can anyone briefly outline the court’s decision on school prayer in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and explain its significance?
121186
Not so brief, but it sums it up I think. =-)\n\nEngel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when it is relatively non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. This was decided in a vote of 6-1, with Justices Frankfurter and White unable to vote.\n\nThe case was brought by the parents of students who complained the prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs and was supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including Madalyn Murray O'Hair's American Atheists . The prayer in question was:\n\n    Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.\n\nThe plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer (even if students are not required to recite it) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth), which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The governments of twenty-two states1 signed on to an amicus curiae brief urging affirmance of the New York Court of Appeals decision that upheld the constitutionality of the prayer. The American Ethical Union, the American Jewish Committee, and the Synagogue Council of America each submitted briefs urging the Court to instead reverse and rule that the prayer was unconstitutional.\n\nJustice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, pointed out that the prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of its being a prayer. The majority further ruled that prescribing such a religious activity for school children is inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. That is, the program was created by government officials to promote a religious belief and therefore not permissible.\n\nIn response to the defendant's claims that: (a) the prayer does not respect any specific established religion; and (b) the prayer is voluntary, Black's opinion held that neither of these claims frees it from contradicting the Establishment Clause. The opinion held that the fact that it promotes a religion is sufficient to conclude it is in violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. Furthermore, the opinion held that the fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough to not promote any particular religion is not a sufficient defense, as it does still promote a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which is also a violation of the Establishment Clause.
371971
it means that, while your child can have the "right" to pray quietly in school, the school doesnt have the "right" to lead group prayer and subject an unwilling child to the group pressure to participate or be ostracized.
176042
Lexisnexis is a paid subscription service.  If you have access, then you may search under the terms "religion" and "school" to pull results.  Here are three US Supreme Court cases relating to religion and schools:  Chamberlin v. Dade County Board of Public Instruction, 377 US 402; School District of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 US 203; and School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Department of Education of Mass, 471 US 359.\n\nOn Lexis you can enter the above citations and pull the entire case up.  Hope this helps!
21654
I'd rather we didn't force our students to pledge their allegiance to anything.  that is the domain of Fascists.  But if we must, I'd prefer children thought more about the Constitution than the flag.\n\nAs for "under God", it was added 60 years after the pledge was first written, by religious zealots that specifically wanted a prayer. And the last I checked, "Godly principles" were all about Kings, something our gov't was specifically designed to prevent.  Unless there is some portion of the Bible you can cite that supports a Gov't not run by a King, shutup about your "Godly" nonsense.
498712
http://www.legal-definitions.com/education-law/education-law-and-the-first-amendment.htm\n\nhope this helps darling.
101231
I think a bigger question or a different approach is " does it hurt the student's actions. And what religion are you talking about? If it's Christianity then how can the teaching of love, morals, respect, and humility hurt? Religious classes shouldn't be forced in school but it could be an elective.
386140
A New York statute forbidding permanent certification as a public school teacher of any person who is not a United States citizen unless that person has manifested an intention to apply for citizenship does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\nHere is the dissenting decision:
329374
The doctrine that you're speaking of actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  The US Supreme Court expanded on that, realizing that the doctrine in the Constitution had no "teeth" without clarification.  In other words, they expanded it from Congress not being able to make a law *establishing* one (ie. a national religion) to include Congress not being able to make laws favoring a particular religion over another (or over a non-religion).  Who the people vote for is an entirely different matter.  First, the doctrine applies to laws and legislation.  Secondly, it would be utterly unconstitutional to disallow anyone not specifically defined in the Constitution from running for office.  The people of the U.S. have the absolute right to cast their vote for whomever they choose, as long as that person has the requisite citizenship and has attained the mandated age.
213481
True, it doesn't say verbatim "seperation between church and state", however that somes up the 1st amendment nicely.\n\nHow would you teach a specific religion in a public school and not consider that to be a favoring a specific religion above all others?
150405
Christianity is allowed in schools.  Any child can pray anytime and anywhere they want, as long as they don't disrupt class or otherwise break school rules.  What they cannot (and according the Thomas Jefferson and James Madison should not be allowed to do) is use their government funded public school to help establish their religion.  This is for the protection of both our Constitution and Bill of Rights as well as their religion.
224045
Roe v. Wade (abortion) by far is the most influential case during that time period.  Wyman v. James about 4th Amendment rights.  Parents right and Free Exercise in Wisconsin v. Yoder.  I would personally recommend Yoder as Roe is probably going to be used by a lot of other people in your class.
259577
Depends on the school and the nature of the symbol / display.\n\nIf a public school, the teacher should be able to wear religious symbols, and have personal religious items in their personal space (i.e. their desks, offices, etc.). They have the right to freely practice their religion, and this does not infringe upon others' rights.\n\nIf the class is about religions & religious philosophies, then as appropriate to the discussion and subject.\n\nBut a teacher should not turn their non-religious subject classroom into a religious billboard. That would be wrong.\n\nBut too much religious intolerance is being allowed. You have no right to prevent others from practicing their religion, or displaying their religious symbols in their own space.
76993
There is nothing the governement can do to stop prayer in schools. The Establishment Clause, however, prevents the government from sanctioning prayer in public schools. Christianity was traditionally (and probably still is) the unofficial, official religion of the U.S. However, the founding fathers, all of whom recognized the downfalls of a state sanctioned church, specifically wrote the First Amendment "to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding.  It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general.  Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands.  On the other hand, persons seeing a far broader meaning in the clause point to writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggesting the need to establish "a wall of separation" between church and state.\n...\nThe question of school-sponsored prayer has, of course, proven highly controversial.  In the landmark case of Engel v Vitale in 1962, the Court ruled that New York's practice of beginning school days with a prayer drafted by school officials violated the Establishment Clause.  This is the case, the Court said, whether or not students are given the option of not participating in the prayer.  Following Engel, the Court has faced a whole series of prayer-related cases in the public school context raising issues such a prayer in special circumstances (e.g., graduation ceremonies), periods for silent meditation or silent prayer, and student-initiated prayer.  In general, the Court has demonstrated a willingness to strike down any practices that might be likely to be perceived either as coercive or as a state endorsement of religion."\n\nIf you want to pray in public school, then pray. If you don't want to pray in public school, then don't. If you are a public school teacher and pray in school, do it silently and don't ask students to join you.
456692
It is practically impossible to answer your question because you do not have enough information.  What article, source, or amendment?  Are you referring to some type of statute?  Are you referring to a Constitutional Amendment?  An article of a statute?  \n\nYou don't have enough information here.  You should go to the library and speak to the librararians.  They will be able to assist you.
57873
supposedly no role if you are referring to the public schools.\n\nWhat is the actual subject of your paper.\n\nSchools have played a big part in Removing Religion... or at least those people who complain that their children shouldn't be exposed to even the mention of God.\n\nI wonder what they are using for currency these days.
45142
Not many people understand the truth behind this serious schooling problem. In 1967 prayer was banned from school because an atheistic family felt that the presence of God in school was damaging to their son.  So the courts ruled in their favor. Since then several law interpretaions of that ruling have esposed.  The purpose of it all was to get the true God out of the classroom. But the main purpose or motive behind this today is to atheize our children; which in itself is a form of religion.  The factual truth behind this is that our world is being taken over by a sect of man that we do not understand or even realize exists.  A few years ago we feared communism, now we fear terriorism, but what we neet to truely fear is the true God. We are cutting the throats of our children, and their families, by our lack of concern for their eternal security. God's wrath will come upon us and the majority of people will not even know it has occurred.  Any child can talk about God, read his/her Bible, form Bible or religious clubs, and have prayer, and form prayer meetings in the school (as long as it is not teacher instituted).  No teacher, or principal or any school official can legally prevent this.  It is part of the ruling forced down upon us by the courts back in 1967.  By the way, did you know that it was also in 1967 when Israel became a nation, again?
390116
Safety of the children takes precedence.  This is not a question of religious freedom, but a question of child safety.\n\nNOBODY goes to an elementary school, where parents trust that "strangers" will be kept at bay, without an appointment.  All else shall be escorted.\n\nThis guy, though his intentions may be good, should learn and back down.  Want to preach to the teachers?  Make an appointment. Want to preach to the kids?  Become a guest speaker, if the school will allow it.  Else that, stay away.