U.S. Supreme Court
ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
370 U.S. 421
ENGEL ET AL. v. VITALE ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 468.
Argued April 3, 1962.
Decided June 25, 1962.
Because of the prohibition of the First
Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of
religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth
Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and
require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the
beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally
neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from
the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436.
10 N. Y. 2d 174, 176 N. E. 2d 579, reversed.
William J. Butler argued the cause for
petitioners. With him on the briefs was Stanley Geller.
Bertram B. Daiker argued the cause for
respondents. With him on the briefs was Wilford E. Neier.
Porter R. Chandler argued the cause for
intervenors-respondents. With him on the briefs were Thomas J. Ford and
Richard E. Nolan.
Charles A. Brind filed a brief for the Board of
Regents of the University of the State of New York, as amicus curiae, in
opposition to the petition for certiorari.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were
filed by Herbert A. Wolff, Leo Rosen and Nancy Wechsler for the American
Ethical Union; Louis Caplan, Edwin J. Lukas, Paul Hartman, Theodore Leskes
and Sol Rabkin for the American Jewish Committee et al.; and Leo Pfeffer,
Lewis H. Weinstein, Albert Wald, Shad Polier and Samuel Lawrence Brennglass
for the Synagogue Council of America et al.
A brief of amici curiae, urging affirmance, was
filed by Roger D. Foley, Attorney General of Nevada, Robert
[370 U.S. 421, 422] Pickrell, Attorney General of
Arizona, Frank Holt, Attorney General of Arkansas, Albert L. Coles, Attorney
General of Connecticut, Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General of Florida,
Eugene Cook, Attorney General of Georgia, Frank Benson, Attorney General of
Idaho, Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General of Indiana, William M. Ferguson,
Attorney General of Kansas, Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of
Louisiana, Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General of Maryland, Joe T. Patterson,
Attorney General of Mississippi, William Maynard, Attorney General of New
Hampshire, Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, Earl E. Hartley,
Attorney General of New Mexico, Leslie R. Burgum, Attorney General of North
Dakota, David Stahl, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, J. Joseph Nugent,
Attorney General of Rhode Island, Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of
South Carolina, A. C. Miller, Attorney General of South Dakota, Will Wilson,
Attorney General of Texas, and C. Donald Robertson, Attorney General of West
Virginia.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the
Court.
The respondent Board of Education of Union Free
School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official
capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause
the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a
teacher at the beginning of each school day:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence
upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers
and our Country."
This daily procedure was adopted on the
recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created
by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted
broad supervisory, executive, and [370 U.S.
421, 423] legislative powers over the State's public school
system.1 These state officials composed the
prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on
Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this
Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we
call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program."
Shortly after the practice of reciting the
Regents' prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of ten
pupils brought this action in a New York State Court insisting that use of
this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs,
religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children.
Among other things, these parents challenged the constitutionality of both
the state law authorizing the School District to direct the use of prayer in
public schools and the School District's regulation ordering the recitation
of this particular prayer on the ground that these actions of official
governmental agencies violate that part of the First Amendment of the
Federal Constitution which commands that "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" - a command which was "made
applicable to the State of New York by the Fourteenth Amendment of the said
Constitution." The New York Court of Appeals, over the dissents of Judges
Dye and Fuld, sustained an order of the lower state courts which had upheld
the power of New York to use the Regents' prayer as a part of the daily
procedures of its public schools so long as the schools did not compel any
pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection.2
[370 U.S. 421, 424] We granted
certiorari to review this important decision involving rights protected by
the First and Fourteenth Amendments.3
We think that by using its public school system
to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has
adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There
can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom
invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a
religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication
for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always
been [370 U.S. 421, 425] religious,
none of the respondents has denied this and the trial court expressly so
found:
"The religious nature of prayer was recognized
by Jefferson and has been concurred in by theological writers, the
United States Supreme Court and State courts and administrative
officials, including New York's Commissioner of Education. A committee
of the New York Legislature has agreed.
"The Board of Regents as amicus curiae, the
respondents and intervenors all concede the religious nature of prayer,
but seek to distinguish this prayer because it is based on our spiritual
heritage. . . ."4
The petitioners contend among other things that
the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be
struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer
was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program
to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the
State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the
constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. 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.
It is a matter of history that this very
practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious
services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to
leave England and seek religious freedom in America. The Book of Common
Prayer, [370 U.S. 421, 426] which
was created under governmental direction and which was approved by Acts of
Parliament in 1548 and 1549,5 set out in minute
detail the accepted form and content of prayer and other religious
ceremonies to be used in the established, tax-supported Church of England.6
The controversies over the Book and what should be its content repeatedly
threatened to disrupt the peace of that country as the accepted forms of
prayer in the established church changed with the views of the particular
ruler that happened to be in control at the time.7
Powerful groups representing some of the varying religious views of the
people struggled among themselves to impress their particular views upon the
Government and [370 U.S. 421, 427]
obtain amendments of the Book more suitable to their respective notions of
how religious services should be conducted in order that the official
religious establishment would advance their particular religious beliefs.8
Other groups, lacking the necessary political power to influence the
Government on the matter, decided to leave England and its established
church and seek freedom in America from England's governmentally ordained
and supported religion.
It is an unfortunate fact of history that when
some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established
Church of England found themselves sufficiently in control of colonial
governments in this country to write their own prayers into law, they passed
laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective
colonies.9 Indeed, as late as the time of the
Revolutionary [370 U.S. 421, 428]
War, there were established churches in at least eight of the thirteen
former colonies and established religions in at least four of the other
five.10 But the successful Revolution against
English political domination was shortly followed by intense opposition to
the practice of establishing religion by law. This opposition crystallized
rapidly into an effective political force in Virginia where the minority
religious groups such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Quakers and Baptists had
gained such strength that the adherents to the established Episcopal Church
were actually a minority themselves. In 1785-1786, those opposed to the
established Church, led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who, though
themselves not members of any of these dissenting religious groups, opposed
all religious establishments by law on grounds of principle, obtained the
enactment of the famous "Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty" by which all
religious groups were placed on an equal footing so far as the State was
concerned.11 Similar though less far-reaching
[370 U.S. 421, 429] legislation was
being considered and passed in other States.12
By the time of the adoption of the
Constitution, our history shows that there was a widespread awareness among
many Americans of the dangers of a union of Church and State. These people
knew, some of them from bitter personal experience, that one of the greatest
dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in
the Government's placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular
kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services. They knew the
anguish, hardship and bitter strife that could come when zealous religious
groups struggled with one another to obtain the Government's stamp of
approval from each King, Queen, or Protector that came to temporary power.
The Constitution was intended to avert a part of this danger by leaving the
government of this country in the hands of the people rather than in the
hands of any monarch. But this safeguard was not enough. Our Founders were
no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of
praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were
to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession
of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a
guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government
would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the
American people can say - [370 U.S. 421, 430]
that the people's religious must not be subjected to the pressures of
government for change each time a new political administration is elected to
office. Under that Amendment's prohibition against governmental
establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without
power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used
as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored
religious activity.
There can be no doubt that New York's state
prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the
Regents' prayer. The respondents' argument to the contrary, which is largely
based upon the contention that the Regents' prayer is "non-denominational"
and the fact that the program, as modified and approved by state courts,
does not require all pupils to recite the prayer but permits those who wish
to do so to remain silent or be excused from the room, ignores the essential
nature of the program's constitutional defects. 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. Although these two clauses may
in certain instances overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of
governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause,
unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct
governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which
establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce
nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that
[370 U.S. 421, 431] laws officially
prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion
of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of
government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect
coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing
officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes underlying the
Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and most immediate
purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends
to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally
established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that
whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion,
the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect
and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs.13
That same history showed that many people had lost their respect for any
religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith.14
The Establishment Clause [370 U.S. 421, 432]
thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our
Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit
its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate.15
Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the
historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious
persecutions go hand in hand.16 The Founders
knew that only a few years after the Book of Common Prayer became the only
accepted form of religious services in the established Church of England, an
Act of Uniformity was passed to compel all Englishmen to attend those
services and to make it a criminal offense to conduct or attend religious
gatherings of any other kind17 - a law
[370 U.S. 421, 433] which was
consistently flouted by dissenting religious groups in England and which
contributed to widespread persecutions of people like John Bunyan who
persisted in holding "unlawful [religious] meetings . . . to the great
disturbance and distraction of the good subjects of this kingdom . . . ."18
And they knew that similar persecutions had received the sanction of law in
several of the colonies in this country soon after the establishment of
official religions in those colonies.19 It was
in large part to get completely away from this sort of systematic religious
persecution that the Founders brought into being our Nation, our
Constitution, and our Bill of Rights with its prohibition against any
governmental establishment of religion. The New York laws officially
prescribing the Regents' prayer are inconsistent both with the purposes of
the Establishment Clause and with the Establishment Clause itself.
It has been argued that to apply the
Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an
[370 U.S. 421, 434] establishment
of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward
religion or toward prayer. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong. The
history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. And perhaps it
is not too much to say that since the beginning of that history many people
have devoutly believed that "More things are wrought by prayer than this
world dreams of." It was doubtless largely due to men who believed this that
there grew up a sentiment that caused men to leave the cross-currents of
officially established state religions and religious persecution in Europe
and come to this country filled with the hope that they could find a place
in which they could pray when they pleased to the God of their faith in the
language they chose.20 And there were men of
this same faith in the [370 U.S. 421, 435]
power of prayer who led the fight for adoption of our Constitution and also
for our Bill of Rights with the very guarantees of religious freedom that
forbid the sort of governmental activity which New York has attempted here.
These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried to put an end to
governmental control of religion and of prayer, was not written to destroy
either. They knew rather that it was written to quiet well-justified fears
which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments
of the past had shackled men's tongues to make them speak only the religious
thoughts that government wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God
that government wanted them to pray to. It is neither sacrilegious nor
antireligious 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.21
[370 U.S. 421, 436]
It is true that New York's establishment of its
Regents' prayer as an officially approved religious doctrine of that State
does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to
the exclusion of all others - that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of
that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental
encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago. To those
who may subscribe to the view that because the Regents' official prayer is
so brief and general there can be no danger to religious freedom in its
governmental establishment, however, it may be appropriate to say in the
words of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:
"[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first
experiment on our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same
authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other
Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of
Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority
which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property
for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to
any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"22
The judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York
is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent
with this opinion.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the
decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the
consideration or decision of this case.
Footnotes
[Footnote 1] See New
York Constitution, Art. V, 4; New York Education Law, 101, 120 et seq., 202,
214-219, 224, 245 et seq., 704, and 801 et seq.
[Footnote 2] 10 N.
Y. 2d 174, 176 N. E. 2d 579. The trial court's opinion, which is reported at
18 Misc. 2d 659, 191 N. Y. S. 2d 453, had made it clear that the Board of
Education must set up some sort [370 U.S. 421,
424] of procedures to protect those who objected to reciting the
prayer: "This is not to say that the rights accorded petitioners and their
children under the `free exercise' clause do not mandate safeguards against
such embarrassments and pressures. It is enough on this score, however, that
regulations, such as were adopted by New York City's Board of Education in
connection with its released time program, be adopted, making clear that
neither teachers nor any other school authority may comment on participation
or nonparticipation in the exercise nor suggest or require that any posture
or language be used or dress be worn or be not used or not worn.
Nonparticipation may take the form either of remaining silent during the
exercise, or if the parent or child so desires, of being excused entirely
from the exercise. Such regulations must also make provision for those
nonparticipants who are to be excused from the prayer exercise. The exact
provision to be made is a matter for decision by the board, rather than the
court, within the framework of constitutional requirements. Within that
framework would fall a provision that prayer participants proceed to a
common assembly while nonparticipants attend other rooms, or that
nonparticipants be permitted to arrive at school a few minutes late or to
attend separate opening exercises, or any other method which treats with
equality both participants and nonparticipants." 18 Misc. 2d, at 696, 191 N.
Y. S. 2d, at 492-493. See also the opinion of the Appellate Division
affirming that of the trial court, reported at 11 App. Div. 2d 340, 206 N.
Y. S. 2d 183.
[Footnote 3] 368
U.S. 924.
[Footnote 4] 18
Misc. 2d, at 671-672, 191 N. Y. S. 2d, at 468-469.
[Footnote 5] 2 & 3
Edward VI, c. 1, entitled "An Act for Uniformity of Service and
Administration of the Sacraments throughout the Realm"; 3 & 4 Edward VI, c.
10, entitled "An Act for the abolishing and putting away of divers Books and
Images."
[Footnote 6] The
provisions of the various versions of the Book of Common Prayer are set out
in broad outline in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 18 (1957 ed.), pp.
420-423. For a more complete description, see Pullan, The History of the
Book of Common Prayer (1900).
[Footnote 7] The
first major revision of the Book of Common Prayer was made in 1552 during
the reign of Edward VI. 5 & 6 Edward VI, c. 1. In 1553, Edward VI died and
was succeeded by Mary who abolished the Book of Common Prayer entirely. 1
Mary, c. 2. But upon the accession of Elizabeth in 1558, the Book was
restored with important alterations from the form it had been given by
Edward VI. 1 Elizabeth, c. 2. The resentment to this amended form of the
Book was kept firmly under control during the reign of Elizabeth but, upon
her death in 1603, a petition signed by more than 1,000 Puritan ministers
was presented to King James I asking for further alterations in the Book.
Some alterations were made and the Book retained substantially this form
until it was completely suppressed again in 1645 as a result of the
successful Puritan Revolution. Shortly after the restoration in 1660 of
Charles II, the Book was again reintroduced, 13 & 14 Charles II, c. 4, and
again with alterations. Rather than accept this form of the Book some 2,000
Puritan ministers vacated their benefices. See generally Pullan, The History
of the Book of Common Prayer (1900), pp. vii-xvi; Encyclopaedia Britannica
(1957 ed.), Vol. 18, pp. 421-422.
[Footnote 8] For
example, the Puritans twice attempted to modify the Book of Common Prayer
and once attempted to destroy it. The story of their struggle to modify the
Book in the reign of Charles I is vividly summarized in Pullan, History of
the Book of Common Prayer, at p. xiii: "The King actively supported those
members of the Church of England who were anxious to vindicate its Catholic
character and maintain the ceremonial which Elizabeth had approved. Laud,
Archbishop of Canterbury, was the leader of this school. Equally resolute in
his opposition to the distinctive tenets of Rome and of Geneva, he enjoyed
the hatred of both Jesuit and Calvinist. He helped the Scottish bishops, who
had made large concessions to the uncouth habits of Presbyterian worship, to
draw up a Book of Common Prayer for Scotland. It contained a Communion
Office resembling that of the book of 1549. It came into use in 1637, and
met with a bitter and barbarous opposition. The vigour of the Scottish
Protestants strengthened the hands of their English sympathisers. Laud and
Charles were executed, Episcopacy was abolished, the use of the Book of
Common Prayer was prohibited."
[Footnote 9] For a
description of some of the laws enacted by early theocratic governments in
New England, see Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought (1930), Vol.
1, pp. 5-50; Whipple, Our Ancient Liberties (1927), pp. 63-78; Wertenbaker,
The Puritan Oligarchy (1947).
[Footnote 10] The
Church of England was the established church of at least five colonies:
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. There seems
to be some controversy as to whether that church was officially established
in New York and New Jersey but there is no doubt that it received
substantial support from those States. See Cobb, The Rise of Religious
Liberty in America (1902), pp. 338, 408. In Massachusetts, New Hampshire and
Connecticut, the Congregationalist Church was officially established. In
Pennsylvania and Delaware, all Christian sects were treated equally in most
situations but Catholics were discriminated against in some respects. See
generally Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America (1902). In Rhode
Island all Protestants enjoyed equal privileges but it is not clear whether
Catholics were allowed to vote. Compare Fiske, The Critical Period in
American History (1899), p. 76 with Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in
America (1902), pp. 437-438.
[Footnote 11] 12
Hening, Statutes of Virginia (1823), 84, entitled "An act for establishing
religious freedom." The story of the events surrounding the enactment of
this law was reviewed in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, both by
the Court, at pp. 11-13, and in the [370 U.S.
421, 429] dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Rutledge, at pp.
33-42. See also Fiske, The Critical Period in American History (1899), pp.
78-82; James, The Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia (1900); Thom,
The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia: The Baptists (1900); Cobb,
The Rise of Religious Liberty in America (1902), pp. 74-115, 482-499.
[Footnote 12] See
Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America (1902), pp. 482-509.
[Footnote 13] "[A]ttempts
to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of
Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of
Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed
necessary or salutary, what must be the case where it is deemed invalid and
dangerous? and what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency
in the Government, on its general authority." Memorial and Remonstrance
against Religious Assessments, II Writings of Madison 183, 190.
[Footnote 14] "It
is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence
in its innate excellence, and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in
those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of
its fallacies, to trust it to its own merits. . . . [E]xperience witnesseth
that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and
efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen
centuries, has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What
have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the
Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition,
[370 U.S. 421, 432] bigotry and
persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which
it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages
prior to its incorporation with Civil policy." Id., at 187.
[Footnote 15]
Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, II Writings of
Madison, at 187.
[Footnote 16] "[T]he
proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which,
offering an asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and
Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number
of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy?
Instead of holding forth an asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal
of persecution. . . . Distant as it may be, in its present form, from the
Inquisition it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step,
the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer
under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon
on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and
philanthropy in their due extent may offer a more certain repose from his
troubles." Id., at 188.
[Footnote 17] 5 &
6 Edward VI, c. 1, entitled "An Act for the Uniformity of Service and
Administration of Sacraments throughout the Realm." This Act was repealed
during the reign of Mary but revived upon the accession of Elizabeth. See
note 7, supra. The reasons which led to the enactment of this statute were
set out in its preamble: "Where there hath been a very godly Order set forth
by the Authority of Parliament, for Common Prayer and Administration of the
Sacraments [370 U.S. 421, 433] to
be used in the Mother Tongue within the Church of England, agreeable to the
Word of God and the Primitive Church, very comfortable to all good People
desiring to live in Christian Conversation, and most profitable to the
Estate of this Realm, upon the which the Mercy, Favour and Blessing of
Almighty God is in no wise so readily and plenteously poured as by Common
Prayers, due using of the Sacraments, and often preaching of the Gospel,
with the Devotion of the Hearers: (1) And yet this notwithstanding, a great
Number of People in divers Parts of this Realm, following their own
Sensuality, and living either without Knowledge or due Fear of God, do
wilfully and damnably before Almighty God abstain and refuse to come to
their Parish Churches and other Places where Common Prayer, Administration
of the Sacraments, and Preaching of the Word of God, is used upon Sundays
and other Days ordained to be Holydays."
[Footnote 18]
Bunyan's own account of his trial is set forth in A Relation of the
Imprisonment of Mr. John Bunyan, reprinted in Grace Abounding and The
Pilgrim's Progress (Brown ed. 1907), at 103-132.
[Footnote 19] For
a vivid account of some of these persecutions, see Wertenbaker, The Puritan
Oligarchy (1947).
[Footnote 20]
Perhaps the best example of the sort of men who came to this country for
precisely that reason is Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, who
has been described as "the truest Christian amongst many who sincerely
desired to be Christian." Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought
(1930), Vol. 1, at p. 74. Williams, who was one of the earliest exponents of
the doctrine of separation of church and state, believed that separation was
necessary in order to protect the church from the danger of destruction
which he thought inevitably flowed from control by even the best-intentioned
civil authorities: "The unknowing zeale of Constantine and other
Emperours,
did more hurt to Christ Jesus his Crowne and Kingdome, then the raging fury
of the most bloody Neroes. In the persecutions of the later, Christians were
sweet and fragrant, like spice pounded and beaten in mortars: But those good
Emperours, persecuting some erroneous persons, Arrius, & c. and advancing
the professors of some Truths of Christ (for there was no small number of
Truths lost in those times) and maintaining their Religion by the materiall
Sword, I say by this means Christianity was eclipsed, and the Professors
of it fell asleep . . . ." Williams, The Bloudy Tenent, of Persecution, for
cause of Conscience, discussed in A Conference between Truth and Peace
(London, 1644), reprinted in Narragansett Club Publications, Vol. III, p.
184. To Williams, it was no part of the business or competence of a civil
magistrate to interfere in religious matters: "[W]hat imprudence and
indiscretion is it in the most common [370
U.S. 421, 435] affaires of Life, to conceive that Emperors,
Kings and Rulers of the earth must not only be qualified with political and
state abilities to make and execute such Civil Laws which may concern the
common rights, peace and safety (which is work and business, load and
burthen enough for the ablest shoulders in the Commonweal) but also
furnished with such Spiritual and heavenly abilities to govern the
Spiritual and Christian Commonwealth . . . ." Id., at 366. See also id., at
136-137.
[Footnote 21]
There is of course nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent
with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to
express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the
Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by
singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer's professions
of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many
manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or
ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious
exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance.
[Footnote 22]
Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, II Writings of
Madison 183, at 185-186. [370 U.S. 421, 437]
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.
It is customary in deciding a constitutional
question to treat it in its narrowest form. Yet at times the setting of the
question gives it a form and content which no abstract treatment could give.
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.1
Nevertheless, I think it is an unconstitutional undertaking whatever form it
takes.
First, a word as to what this case does not
involve. [370 U.S. 421, 438]
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."
The prayer is said upon the commencement of the
school day, immediately following the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The
prayer is said aloud in the presence of a teacher, who either leads the
recitation or selects a student to do so. No student, however, is compelled
to take part. The respondents have adopted a regulation which provides that
"Neither teachers nor any school authority shall comment on participation or
non-participation . . . nor suggest or request that any posture or language
be used or dress be worn or be not used or not worn." Provision is also made
for excusing children, upon written request of a parent or guardian, from
the saying of the prayer or from the room in which the prayer is said. A
letter implementing and explaining this regulation has been sent to each
taxpayer and parent in the school district. As I read this regulation, a
child is free to stand or not stand, to recite or not recite, without fear
of reprisal or even comment by the teacher or any other school official.
In short, the only one who need utter the
prayer is the teacher; and no teacher is complaining of it. Students can
stand mute or even leave the classroom, if they desire.2
[370 U.S. 421, 439]
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203,
does not decide this case. It involved the use of public school facilities
for religious education of students. Students either had to attend religious
instruction or "go to some other place in the school building for pursuit of
their secular studies. . . . Reports of their presence or absence were to be
made to their secular teachers." Id., at 209. The influence of the teaching
staff was therefore brought to bear on the student body, to support the
instilling of religious principles. In the present case, school facilities
are used to say the prayer and the teaching staff is employed to lead the
pupils in it. There is, however, no effort at indoctrination and no attempt
at exposition. Prayers of course may be so long and of such a character as
to amount to an attempt at the religious instruction that was denied the
public schools by the McCollum case. But New York's prayer is of a character
that does not involve any element of proselytizing as in the McCollum case.
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.
What New York does on the opening of its public
schools is what we do when we open court. Our Crier has from the beginning
announced the convening of the Court and then added "God save the United
States and this Honorable Court." That utterance is a supplication, a prayer
in which we, the judges, are free to join, but which we need not recite any
more than the students need recite the New York prayer.
What New York does on the opening of its public
schools is what each House of Congress3 does
at the opening [370 U.S. 421, 440]
of each day's business.4 Reverend Frederick
B. Harris is Chaplain of the Senate; Reverend Bernard Braskamp is Chaplain
of the House. Guest chaplains of various denominations also officiate.5
[370 U.S. 421, 441]
In New York the teacher who leads in prayer is
on the public payroll; and the time she takes seems minuscule as compared
with the salaries appropriated by state legislatures and Congress for
chaplains to conduct prayers in the legislative halls. Only a bare fraction
of the teacher's time is given to reciting this short 22-word prayer, about
the same amount of time that our Crier spends announcing the opening of our
sessions and offering a prayer for this Court. Yet for me the principle is
the same, no matter how briefly the prayer is said, for in each of the
instances given the person praying is a public official on the public
payroll, performing a religious exercise in a governmental institution.6
It is said that the [370 U.S. 421, 442]
element of coercion is inherent in the giving of this prayer. If that is
true here, it is also true of the prayer with which this Court is convened,
and of those that open the Congress. Few adults, let alone children, would
leave our courtroom or the Senate or the House while those prayers are being
given. Every such audience is in a sense a "captive" audience.
At the same time I cannot say that to authorize
this prayer is to establish a religion in the strictly historic meaning of
those words.7 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.8
The New York Court said that the prayer given does not conform to all of the
tenets of the Jewish, Unitarian, and Ethical Culture groups. One of the
petitioners is an agnostic.
"We are a religious people whose institutions
presuppose a Supreme Being." Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313. Under
our Bill of Rights free play is given for
[370 U.S. 421, 443] making religion an active force in our
lives.9 But "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." McGowan v. Maryland, 366
U.S. 420, 563 (dissenting opinion). By reason of the First Amendment
government is commanded "to have no interest in theology or ritual"
(id., at 564), for on those matters "government must be neutral." Ibid.
The First Amendment leaves the Government in a position not of hostility
to religion but of neutrality. The philosophy is that the atheist or
agnostic - the nonbeliever - is entitled to go his own way. The
philosophy is that if government interferes in matters spiritual, it
will be a divisive force. The First Amendment teaches that a government
neutral in the field of religion better serves all religious interests.
My problem today would be uncomplicated but for
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 17, which allowed taxpayers'
money to be used to pay "the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part
of a general program under which" the fares of pupils attending public and
other schools were also paid. The Everson case seems in retrospect to be out
of line with the First Amendment. Its result is appealing, as it allows aid
to be given to needy children. Yet by the same token, public funds could be
used to satisfy other needs of children in parochial schools - lunches,
books, and tuition being obvious examples. Mr. Justice Rutledge stated in
dissent what I think is durable First Amendment philosophy:
"The reasons underlying the Amendment's policy
have not vanished with time or diminished in force.
[370 U.S. 421, 444]
Now as when it was adopted the price of religious freedom is double. It
is that the church and religion shall live both within and upon that
freedom. There cannot be freedom of religion, safeguarded by the state,
and intervention by the church or its agencies in the state's domain or
dependency on its largesse. Madison's Remonstrance, Par. 6, 8. The great
condition of religious liberty is that it be maintained free from
sustenance, as also from other interferences, by the state. For when it
comes to rest upon that secular foundation it vanishes with the resting.
Id., Par. 7, 8. Public money devoted to payment of religious costs,
educational or other, brings the quest for more. It brings too the
struggle of sect against sect for the larger share or for any. Here one
by numbers alone will benefit most, there another. That is precisely the
history of societies which have had an established religion and
dissident groups. Id., Par. 8, 11. It is the very thing Jefferson and
Madison experienced and sought to guard against, whether in its blunt or
in its more screened forms. Ibid. The end of such strife cannot be other
than to destroy the cherished liberty. The dominating group will achieve
the dominant benefit; or all will embroil the state in their
dissensions. Id., Par. 11." Id., pp. 53-54.
What New York does with this prayer is a break
with that tradition. I therefore join the Court in reversing the judgment
below.
[Footnote 1]
"There are many `aids' to religion in this country at all levels of
government. To mention but a few at the federal level, one might begin by
observing that the very First Congress which wrote the First Amendment
provided for chaplains in both Houses and in the armed services. There is
compulsory chapel at the service academies, and religious services are held
in federal hospitals and prisons. The President issues religious
proclamations. The Bible is used for the administration of oaths. N. Y. A.
and W. P. A. funds were available to parochial schools during the
depression. Veterans receiving money under the `G. I.' Bill of 1944 could
attend denominational schools, to which payments were made directly by the
government. During World War II, federal money was contributed to
denominational schools for the training of nurses. The benefits of the
National School Lunch Act are available to students in private as well as
public schools. The Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946
specifically made money available to non-public hospitals. The slogan `In
God We Trust' is used by the Treasury Department, and Congress recently
added God to the pledge of allegiance. There is Bible-reading in the schools
of the District of Columbia, and religious instruction is given in the
District's National Training School for Boys. Religious organizations are
exempt from the federal income tax and are granted postal privileges. Up to
defined limits - 15 per cent of the adjusted gross income of individuals and
5 per cent of the net income of corporations - contributions to religious
organizations are deductible for federal income tax purposes. There are no
limits to the deductibility of gifts and bequests to religious institutions
made under the federal gift and estate tax laws. This list of federal `aids'
could easily be expanded, and of course there is a long list in each state."
Fellman, The Limits of Freedom (1959), pp. 40-41.
[Footnote 2]
West Point Cadets are required to attend chapel each Sunday. Reg., c. 21,
2101. The same requirement obtains at the Naval Academy (Reg., c. 9, 0901,
(1) (a)), and at the Air Force Academy except First Classmen. Catalogue,
1962-1963, p. 110. And see Honeywell, [370
U.S. 421, 439] Chaplains of the United States Army (1958):
Jorgensen, The Service of Chaplains to Army Air Units, 1917-1946, Vol. I
(1961).
[Footnote 3]
The New York Legislature follows the same procedure. See, e. g., Vol. 1, N.
Y. Assembly Jour., 184th Sess., 1961, p. 8: Vol. 1, N. Y. Senate Jour.,
184th Sess., 1961, p. 5.
[Footnote 4]
Rules of the Senate provide that each calendar day's session shall open with
prayer. See Rule III, Senate Manual, S. Doc. No. 2, 87th Cong., 1st Sess.
The same is true of the Rules of the House. See Rule VII, Rules of the House
of Representatives, H. R. Doc. No. 459, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. The Chaplains
of the Senate and of the House receive $8,810 annually. See 75 Stat. 320,
324.
[Footnote 5] It
would, I assume, make no difference in the present case if a different
prayer were said every day or if the ministers of the community rotated,
each giving his own prayer. For some of the petitioners in the present case
profess no religion.
The Pledge of Allegiance, like the prayer,
recognizes the existence of a Supreme Being. Since 1954 it has contained the
words "one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
36 U.S.C. 172. The House Report recommending the addition of the words
"under God" stated that those words in no way run contrary to the First
Amendment but recognize "only the guidance of God in our national affairs."
H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3. And see S. Rep. No. 1287,
83d Cong., 2d Sess. Senator Ferguson, who sponsored the measure in the
Senate, pointed out that the words "In God We Trust" are over the entrance
to the Senate Chamber. 100 Cong. Rec. 6348. He added:
"I have felt that the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag which stands for the United States of America should recognize
the Creator who we really believe is in control of the destinies of this
great Republic.
"It is true that under the Constitution no
power is lodged anywhere to establish a religion. This is not an attempt
to establish a religion; it has nothing to do with anything of that
kind. It relates to belief in God, in whom we sincerely repose our
trust. We know that America cannot be defended by guns, planes, and
ships alone. Appropriations and expenditures for defense will be of
value only if the God under whom we live believes that we are in the
right. We should at all times recognize God's province over the lives of
our people and over this great Nation." Ibid. And see 100 Cong. Rec.
7757 et seq. for the debates in the House.
The Act of March 3, 1865, 13 Stat. 517, 518,
authorized the phrase "In God We Trust" to be placed on coins. And see 17
Stat. 427. The first mandatory requirement for the use of that motto on
coins [370 U.S. 421, 441] was made
by the Act of May 18, 1908, 35 Stat. 164. See H. R. Rep. No. 1106, 60th
Cong., 1st Sess.; 42 Cong. Rec. 3384 et seq. The use of the motto on all
currency and coins was directed by the Act of July 11, 1955, 69 Stat. 290.
See H. R. Rep. No. 662, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 637, 84th Cong.,
1st Sess. Moreover, by the Joint Resolution of July 30, 1956, our national
motto was declared to be "In God We Trust." 70 Stat. 732. In reporting the
Joint Resolution, the Senate Judiciary Committee stated:
"Further official recognition of this motto
was given by the adoption of the Star-Spangled Banner as our national
anthem. One stanza of our national anthem is as follows:
"`O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand Between their lov'd
home and the war's desolation! Blest with vict'ry and peace may the
heav'n rescued land Praise the power that hath made and preserved us
a nation! Then conquer we must when our cause it is just, And this
be our motto - "In God is our trust." And the Star-Spangled Banner
in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the
brave.'
"In view of these words in our national
anthem, it is clear that `In God we trust' has a strong claim as our
national motto." S. Rep. No. 2703, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2.
[Footnote 6]
The fact that taxpayers do not have standing in the federal courts to raise
the issue (Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447) is of course no
justification for drawing a line between what is done in New York on the one
hand and on the other what we do and what Congress does in this matter of
prayer.
[Footnote 7]
The Court analogizes the present case to those involving the traditional
Established Church. We once had an Established Church, the Anglican. All
baptisms and marriages had to take place there. That church was supported by
taxation. In these and other ways the Anglican Church was favored over the
others. The First Amendment put an end to placing any one church in a
preferred position. It ended support of any church or all churches by
taxation. It went further and prevented secular sanction to any religious
ceremony, dogma, or rite. Thus, it prevents civil penalties from being
applied against recalcitrants or nonconformists.
[Footnote 8]
Some communities have a Christmas tree purchased with the taxpayers' money.
The tree is sometimes decorated with the words "Peace on earth, goodwill to
men." At other times the authorities draw from a different version of the
Bible which says "Peace on earth to men of goodwill." Christmas, I suppose,
is still a religious celebration, not merely a day put on the calendar for
the benefit of merchants.
[Footnote 9]
Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. The
Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided in
Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education
shall forever be encouraged."
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.
A local school board in New York has provided
that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the
beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and
asking His blessing upon them [370 U.S. 421,
445] and upon their parents, their teachers, and their country.
The Court today decides that in permitting this brief nondenominational
prayer the school board has violated the Constitution of the United States.
I think this decision is wrong.
The Court does not hold, nor could it, that New
York has interfered with the free exercise of anybody's religion. For the
state courts have made clear that those who object to reciting the prayer
must be entirely free of any compulsion to do so, including any
"embarrassments and pressures." Cf. West Virginia State Board of Education
v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624. But the Court says that in permitting school
children to say this simple prayer, the New York authorities have
established "an official religion."
With all respect, I think 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.
The Court's historical review of the quarrels
over the Book of Common Prayer in England throws no light for me on the
issue before us in this case. England had then and has now an established
church. Equally unenlightening, I think, is the history of the early
establishment and later rejection of an official church in our own States.
For we deal here not with the establishment of a state church, which would,
of course, be constitutionally impermissible, but with whether school
children who want to begin their day by joining in prayer must be prohibited
from doing so. Moreover, I think that the Court's task, in this as in all
areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the
uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase
nowhere to [370 U.S. 421, 446] be
found in the Constitution. What is relevant to the issue here is not the
history of an established church in sixteenth century England or in
eighteenth century America, but the history of the religious traditions of
our people, reflected in countless practices of the institutions and
officials of our government.
At the opening of each day's Session of this
Court we stand, while one of our officials invokes the protection of God.
Since the days of John Marshall our Crier has said, "God save the United
States and this Honorable Court."1 Both the
Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with
prayer.2 Each of our Presidents, from George
Washington to John F. Kennedy, has upon assuming his Office asked the
protection and help of God.3
[370 U.S. 421, 447]
The Court today says that the state and federal
governments are without constitutional power to prescribe any particular
form of words to be recited by any group of the American people on any
subject touching religion.4 One of the stanzas
of "The Star-Spangled Banner," made our National Anthem by Act of Congress
in 1931,5 contains these verses:
"Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n
rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved
us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is
just, And this be our motto `In God is our Trust.'"
In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words "one Nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."6
In 1952 Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to
proclaim a National Day of Prayer.7 Since 1865
the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" have been impressed on our coins.8
[370 U.S. 421, 450]
Countless similar examples could be listed, but
there is no need to belabor the obvious.9 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, 343 U.S. 306, 313.
I do not believe that this Court, or the
Congress, or the President has by the actions and practices I have mentioned
established an "official religion" in violation of the Constitution. And I
do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What each has
done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly
cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation - traditions which come down to
us from those who almost two hundred years ago avowed their "firm Reliance
on the Protection of divine Providence" when they proclaimed the freedom and
independence of this brave new world.10
I dissent.
[Footnote 1] See
Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, Vol. 1, p. 469.
[Footnote 2] See
Rule III, Senate Manual, S. Doc. No. 2, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. See Rule VII,
Rules of the House of Representatives, H. R. Doc. No. 459, 86th Cong., 2d
Sess.
[Footnote 3] For
example:
On April 30, 1789, President George Washington
said:
". . . it would be peculiarly improper to omit
in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty
Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of
nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that
His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the
people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for
these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in
its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his
charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and
private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less
than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either.
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which
conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. . . .
"Having thus imparted to you my sentiments
as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I
shall [370 U.S. 421, 447] take
my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign
Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been
pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating
in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled
unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and
the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be
equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations,
and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must
depend."
On March 4, 1797, President John Adams said:
"And may that Being who is supreme over all,
the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all
ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this
nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration
consistent with the ends of His providence."
On March 4, 1805, President Thomas Jefferson said:
". . . I shall need, too, the favor of that
Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from
their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the
necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His
providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose
goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so
enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper
their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and
shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all
nations."
On March 4, 1809, President James Madison said:
"But the source to which I look . . . is in .
. . my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those representing them
in the other departments associated in the care of the national
interests. In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best
placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the
guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates
the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously
dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address
our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications
and best hopes for the future." [370 U.S.
421, 448]
On March 4, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln said:
". . . Fondly do we hope, fervently do we
pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if
God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's
two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until
every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn
with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must
be said `the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'
"With malice toward none, with charity for
all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us
strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds,
to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and
his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting
peace among ourselves and with all nations."
On March 4, 1885, President Grover Cleveland said:
". . . And let us not trust to human effort
alone, but humbly acknowledging the power and goodness of Almighty God,
who presides over the destiny of nations, and who has at all times been
revealed in our country's history, let us invoke His aid and His
blessing upon our labors."
On March 5, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson said:
". . . I pray God I may be given the wisdom
and the prudence to do my duty in the true spirit of this great people."
On March 4, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
said:
"In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask
the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He
guide me in the days to come."
On January 21, 1957, President Dwight D.
Eisenhower said:
"Before all else, we seek, upon our common
labor as a nation, the blessings of Almighty God. And the hopes in our
hearts fashion the deepest prayers of our whole people."
On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy
said:
"The world is very different now. . . . And
yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are
still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come
[370 U.S. 421, 449] not from
the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.. . . . .
"With a good conscience our only sure reward,
with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the
land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on
earth God's work must truly be our own."
[Footnote 4] My
brother DOUGLAS says that the only question before us is whether government
"can constitutionally finance a religious exercise." The official chaplains
of Congress are paid with public money. So are military chaplains. So are
state and federal prison chaplains.
[Footnote 5] 36
U.S.C. 170.
[Footnote 6] 36
U.S.C. 172.
[Footnote 7] 36
U.S.C. 185.
[Footnote 8] 13
Stat. 517, 518; 17 Stat. 427; 35 Stat. 164; 69 Stat. 290. The current
provisions are embodied in 31 U.S.C. 324, 324a.
[Footnote 9] I am
at a loss to understand the Court's unsupported ipse dixit that these
official expressions of religious faith in and reliance upon a Supreme Being
"bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the
State of New York has sponsored in this instance." See ante, p. 435, n. 21.
I can hardly think that the Court means to say that the First Amendment
imposes a lesser restriction upon the Federal Government than does the
Fourteenth Amendment upon the States. Or is the Court suggesting that the
Constitution permits judges and Congressmen and Presidents to join in
prayer, but prohibits school children from doing so?
[Footnote 10]
The Declaration of Independence ends with this sentence: "And for the
support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of
divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor." [370 U.S. 421, 451]
In the Engel v. Vitale case (1962), the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled 6-1 against New York's "Regents' prayer," a
"non-denominational" prayer which state education officials had composed for
public schoolchildren to recite.
