WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - In Media Res: Engel v. Vitale

Episode Date: February 17, 2025

Join Hershey and Stephanie as they discuss the 1962 Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale and the debate on the separation of church and state.

Hello, beautiful people, and welcome to our show on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. My name is Hershey. And my name is Stephanie. And we're your host for In Media Res, a show where we examine a landmark court case, starting from the middle of the action. In this episode, we will be discussing a very famous case dealing with the separation of church and state. In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Angle v. V. V. Tali that a non-denominational prayer said in New York public schools violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. For background, the First Amendment of the Constitution enumerates several rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of press, and most importantly, the freedom of religion.

This part of the Constitution is known as the Establishment Clause. It specifically states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion prohibiting the free exercise thereof, which has been interpreted to mean that not only is the government not allowed to prevent you from worshiping any religion you choose, but the government is not supposed to establish any state religion. In 1951, the New York Board of Regents, which is an independent government body in charge of overseeing public education, recommended that a non-denominational be recited each morning in New York public schools. This was adopted by schools, and with their parents' permission, students could opt out of saying the prayer. The prayer was simple and explicitly

non-denominational. It read, Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country, Amen. And though students were not forced to participate, a group of five parents sued their county school board, arguing that this prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Lower courts upheld the ruling that this school prayer was not in violation of the Establishment Clause. The trial court judge argued that public prayers were an accepted practice at the time, and especially because this prayer was non-compulsory, it violated neither the Establishment Clause nor any precedent set by the court. An appellate court agreed, adding that accommodating secular education to a voluntary prayer was not a religious teaching or instruction, and therefore did not accomplish anything in terms of establishing religion. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. In a six-one decision where two justices did not participate, the court ruled that reciting a government written prayer in schools was a direct and clear violation of the establishment clause. The majority opinion in this case was written by Justice Hugo Black, who incorporated historical reasoning into

his argument, pointing the founding colonists of the United States who came to this country to create the government of religious freedom that England lacked. Black stated that neither the fact that the prayer may be denominational neutral nor the fact 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 state by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Because a government body proposed, wrote, and enacted this prayer in public schools, Black argued the prayer was an explicit violation of the Constitution.

The dissenting opinion in this case was written by Justice Potter Stewart, who argued that the majority greatly misinterpreted the intent of the Establishment Clause. Stewart writes, the Establishment Clause was specifically meant to prevent the institution of any official state religion and not necessarily prevent any government-proposed religious activities. He further points to the Constitution, which nowhere explicitly condones a wall of separation between church and state, and he also points to religious invocations at the commencement of Supreme Court proceedings, sessions of Congress, and presidencies, as a clear sign that even in practice, this establishment clause was never actually applied to root out all religious activity in government

or from government. Nevertheless, the majority opinion prevailed, and there's still strong debate between religious and secular forces in America on the separation of church and state. I'm afraid that's all the time we have in this episode of In Media Res. We're your host, Hershey, Stephanie, we thank you for joining us, and we'll catch you next time on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM.