Engel v. Vitale
Question
Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment?
Law: The Establishment Clause
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” First Amendment to the Constitution
Designed to ensure that no particular sect of Christianity was made the official religion of the federal government, the establishment clause barred Congress, a federal law-making body, from creating laws that established religion. The founding fathers observed that “British subjects (including Americans in eight of the colonies) were legally required to attend and financially support the established church, ministers were licensed or selected by the government, and the content of church services was partially dictated by the state.” Constitution Center
Much of the Constitution was aimed at limiting the powers of the federal government over the people, which is why the wording is phrased as “Congress shall…” It serves as a restriction on government overreach from their limited position. There appear to be limited cases that would apply the establishment clause to state or local governments, especially prior to the 1961 case.
The initial aspect of Justice Black’s ruling in Engel v. Vitale focused on the argument that a school board and its employees writing and reciting a prayer equated to Congress making laws respecting the establishment of religion. “We agree with that 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.” Decision p. 425
Justice Black’s decision highlights that the voluntary nature of the prayer may allow it to not violate the Free Exercise Clause but not the Establishment Clause: “Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Decision p. 430
The Weight of the Government
In this case originating from New York, school officials are employees of the state government. Justice Black emphasized the weight carried by these state-endorsed and delivered actions, suggesting that state officials, in their capacity, mirrored Congress as agents in establishing religion. He highlighted the impact when ‘the power, prestige, and financial support of government’ align with a specific religious belief, exerting indirect coercive pressure on religious minorities to conform to the officially approved religion.” (Decision p. 431)
Black drew a distinction between ‘the people themselves’ and the government, asserting, ‘It is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.’ (Decision p. 435)
Justice Douglas concurred, citing McGowan v. Maryland, emphasizing that ‘if a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups, not by the Government.’ (Concurrence p. 443) He stressed that religious practices should be led by non-governmental figures or representatives.
This conversation regarding the weight and role of government aligns with the concept of sphere sovereignty primarily outlined by Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper delineated that each area of life possesses its own sovereign sphere with individuals held accountable for their respective sphere’s conduct. For example, the family sphere holds its distinct responsibilities (e.g., raising children (Prov. 22:6), loving and sacrificing for your wife (Eph. 5:25), submitting to your husband (Eph. 5:22), and children obeying parents (Eph. 6:1)), with the husband serving as the head (Eph. 5:23). This pattern continues across the spheres of self, church, and civil government. However, a significant contradiction arises due to the model of public education administered by the government, which breaches the concept of sphere sovereignty. The civil government’s involvement in public education assumes the role of a parent by taking responsibility for the education and ‘Train[ing] up a child in the way he should go’ (Prov. 22:6), rather than operating as a support system accountable to parents. If the government were not involved in this educational process, there would be no establishment of religion by the government.
Financial Obligations
Justice Douglas’s concurring remarks primarily revolved around the financial aspect of government, specifically taxpayer funds allocated to religious activities. He stressed, ‘The point for decision is whether the Government can constitutionally finance a religious exercise. Our system at the federal and state levels is presently honeycombed with such financing.’ (Decision p. 438) He further narrowed the focus to the case’s scope, stating, ‘the question presented by this case is therefore an extremely narrow one. It is whether New York oversteps the bounds when it finances a religious exercise.’ (Decision p. 439) Additionally, he drew a distinction in establishment by asserting that ‘a religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads. Yet once government finances a religious exercise, it inserts a divisive influence into our communities.’ (Decision p. 442)
Justice Black referenced the Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty in his decision, highlighting that ‘religious groups were placed on an equal footing so far as the State was concerned.’ Thomas Jefferson’s inclusion in the Virginia Bill also emphasized the issue of government involvement with money, stating, ‘that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.’ This sentiment echoes the objections of original colonists against taxation that clashed with their religious conscience.
Expanding on the earlier objection regarding the size of civil government and its educational responsibilities, these tax dollars wouldn’t be earmarked for religious purposes if the state hadn’t assumed control over education nationwide. R.J. Rushdoony, advocating for only one God-endorsed tax, stated, “the modern humanistic state sees itself, as did the ancient pagan state, as the basic and ultimate power. It holds that it has the ‘right’ to tax, confiscate, or seize properties and assets at will.” He goes on to outline how the head (or poll) tax is the only tax endorsed by God (Exodus 30:11-16). However, in this article, there is an antithesis to the idea of church and government never meeting, as the tax was collected at the temple. Our current cultural moment allocates too much power and control to the civil government to make any merging of an ecclesiastical state advisable, but Biblical law remains the only moral law available.
Compulsion
Another theme from the establishment clause emerges here in “compulsion.” The context of this compulsion with the founders was around compelling the religious conscience to attendance in the State church. Here the courts are interested in the conversation around compulsion in government schools. Here is a back and forth between Mr. Daiker and the Justices on whether students were compelled to participate in the prayer, as well as school in general.
Bertram B. Daiker I think you are now approaching the word compulsion, and that has been used many times this morning by my adversary in his argument.
He talked about the compulsory prayer in the Herricks School District and stated that until the time that this came before a special term, this was compulsory.
Now, this didn’t tell the whole story because from the moment the prayer was instituted, there was no compulsion –
Hugo L. Black Do you not have –
Bertram B. Daiker – upon any – I beg your pardon, sir?
Hugo L. Black Do you not have compulsory education?
Bertram B. Daiker You have compulsory – compulsory education but we’re now –
Hugo L. Black You have compulsory attendance?
Bertram B. Daiker Yes, sir.
We have compulsion on both.
But we’re now talking about the compulsion that the Chief Justice was referring to of a litigant or a member of the bar appearing in this Court and being required in effect to profess a belief in God as a condition to appearing here.
And this is the compulsion I am now seeking to address my remarks to.
…
Earl Warren If it was compelled – required of all student, would it be unconstitutional?
Bertram B. Daiker I think the compulsion would make the unconstitutional aspect of it similar to West Virginia against Barnette, where there, we have the pledge of – Pledge of Allegiance, claim to be violative of the individual child’s religious beliefs.
Here, we find unconstitutionality created by the compulsion.
And this is what we think would happen here if there were compulsion.
There has been no such compulsion.
Earl Warren If there was compulsion or you concede that it would be unconstitutional.
Bertram B. Daiker Yes, sir.
This conversation found its way into Justice Douglas’s concurrence, where he stated, “Plainly, our Bill of Rights would not permit a State or the Federal Government to adopt an official prayer and penalize anyone who would not utter it. This, however, is not that case, for there is no element of compulsion or coercion in New York’s regulation requiring that public schools be opened each day with the following prayer: ‘Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.’” (Decision p. 438)
Let’s assume, for the moment, that education is a responsibility of the government. The Establishment Clause was concerned with the forced conscience, through attendance and funding, of a government religion. However, no institution can be devoid of ideology (religion), especially one tasked with conveying knowledge and the reasons for knowledge. The current state has established its own religion devoid of God and Christianity but full of ideological statements. Romans 6:16-18 states that it is not whether we serve an ideology and a belief, but which belief we serve: “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.”
In Justice Steward’s dissent, he stated that “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. 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.’ (Zorach v. Clauson)” (Decision p. 438)
We can be a people who recognize God in our institutions, recognizing that He is our creator and savior. Or we can rebel and claim that we are the rulers of our world, independent from God, “[our] eyes will be opened, and [we] will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:5)
Conclusion
The creator of the universe should neither be neglected nor overlooked within our institutions. The civil government’s educational model is not depicted in scripture, nor is it the duty of the state to “bring them (children) up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord,” as stated in Ephesians 6:4. Fathers are entrusted with the education of their children and can delegate this task to their family, an external tutor, or a school, aiming to educate them as the Lord has instructed.
The state has taken on the responsibility of education, mandating attendance and funding for its idol factory. This decision’s misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause, separated from its original context after centuries, marks another instance of our civil government’s rejection of God.