answersLogoWhite

0


Verified answer

Public institutions need to avoid any involvement with religious activity, even if it seems minor or harmless (Apex).

User Avatar

Anonymous

Lvl 1
3y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
User Avatar

igotthatwap

Lvl 1
3y ago
correct
User Avatar

Anonymous

Lvl 1
3y ago
Wrong
User Avatar

Anonymous

Lvl 1
3y ago
Correct
User Avatar

Michaela M Witt

Lvl 1
10mo ago
piece of shi!t its wrong stupid
More answers
User Avatar

Mertie Ferry

Lvl 10
3y ago

religious activity in public schools in a dangerous violation of the separation of church and state

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Lovely Roses

Lvl 7
4y ago

People should not have to restrict their free exercise of religion just because they happen to be in school.

This answer is:
User Avatar
User Avatar

Benchodicals

Lvl 1
3y ago
wrong you idiot

User Avatar

Malachi Williams

Lvl 4
3y ago

People should not have restrict their free exercise of religion just because they happen to be in a school. (just took the quiz)

This answer is:
User Avatar
User Avatar

Karina Ernser

Lvl 1
3y ago
Oh ok
User Avatar

Tiana VonRueden

Lvl 1
3y ago
How did you get that answer?
User Avatar

Rosalee Bergstrom

Lvl 1
3y ago
I agree with this answer

User Avatar

Veronica Olguin

Lvl 2
3y ago

Religious activity in public schools is a dangerous violation of the separation of church and state. APEX

This answer is:
User Avatar
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about American Government

The case of Engel v. Vitale said a state sponsored prayer was against the constitution?

true (:


What are three US Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment Establishment Clause and education?

This question asks about US Supreme Court cases involving organized religion and prayer in the public schools, a practice the Court has held is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, which holds the government cannot promote religion. Public schools are considered government agents because they receive federal funds; therefore, they are bound by the same constitutional limitations as the state and federal governments. Private schools that do not receive money from the US government are under no such restriction and can conduct organized prayer without fear of intervention.It is important to note these Supreme Court decisions relate only to organized prayer in public schools. Individuals are free to pray privately, but not to impose their religious beliefs or the exercise of any religion on others.The Supreme Court made their position clearer in Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995) when they wrote: "...private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." The key word in this statement is private.Landmark Supreme Court CasesEngel v. Vitale (1962) was the first US Supreme Court case that held organized prayer in public school is a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from promoting or establishing religion. The Court held that a New York school district's policy requiring students to recite a prayer at the beginning of each day violated some students religious traditions. They ruled the New York state law that allowed school districts to create this policy was unconstitutional.Case Citation:Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)During the 1963 Term, the Court attempted to clarify the Engel v. Vitale, (1962) decision by tackling another case regarding school prayer, Abington Township v. Schempp, (1963), in order to address points that raised protests from certain members of the Christian public. Specifically, the Supreme Court wanted to address concerns about their interpretation of the Establishment Clause prohibiting public schools from sponsoring prayer, because the decision departed from two hundred years of American tradition in which Christianity and public education were freely intermingled. They explained that the Establishment Clause applied to the states under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Case Citation:Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963)The Supreme Court heard a similar case, Wallace v. Jaffree, in 1985, in which Alabama law permitted public school teachers to lead prayer sessions and teach religion during the school day. In a 6-3 decision, the Court determined the state law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment Establishment Clause.Case Citation:Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 US 38 (1985)In Lee v. Weisman, the Supreme Court specifically ruled clergy-lead prayer at public school events is a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause because public schools are government agents bound by the constitutional prohibition against imposing religion on a secular audience. Private schools are free to incorporate prayer into their activities.The Court held that "The school's rule creates subtle and indirect coercion (students must stand respectfully and silently), forcing students to act in ways which establish a state religion. The cornerstone principle of the Establishment Clause is that government may not compose official prayers to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government."Case Citation:Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577 (1992)The Supreme Court addressed one school district's attempt to circumvent the decision in Lee v. Weisman, (1992) in their decision for Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, (2000), when the Court held the Santa Fe's policy of allowing student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games also violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause.In the opinion of the Court, the school district was violating the Establishment Clause by actively endorsing the single viewpoint of the majority and ensuring the minority views would be effectively silenced. This practice was not only a violation of the Establishment Clause, but also infringed on the rights of others, particularly cheerleaders, football players, and band members whose attendance was mandatory, who might hold different (or no) religious views. Justice Stevens wrote: "The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between attending these games and avoiding personally offensive religious rituals."Case Citation:Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 US 290 (2000)You can read more about these Supreme Court cases by accessing Related Questions, below.


How were the tinker v. Des Moines and engel v. vitale similar?

both cases established limits on public schools' actions based on the first amendment


What case said recitation of prayer in school was unconstitutional?

The two cases most relating to school prayer are Engel v. Vitale (1962) andAbington Township School District v. Schempp (1963). The first case originated in NY and ruled that the school board could not require students to the recite a prayer they had written. Such required recitation was a form of state-mandated religion.The second case, filed by a Unitarian couple in Philadelphia, ruled that required school-sponsored reading of the Bible or the Lord's prayer was illegal.


How did Engel v Vitale define the relationship between church and state?

Justice Hugo Black wrote extensively about the relationship between the church and state in the majority opinion of Engel v. Vitale. He supported his reasoning with historical examples of the problems inherent in intermingling government and religion. Black's opinion may be read in its entirety via Related Links, below."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."and"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 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."Case Citation:Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962)

Related questions

Was the Supreme Court decision in Engel v Vitale unanimous or split?

The US Supreme Court vote was split 6-1; Justice Potter Stewart dissented from the majority. Justices Byron White and Felix Frankfurter took no part in the case.Case Citation:Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962)


How long did the case Engel v Vitale take?

It took a little more than three years to move Engel v. Vitale through the court system. The case was first filed in a New York state court in 1959, and subsequently went through three rounds of appeals, culminating with the US Supreme Court's decision on June 25, 1962.Case Citation:Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962)


What was the result of the supreme court's ruling in engel v. Vitale?

Teaching religion in public schools was forbidden.


What precedent was set in the Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale (1962)?

that all ballsacks are to be round


What was the result of the Supreme Court ruling in engel v. vitale?

Teaching religion in public schools was forbidden.


In what court did the Engel v. Vitale case begin?

Engel v. Vitale, 191 N.Y.S.2d 453 (Sup. Ct. 1959) began in the Supreme Court at Special Term in Nassau County, New York. A decision favoring the New Hyde Park, NY, school district was rendered October 5, 1959, by Judge Bernard S. Meyer. The court held the Reagents' Prayer was constitutional.Engle was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department which affirmed the lower court decision in Engel v. Vitale, 206 N.Y.S.2d 183 (1960); and upheld again by the New York Court of Appeals in Engel v. Vitale, 176 N.E.2d 579 (N.Y. 1961).In the New York justice system, the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction (trial court) for matters of general jurisdiction. The State's high court is the New York Court of Appeals.Case Citation:Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962)For more information, see Related Questions, below.


What is the birth name of Milly Vitale?

Milly Vitale's birth name is Camilla Vitale.


What is the birth name of Dan Vitale?

Dan Vitale's birth name is Danielle Marie Vitale.


What is the birth name of Lito Vitale?

Lito Vitale's birth name is Hctor Facundo Vitale.


What is the birth name of Carol Vitale?

Carol Vitale's birth name is Carol Ann Marie Vitale.


When was Amy Vitale born?

Amy Vitale was born on 1977-06-12.


When was Vito Vitale born?

Vito Vitale was born in 1959.