Engel v. Vitale Decision Excerpts | A Primary Source Close Read w/ BRI

0:00 Hello, and welcome to another Close Read video. My name is Josh, and today I am joined by BRI scholar Tony Williams. Hey Tony. Hey, Josh, how are you doing? Excited to be on to talk about this important case. Yeah, I’m excited too, especially because we are about to release a homework help video on the Establishment Clause.

0:24 And in that video, we take a look at the history of the Establishment Clause as well as the application of it throughout American history. So in connection to this, we decided here to take a look at the case of Engel V. Vitale, one of the more important supreme court establishment plus cases.

0:48 So let’s go ahead and dive in. So to start off, Tony, why don’t we take a look at the actual wording of the establishment clause as well as kind of just could you give us a background of the establishment clause?

1:09 So why did the founders include it where the founders actually unanimous in wanting to include it in the Bill of Rights, that they have a similar understanding of what establishment meant, right? Well, those are surprisingly, extremely complicated questions, but we’ll try to simplify it and be brief.

1:33 This idea that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, right? The words are pretty clear, but they’ve been debated at the time and right through until today. On the face of it, I think a couple of very important things. One is Congress shall make no law.

1:55 So we’re really talking about the power of congress. Don’t forget, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the 14th amendment after the civil war. That’s very important. So the founders really thought this was a limitation upon congress, upon the national government, and they no longer respecting and establishing the religion.

2:16 Even that there’s something that all the founders agreed on, that we should not have a national church, that we shouldn’t have a national Baptist or Catholic or Jewish synagogue or church, not Presbyterian, Congregationalist, what have you, because that would breed tyranny, right.

2:39 It would really violate one’s natural right and religious liberty. Okay. Now, the states did have establishments, and they were constitutional because this limits congress, not the states. But even most of the states themselves were just establishing, such as Virginia and the Virginia statistry for religious freedom. But there would be some establishments

3:00 in new England right up through the 1819, even until the 1830s. So let’s keep that in mind. As a matter of federalism, was there agreement on this? While there was agreement on we shouldn’t have a national church. But what did it mean as we dug around deeper, people like Washington, John Adams,

3:22 John Jay really saw a place for government advancing religion or advocating religion, even if they didn’t say we should have a national church. And so Washington had days of thanksgiving and other kind of religious proclamation.

3:47 Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were sort of on the other side of the argument. And Jefferson believed, as well as Madison, that the government really shouldn’t be involved in religion at all. And the argument on Washington’s side was that the government should encourage people to practice their

4:10 religion privately because this promoted virtue morality. And virtue morality was the basis of good citizenship and republican government. And Jefferson and Madison sort of agreed with that, but they said, okay, but we don’t need the government to push it or encourage it. Religion is good on its own.

4:32 So it’s a complex subject, but the founders really all agree that we should not have an official church as the very basic understanding of this. But it’s really meant a lot more than that, as we’ll see, especially in modern times. Great, thank you.

4:52 Now, speaking of the founders, I think I recall Jefferson wrote some letter at one point talking about a wall or something like that. Could you just give me a brief rundown of what he talked about? I know that’s really important later in history as people are trying to interpret the Establishment Clause.

5:17 Right. Well, many of the presidents, the early presidents, received letters from various denominations, and as a matter of courtesy, presidential courtesy, they wrote back to them, encouraging them in their success of their churches and so forth. And Washington did this to almost every denomination.

5:40 And then Jefferson did it as well. And he wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists where he acknowledged that they were state establishments, but he wrote that he believed that there was a quote-unquote, wall of separation between church and state, between government and religion.

6:02 And this would later on be used. This letter that Jefferson wrote as the basis for constitutional doctrine guiding Supreme Court decisions, especially in the second half of the 20th century. This letter to the Danbury Baptists is very important. The students should read it as part of studying this topic.

6:29 Great. So let’s go ahead and dive into the actual case here. So the guiding constitutional question is, what should the relationship between church and state be? As you mentioned, Jefferson talks about that wall of separation. It’s obvious that the founders weren’t necessarily in agreement.

6:49 And of course, Americans throughout history have also not necessarily been an agreement on that. So could you give us a quick rundown of the background of this case? Yeah, the case takes place because students in the state of New York school said a prayer

7:11 and students were invited to participate in that prayer in their schools, in their classrooms, maybe like in homeroom, for example, to start the day and actually can read the prayer really quickly. It said, almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee

7:34 and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. So on the face of it, I would say that prayer is a pretty non sectarian, non denominational prayer. By and large, one might say, insofar as prayer in school can be innocuous.

7:54 It’s a pretty innocuous prayer. They’re just asking God for blessings on their teachers and their parents and themselves. And I think it’s important to note as well that the prayer was volunteer, that you could be excused if you your family had some objection to it. The parents didn’t want their children saying it in the classrooms.

8:17 They could be excused. So it’s a nondenomination prayer. It’s also not mandatory. It’s voluntary. So I think those two things are important to keep in mind. However, on the other hand, it’s still a prayer in school, and one might wonder whether school should be in the business of prayer.

8:37 Of course, Americans are still maybe divided on that question, but those are roughly the two sides. One says this encourages the students to take a moment, reflect on some larger things, maybe ask God for blessings. Others say, well, you know, prayer has no place in schools.

9:01 So those are roughly the two sizes that are lining up here. Great. So we’ve got here some excerpts from the actual decision. Now, the court is going to rule that the prayer is done constitutional, that it’s a violation of the establishment clause.

9:22 I believe it’s a six to one decision. So here we have Justice Black who wrote the majority opinion, and he’s going. To. Talk about kind of the nature of prayer here. And I know you had mentioned it seems pretty non denominational on the face

9:45 of it, but what does justice black have to say about that? Yeah, justice black basically says it violates the establishment clause. Okay. That it’s basically a religious activity. It’s basically endorsing religion. The purpose is not a secular one. So let’s say promote virtue among the students and get them to behave

10:10 in school or what have you, but really has a religious purpose. I think we need to remember that because of the 14th amendment. Now this 1st Amendment, Establishment Clause is applied to the states and to local governments and because public schools are an entity of that government.

10:32 The Bill of Rights now applies to them this establishment clause. And what Black is saying is that this violates the Establishment Clause because it violates what Jefferson and he actually and refers to the Danbury Baptist letter, which was used in the Everson case.

10:54 Now, the Everson case was a case whereby the court had to decide whether Catholic schools could receive public funding to bust their students to school. And the court allowed the busing, but then referred to the Danbury Baptist letter and said, well, but there’s this wall of separation not

11:16 violated in this case, but that’s our standard. And how that relates to this case is Black is going off that standard. He’s saying there’s a wall of separation between government and religion. And in this case, the school prayer violates the idea of a separation of church and state.

11:37 It breaks down that wall separating the two and violates the Establishment Clause because you’re uniting religion and government. Right? Yeah. And then we have here another quick quote from him. You kind of alluded at the beginning why

11:58 the Founders created the Establishment Clause not wanting a national religion. And here he talks about kind of, I guess, the utilitarian side of that, of like why you don’t want that in a civil society, and just this idea that

12:19 it’s bad both for religion and the government to have them be connected. Could you elaborate a bit on this? Right. Basically. It’s almost alluding to some things on Madison and Jefferson wrote during the debate over the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Because it’s basically saying that the civil magistrate or

12:40 the government should not really be in the business of religion or encouraging religion or interfering with religion in any way. And that established religions lead to religious persecution. Which has some basis and why the Establishment Clause was created in the first place.

13:02 But again, it goes to the question of did the First Amendment, Establishment Clause, was it to prevent a national church, an established religion, or was it broader in its application, such as Jefferson and Madison? Jefferson especially wanted that wall of separation.

13:25 And so thereby, when you tear down that wall of separation, you get persecution, as Black says. Right now, of course, the Court was not unanimous in this decision. There was one dissent. Justice Stewart. And could you give me a rundown? Why did he disagree with this?

13:47 Yeah, I think he’s taking the view that the Establishment Clause really certifies to Congress. Right. And the idea that the Establishment Clause prevented a national church or an established national religion. And he’s basically saying, I just don’t see that that’s happening here.

14:10 And even if he admits the principle of incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states, he’s basically saying that having some school children recite this prayer, which seems pretty non denominational and pretty innocuous, they’re sharing in the spiritual heritage of the nation.

14:33 They’re promoting good citizenship and good government and it’s not really leading to any persecutions. So that’s what Stewart is saying. And you can kind of see how they’re lining up with the differing views of the Founders right. With the majority lining up with more of that Jeffersonian,Madisonian view

14:53 and Stewart taking more sort of that Washingtonian view of things. Right? Yes. And then in this next quote, we kind of see him going on with that, just talking about how kind of similar to what you said with Washington. This promotes morality. It’s something that we want to encourage and Stewart here talks about.

15:18 We have been encouraging that. Look at all the government bodies that have had some spiritual part of it. We have these chaplains, other officers that are involved in the government, but yet we accept that. So why can’t we accept this school prayer?

15:42 Do you have any other thoughts on this quote? Yeah. No. I mean, he raises several interesting points about how the federal government is involved with encouraging religion, or at least being involved in religion in pretty peripheral ways. Right. Or that it’s okay for the Congress to start with the prayer to do that in the national military.

16:07 But also the court opened with God save this honorable court and other presidential proclamations such as Thanksgiving and so forth, which I don’t think anyone ever declared Lincoln’s Thanksgiving proclamation unconstitutional, for example.

16:29 But he’s appealing to that rich heritage, right. Where the government and religion was tied up in our understanding of Republican self-government and a virtuous and moral citizenry, as well as what he thinks is part

16:51 and parcel of just our history and our institutions. He says this is a very common practice, so he doesn’t have a particular problem with what’s going on in the New York schools. Sure yeah. Another example that stands out in my mind is on our currency ‘In God We Trust.’ I think Stewart actually mentions

17:12 that in his decision and he says, well, we have that. That’s just such a fundamental, everyday part of our life. So why do we have that? That seems like Congress is kind of getting involved with religion to some extent, so why can’t we have career? Right?

17:34 Now, let me say this. If the prayer had been different, right? If it was particularly denominational prayer. If. It were very sectarian, if it were mandatory, if students were sort of coerced in saying it, one might take different views, right.

17:56 So in looking at all sides of this case, even Stewart might have had some different views, had the sort of nature of the prayer and compliance with saying the prayer, if that had been different, great. So let’s go back to our original question.

18:18 So what are some concluding thoughts that you have and how can this case help us address this question? Right, well, why should the relationship between church and staple? Well, it’s complex, right. We did settle the issue here, and we’re probably not going to. Right. This is a very complex issue,

18:40 but I would direct our teachers and our students to BRI resources where they can sort of dig around in these questions and watch the homework help videos and look at our various curricula, such as religious liberty, that deal with this, to try to draw some conclusions about it.

19:04 It takes examining, studying the Constitution, looking at founding views, looking at the 14th Amendment, looking at the Supreme Court cases. But I would say this I don’t think that we should just completely defer to what the Supreme Court says about this, because citizens and the other branches,

19:26 for example, may have different views on whether students should pray in schools or whether there should be prayer at a public school football game or at graduation ceremonies or at other events. So one could continue to grapple with this.

19:51 I don’t know that the court has really conclusively decided this issue, so it’s still very much, I think, of her debate. Well, thank you so much, Tony, for joining us again. Our Primary Source, Close Reads come out bi weekly, and we also, as I mentioned earlier,

20:13 have a homework help video coming out on the actual Establishment Clause. And in that video, we’re going to talk a lot about what we discussed here, but much more. We’re going to really dive into the history, and we’re also going to show a lot of different cases and how the Establishment Clause has been applied.

20:38 So you can join our conversation on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram for updates on programs, events, and ways to get involved. Finally, we’d love to hear from you, so be sure to comment your thoughts on the video below or get in touch with us on social media. Thanks again for joining.