Opinion of Engel v. Vitale

[politicallefty]

One of the best decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court; FD.

[progressive85]

We had "a moment of silence" when we were in school, but I don't know if it was ever really valued in the way it had intended to be.  It was basically 10 seconds of kids staring into space, or some of the goofy kids making faces at each other.  Sometimes it wasn't even a moment of silence, there was whispering.  Today I can imagine kids on their iPhones.

I generally do not like the idea of mandatory exercises in schools.

It reminds me too of the Pledge cases.  I don't believe that mandatory prayer promotes religiosity or devotion to God, just like I don't believe daily recitation of the Pledge promotes patriotic love for America.  Kids do it because they're told to.  They should be doing it because they truly believe in what they are saying.

We'd be better off giving them a strong U.S. History and Government curriculum, than to push them into a patriotic exercise.  Or having a veteran come in and talk about what America means to him/her.  Kids can show love for their country by doing art, writing poems, visiting historical sites.

Also, let's teach kids about the history of Religion, and also have character education where values and morals that they would be taught about in churches could be part of the curriculum.

I also think it would be nice to have instead a daily personalized prayer or "grace", with a different student saying it before the start of every day.  It would highly personal, like for example students praying for a loved one, and the rest of the class joins in.  I think that would be much more individualized and it would be all student-led.  That could be very meaningful, and that's what I would prefer over recitation of the same things every day.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

FD

[MarkD]

I love Hugo Black; he was the greatest Justice the Court has had in all the years since he was appointed, but Engel has been one of the decisions that I have been suspicious about since I was a junior in high school.
If it is unconstitutional for public school teachers to lead voluntary prayer, then why isn't it unconstitutional for Congress and all the state legislatures to hire chaplains to lead voluntary prayer in legislative chambers? And why isn't it unconstitutional for military bases and prisons to hire chaplains to lead voluntary prayer? The Court itself had a Court Cryer who would always announce,  when the Justices entered the courtroom,  "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

[politicallefty]

I love Hugo Black; he was the greatest Justice the Court has had in all the years since he was appointed, but Engel has been one of the decisions that I have been suspicious about since I was a junior in high school.
If it is unconstitutional for public school teachers to lead voluntary prayer, then why isn't it unconstitutional for Congress and all the state legislatures to hire chaplains to lead voluntary prayer in legislative chambers? And why isn't it unconstitutional for military bases and prisons to hire chaplains to lead voluntary prayer? The Court itself had a Court Cryer who would always announce,  when the Justices entered the courtroom,  "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

As you already know, I share your appreciation of Justice Black. The most obvious answer to that would be different Courts, but that's obviously not a sufficient answer. Other than that, school is quite different from the other examples.

As for Congress itself, I would say that it is probably beyond the jurisdiction of any court, including the Supreme Court. The Constitution does a good job of insulating and protecting Congress from the other branches. (Or at least that's probably the best answer I can come up right now.) If Congress is drawing from the Treasury to pay for the prayer, that would certainly be unconstitutional. When it comes to state legislatures, I'm not sure, but I would err on the side that any payment would violate the First Amendment. As far as the Court itself, I'd be curious to know what the individual Justices thought back then. I think standing would be a big issue there.

When it comes to military bases or prisons though, that's something else altogether. I think that's where the Establishment Clause hits the Free Exercise Clause head-on. Neither being in the military nor being in prison ends one's rights under the First Amendment, though they can be limited (particularly when incarcerated). I would argue that there could or should be reasonable accommodations made for religious services under certain circumstances.

[I’m not Stu]

I know this decision will be overturned.

[ProgressiveModerate]

It was a *vital* one

I'm so bad lol.

In all seriousness I think it was the right decision - we are a national that has separation of church and state, and I think especially when you're dealing with impressionable young kids, it should not be a public school promoting a specific religion to them.

[Vice President Christian Man]

The beginning of America's downfall.

[MarkD]

I love Hugo Black; he was the greatest Justice the Court has had in all the years since he was appointed, but Engel has been one of the decisions that I have been suspicious about since I was a junior in high school.
If it is unconstitutional for public school teachers to lead voluntary prayer, then why isn't it unconstitutional for Congress and all the state legislatures to hire chaplains to lead voluntary prayer in legislative chambers? And why isn't it unconstitutional for military bases and prisons to hire chaplains to lead voluntary prayer? The Court itself had a Court Cryer who would always announce,  when the Justices entered the courtroom,  "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

As you already know, I share your appreciation of Justice Black. The most obvious answer to that would be different Courts, but that's obviously not a sufficient answer. Other than that, school is quite different from the other examples.

As for Congress itself, I would say that it is probably beyond the jurisdiction of any court, including the Supreme Court. The Constitution does a good job of insulating and protecting Congress from the other branches. (Or at least that's probably the best answer I can come up right now.) If Congress is drawing from the Treasury to pay for the prayer, that would certainly be unconstitutional. When it comes to state legislatures, I'm not sure, but I would err on the side that any payment would violate the First Amendment. As far as the Court itself, I'd be curious to know what the individual Justices thought back then. I think standing would be a big issue there.

When it comes to military bases or prisons though, that's something else altogether. I think that's where the Establishment Clause hits the Free Exercise Clause head-on. Neither being in the military nor being in prison ends one's rights under the First Amendment, though they can be limited (particularly when incarcerated). I would argue that there could or should be reasonable accommodations made for religious services under certain circumstances.

To me, given what I have learned about orthodox legal reasoning (learned from that far-right rube Robert Bork), the rules that Black and the other members of the Court enunciated as their interpretation of the Establishment Clause fail to be persuasive precisely because of the issues I mentioned above. A rudimentary tool of legal reasoning has been to contemplate realistic hypothetical analogies, apply the rules you have inferred from the law to those analogies, and test whether you will apply your inferred rule to similar situations. If you discover that you aren't going to apply the rule consistently - to those realistic hypothetical  situations - then you have to rethink the rules that you inferred from the law.
Yes, legislative chaplains get a salary from the government treasuries. Chaplains do not work as volunteers.

[politicallefty]

To me, given what I have learned about orthodox legal reasoning (learned from that far-right rube Robert Bork), the rules that Black and the other members of the Court enunciated as their interpretation of the Establishment Clause fail to be persuasive precisely because of the issues I mentioned above. A rudimentary tool of legal reasoning has been to contemplate realistic hypothetical analogies, apply the rules you have inferred from the law to those analogies, and test whether you will apply your inferred rule to similar situations. If you discover that you aren't going to apply the rule consistently - to those realistic hypothetical  situations - then you have to rethink the rules that you inferred from the law.
Yes, legislative chaplains get a salary from the government treasuries. Chaplains do not work as volunteers.

I think I gave you a consistent answer when it comes to legislative chaplains. However, Marsh v. Chambers wasn't handed down until 1983 anyway, which was a very different Court. Engel dealt with public schools and that is a very different issue. When it comes to the Establishment Clause, I feel like you're trying to create additional rules. The reason you cannot have full and absolute consistency when it comes to interpreting the Establishment Clause is because you also have to balance and contend with the Free Exercise Clause. That's why I think your military base and prison example doesn't negate what the Court said regarding the Establishment Clause. Laws regarding those examples would also have to be crafted quite carefully.