’t know what the Pledge of Allegiance really meant or why we had to do it. All I knew is that we would be performing the monotonous, fancy sounding, thirty-one worded stanza daily. While it was against the law for teachers to force us to say the Pledge, it was expected. This “patriotism” was assumed of us at a young age, and it was also given with the mindset that we were the best country. Dictionary.com says that the Pledge of Allegiance is a “patriotic vow”, a promise to support and defend their country. Does this mean that saying the pledge suddenly makes me a patriot? Is patriotism

The Equal Access Act upheld by the Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Mergens, 1990, requires public secondary schools to allow access to religiously based student groups on the same basis as other student clubs. The school administration denied a group of students their right to create a Christian after school club. The students intended for their club to have just the same privileges and club meetings as all other after school clubs. The schools excuse being that it lacked faculty support which led to the school and district being sued by the students. “The students alleged that Westside 's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requires that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages” (Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens by and Through Mergens). Many still argue today that Westside 's prohibition against the Christian club, consistent with the Establishment Clause, makes the Equal Access Act unconstitutional.

The issue in this case was whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This case dealt with a New York state law that had 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 (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This law had also allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found that it was objectionable. There was a parent that sued the school on behalf of their child. Their argument was that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable

Prayer in public schools became an issue in 1960. A woman by the name of Madalyn Murray O’Hair sued the Baltimore, Maryland school system, because her son William J Murray was allegedly being forced to participate in prayer at the public school he attended. The American Atheist Organization, alongside Madalyn’s actions consequently led to the Supreme Court ruling in the 1960s. On June 17, 1963, the Supreme Court published its ruling on the case. The Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading and prayer in schools were unconstitutional. Justice Tom C. Clark, who wrote the court ruling, wrote that religious freedom is embedded in our public and private life, and while freedom of worship is indispensable in America, the government must be neutral

As a result of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, The United States legislators wrote the Southern Manifesto in 1956. They believed that the final result of Brown v. Board of Education, which stated that separate school facilities for black and white children were fundamentally unequal, was an abuse of the judicial power. The Southern Manifesto called for the exhaust of all the lawful things they can do in order to stop all the confusion that would come from school desegregation. The Manifesto also stated that the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution should limit the power of the Supreme Court when it comes to these types of issues.

Society has a set of actions as what they see as “normal” and socially acceptable. They define this set of unspoken rules as social norms. In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, a reader will often find many characters breaking the social norms of Maycomb County, Alabama. The defiance of these social norms help the young protagonist, Scout, learn valuable life lessons of equality. When Atticus chose to defend Tom Robinson in court, he violated the social norm of colored people being inferior to whites and became a maverick in Maycomb community. Social norms are again broken when Calpernia decided to take both Jem and Scout to the First Purchase, an African American church.

A historic case in the U.S. supreme court was called the Brown vs. the Board of Education. Getting a good education is essential and we can see diverse population of students from different nationality in the classroom. However, this wasn’t always the case in the United States. Up until 1954, classrooms were very different than they are today—not allowing African American students to attend schools with white students. This was allowed because of the previous court case of 1896 of Plessy vs. Ferguson. In this case, the court allowed segregation as long as the services provided were equal which meant that separation of students according to their race in schools was okay. This was accepted in many states despite the fact that the Fourteenth

This case concerns Bible reading in the public schools of Pennsylvania. When the students who attended arrived for school, they were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After that, they were required to recite the Lord’s Prayer. The only way to avoid these activities was written note from the parents. The United States Supreme Court favored Schempp and declared this Bible reading to be unconstitutional.

In James Madison’s address to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, “Memorial and Remonstrance”, he speaks about his opposition to a Bill which would provide provisions for teachers of Christian faith. He argues that such a Bill is an abuse of legislative powers, and he is bound by duty to prove why.

Decades ago, children of various races could not go to school together in many locations of the United States. School districts could segregate students, legally, into different schools according to the color of their skin. The law said these separate schools had to be equal. Many schools for children that possessed color were of lesser quality than the schools for white students. To have separate schools for the black and white children became a basic rule in southern society. After the Brown vs. Board of Education case, this all changed.

A divided New York Appellate Division affirmed on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional because it has the primary effect of advancing religion (Mercer Law Review, n.d). As the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In this case the state of New York Legislature violated the Constitution. Therefore, the holding for this case by Justice Souter signifies that Chapter 748 violated the Establishment Clause. Souter held that the state law departed from the constitutional mandate of neutrality toward religion by delegating the state’s discretionary authority over public schools and that a state may not delegate its civic authority to a group chosen according to religious criteria (Osborne, n.d). The statute was also seen as impermissible as an advancement of religious