Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 25, 1962; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Mr. Justice Black delivered the Court's opinion regarding the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9 in New Hyde Park, New York, which mandated that a specific prayer be recited in classrooms at the start of each school day. This prayer, composed by the State Board of Regents and intended to invoke divine blessings, was part of a broader initiative on moral and spiritual training in public schools. Parents of ten students challenged this practice in court, claiming it violated their and their children's religious beliefs and practices, as well as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the use of the prayer, provided participation was not compulsory. However, the Court found that the State's encouragement of the Regents’ prayer constituted a religious activity inconsistent with the Establishment Clause, affirming that the prayer is inherently religious in nature. The Court noted widespread agreement among various entities, including legislative committees and educational officials, about the prayer's religious character, rejecting attempts to categorize it as a non-religious expression tied to spiritual heritage. The petitioners argued that the use of this prayer by the State represents a violation of the constitutional separation of Church and State.
The constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion implies that the government should not create official prayers for public recitation by any group. Historical context reveals that the practice of state-composed prayers contributed to the emigration of early colonists from England seeking religious freedom. The Book of Common Prayer, established under government direction in the 16th century, exemplified the issues surrounding government involvement in religion, leading to conflicts as different religious groups attempted to influence its contents to reflect their beliefs. Conversely, some groups that opposed the Church of England later established their own official religions in the colonies. By the time of the Revolutionary War, eight of the thirteen colonies had established churches. However, following the Revolution, resistance to state-sponsored religion arose, notably in Virginia, where figures such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson championed the 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty,' promoting equality among all religious groups. By the adoption of the Constitution, there was a heightened awareness of the risks of church-state entanglement, informed by the historical struggles for religious approval from transient political leaders. The Constitution aimed to mitigate these risks by placing power in the hands of the populace rather than a monarch, though this measure alone was insufficient.
The First Amendment was designed to ensure that individual prayer and religious beliefs are not influenced or controlled by the government. It prohibits the establishment of religion by any governmental entity, reinforcing that neither federal nor state governments can mandate specific forms of prayer in official religious activities. New York’s state prayer program effectively establishes religious beliefs through its Regents’ prayer, contradicting claims that the prayer is non-denominational or that students' participation is voluntary. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents government from endorsing any religion, regardless of whether the endorsement involves direct coercion. The historical context illustrates that government support for a particular religion often leads to societal division and disrespect for differing beliefs. Ultimately, the Establishment Clause reflects the Founders' view that religion is a personal matter that should not be manipulated by government influence, as such union historically results in persecution and degradation of both government and religion.
The Founders were aware that shortly after the Book of Common Prayer became the only recognized religious service in the Church of England, an Act of Uniformity mandated attendance at these services, criminalizing any alternative religious gatherings. This law was frequently violated by dissenting groups, leading to persecution, exemplified by John Bunyan's unlawful meetings. Similar legal persecutions emerged in several American colonies following the establishment of official religions. The Founders aimed to escape such systematic religious persecution, resulting in the creation of the Nation, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, which includes a prohibition against governmental establishment of religion.
New York's laws endorsing the Regents’ prayer conflict with the Establishment Clause's intent and language. Some argue that prohibiting state-endorsed religious services in public schools reflects hostility toward religion; however, this interpretation is incorrect. The intertwining of history and religion is acknowledged, as many fled Europe seeking freedom to pray independently. The same belief in prayer's power motivated the advocacy for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which protect religious freedom and prevent governmental interference in religious matters. The First Amendment was designed to alleviate fears stemming from past governmental control over religion and prayer.
It is emphasized that governments should refrain from creating or endorsing official prayers, leaving such matters to individuals and their chosen spiritual leaders. While New York's Regents’ prayer does not entirely establish a single religious sect, the endorsement of any official prayer poses a risk to religious freedom. As articulated by James Madison, the initial infringement on liberties should be viewed with caution, as the same authority that can establish one religion could easily favor a specific sect over others.
The authority compelling a citizen to contribute financially to one establishment can similarly mandate conformity to any other. The Court of Appeals of New York's judgment is reversed, with the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The trial court had determined that the Board of Education needed to establish procedures to protect those objecting to prayer recitation, affirming that the rights of petitioners and their children under the 'free exercise' clause necessitate safeguards against coercion. Regulations from New York City's Board of Education must ensure that school authorities do not comment on or pressure participation in the prayer exercise. Non-participation can be expressed by remaining silent or being excused entirely. The board is responsible for devising specific provisions for nonparticipants, ensuring equality between participants and nonparticipants. Such provisions may include separate assembly arrangements or adjusted school arrival times. The excerpt also references historical legislative acts related to the Book of Common Prayer, noting its revisions and the political context surrounding its changes from the reign of Edward VI through subsequent monarchs.
Following the restoration of Charles II in 1660, the Book of Common Prayer was reintroduced with modifications, prompting around 2,000 Puritan ministers to vacate their positions rather than accept the changes. The Puritans made multiple attempts to modify or abolish the Book, particularly during Charles I's reign, where their efforts faced strong opposition from the King and Archbishop Laud, who aimed to preserve the Church of England's Catholic elements. Laud, while supporting the Scottish bishops in drafting a similar prayer book, faced intense backlash upon its introduction in 1637. The subsequent execution of Laud and Charles led to the abolition of Episcopacy and a ban on the Book of Common Prayer. In colonial America, the Church of England was established in several colonies, while in others, such as Massachusetts and Connecticut, the Congregationalist Church held that status. Discrimination against Catholics persisted in various colonies, notably Pennsylvania and Delaware. The excerpt references significant legal developments regarding religious freedom, including Virginia's Religious Freedom Act, and discusses the broader implications of enforcing unpopular laws on societal cohesion.
The excerpt critiques the establishment of a government-sanctioned religion, arguing that it undermines both the authority of the government and the confidence of its adherents in the religion's intrinsic value. It posits that historical evidence shows that such ecclesiastical establishments have led to negative outcomes, including pride and ignorance among clergy and laity, as well as superstition and persecution. The text references the long trial of Christianity under legal establishment, suggesting that its greatest periods of influence occurred before its integration with civil governance. The proposed religious establishment is depicted as a betrayal of a policy that historically offered refuge to the persecuted, transforming it into a potential source of persecution itself. It warns that the legislation serves as a warning to those seeking freedom, suggesting a shift towards intolerance. Additionally, it discusses historical legislative efforts in England aimed at unifying religious practices, highlighting the challenges posed by individuals who refuse to participate in communal worship. The excerpt concludes with a reference to Roger Williams, noted for founding Rhode Island as a haven for religious freedom, exemplifying the motivations behind such migrations.
Williams, an early advocate for the separation of church and state, argued that this separation is essential to protect the church from potential harm caused by civil authorities, even those with good intentions. He believed that the zealous actions of emperors like Constantine caused more damage to Christianity than the persecutions by tyrants like Nero. Williams contended that during periods of persecution, Christians maintained their purity, while the actions of well-meaning rulers led to the corruption of Christian truths. He asserted that the civil magistrate should not interfere in religious matters, as the governance of both civil and spiritual realms is beyond the capacity of political leaders, who should focus solely on civil law and the common good. The text clarifies that encouraging expressions of patriotism in schools, such as reciting the Declaration of Independence or singing anthems that mention God, does not equate to the state-sponsored religious practices that are being challenged in New York.
