| June 25 |  |
Editor says, what if the intention of the framers of the First Amendment was misunderstood? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).
| Share this Article on: |  Facebook |  Twitter |
In 1962, on this day the United States Supreme Court decided on the case of Engel v. Vitale upholding the constitutional right of public schools to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation.
Engel v. VitaleThe case was brought by the families of public school students in New Hyde Park, New York who complained the prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs. They were supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including rabbinical organizations, Ethical Culture, and Judaic organizations. The prayer in question was: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen".
Justice Hugo Black (pictured) delivered the legal opinion that having codified the communities' right to self-government into the framing of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers would have considered the logic of the plaintiff's appeal to be a stupefying encroachment on traditional American principles. The first amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
Entry posted by Todayinah Editor
© The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods (2004)Story Tags
Permalinks: Post, Day. Browse Thread: Alternate Nations Source: Wikipedia Labels: Engel v. Vitale , First Amendment, Religion, America, Constitution.
~ My own preferred solution to this ongoing squabble would be to get the gov't out of schooling. Let private organizations set up schools, and run them as they please. "Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend." as the Chairman once (lyingly) said.
~ I do wonder when the countersuit to keep Muslims/Jews/etc. from composing the prayers would come....
~ Would require a brain transplant in Black.
~ I don't like government interfering with prayer in school but I definately don't like government imposing it either. This would be a seriosu violation of that standard. Admittedly the Supreme Court has been doing much like James II to undermine our democracy and liberity to legislate the liberal left's agenda and its decision banning school prayer is just one travesty among a great many. So I would be against it. But a supreme court that would make this type o f ruling would be one committed to the status quo which except in matters of race would not be that bad a thing for the nation. Of course, the courts should never be the agents of change, that right, choice and duty is the sole territory of the people of this nation.
~ Perhaps an alternative outcome is the compromise that the Supreme Court doesnt support the case of the plaintiff but does recommend the striking of the word "Almighty" from the text of the First Amendment to make this a non-issue?
~ Also conspiracy theory angle, what if the first amendment used the masonic phrase 'Great Architect' instead of 'Almighty God' ?
~ My spider-sense starts to tingle when I hear a conservative quoting Mao as Eric Oppen does.
More seriously, Engel was in a line of similar decisions stretching back decades. For the Court to find for the other side would have been a nmajor break with precedent--unless, of course, in this alternate world, those precedents were themselves different.
And just so we're clear here: at no point whatever, and certainly not in Engel v. Vitale, did the Supreme Court "ban school prayer." The Engel decision banned governmental authorities from enforcing the recitation of an official prayer. Students remained (and remain) free to pray in publoic schools, provided they don't receive special privileges for doing so.
© Today in Alternate History, 2013-. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
