U.S. Supreme Court Engel v. Vitale, 370
U.S. 421 (1962) Engel v. Vitale No. 468 Argued April 3, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962 370
U.S. 421 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF NEW YORK Syllabus 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. 370 U. S.
422 -436.

															10 N.Y.2d 174, 176 N.E.2d 579, reversed. Page 370 U. S. 422 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 Page 370 U. S. 423 legislative powers over the State's public school system.
[ Footnote 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. [ Footnote 2 ] Page 370 U. S. 424 We granted certiorari to review this important decision
involving rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
[ Footnote 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 Page 370 U. S. 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. . . . [ Footnote 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, Page 370 U. S. 426 which was created under governmental direction and which was
approved by Acts of Parliament in 1548 and 1549, [ Footnote 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.
[ Footnote 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.
[ Footnote 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 Page 370 U. S. 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. [ Footnote 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. [ Footnote 9 ] Indeed, as late as the time of the
Revolutionary Page 370 U. S. 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. [ Footnote
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. [ Footnote 11 ] Similar though less
far-reaching Page 370 U. S. 429 legislation was being considered and passed in other states.
[ Footnote 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 -- Page 370 U. S. 430 that the people's religions 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
"nondenominational" 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 Page 370 U. S. 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. [ Footnote 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. [ Footnote 14 ] The Establishment Clause Page 370 U. S. 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. [ Footnote 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. [ Footnote 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 kind [ Footnote 17 ] -- a law Page 370 U. S. 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. . . ." [ Footnote 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. [ Footnote 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 Page 370 U. S. 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. [ Footnote 20 ] And
there were men of this same faith in the Page 370 U. S. 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
anti-religious 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. [ Footnote 21 ] Page 370 U. S. 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? [ Footnote 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. Reversed and remanded. 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. Page 370 U. S. 437 [ 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 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 Mis. .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 Encyclopaedia
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. 1, 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. 330 U. S. 11 -13,
and in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Rutledge, at pp. 330 U. S. 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, 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 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 willfully 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 morters: But those good Emperours,
persecuting some erroneous persons, Arrius, &c. and advancing
the professours 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 meanes Christianity
was ecclipsed, and the Professors of it fell asleep. . . ."

															Williams, The Bloudy Tenent, of Persecution, for cause of
Conscience, discussed in A Conference betweene 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
affaires of Life, to conceive that Emperours, Kings and Rulers of
the earth must not only be qualified with politicall and state
abilities to make and execute such Civille Lawes which may concerne
the common rights, peace and safety (which is worke and businesse,
load and burthen enough for the ablest shoulders in the
Commonweal), but also furnished with such Spirituall and heavenly
abilities to governe the Spirituall and Christian Commonweale. . .
." 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.

															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. [ Footnote 2/1 ]
Nevertheless, I think it is an unconstitutional undertaking
whatever form it takes.

															First, a word as to what this case does not involve. Page 370 U. S. 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. [ Footnote 2/2 ] Page 370 U. S. 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 333 U. S. 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 Congress [ Footnote
2/3 ] does at the opening Page 370 U. S. 440 of each day's business. [ Footnote
2/4 ] Reverend Frederick B. Harris is Chaplain of the Senate;
Reverend Bernard Braskamp is Chaplain of the House. Guest chaplains
of various denominations also officiate. [ Footnote 2/5 ] Page 370 U. S. 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.
[ Footnote 2/6 ] It is said that
the Page 370 U. S. 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. [ Footnote 2/7 ] 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. [ Footnote 2/8 ] 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 , 343 U. S. 313 .
Under our Bill of Rights, free play is given for Page 370 U. S. 443 making religion an active force in our lives. [ Footnote 2/9 ] 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 , 366 U. S. 563 (dissenting opinion). By reason of the First Amendment, government
is commanded "to have no interest in theology or ritual"
( id. at 366 U. S.
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 , 330 U. S. 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. Page 370 U. S. 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 2/1 ]

															"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 nonpublic 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 percent of the adjusted gross income of
individuals and 5 percent 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 2/2 ]

															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, Chaplains of the United States Army (1958);
Jorgensen, The Service of Chaplains to Army Air Units, 1917-1946,
Vol. I (1961).

															[ Footnote 2/3 ]

															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 2/4 ]

															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 2/5 ]

															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. § 17. 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 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 2/6 ]

															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 2/7 ]

															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 2/8 ]

															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 2/9 ]

															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 Page 370 U. S. 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 Page 370 U. S. 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." [ Footnote 3/1 ] Both the Senate and the House of
Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer. [ Footnote 3/2 ] Each of our Presidents, from
George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has, upon assuming his
Office, asked the protection and help of God. [ Footnote 3/3 ] Page 370 U. S. 449 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. [ Footnote
3/4 ] One of the stanzas of "The Star-Spangled Banner " made our
National Anthem by Act of Congress in 1931, [ Footnote 3/5 ] 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."
[ Footnote 3/6 ] In 1952, Congress
enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to
proclaim a National Day of Prayer. [ Footnote 3/7 ] Since 1865, the words "IN GOD WE TRUST"
have been impressed on our coins. [ Footnote 3/8 ] Page 370 U. S. 450 Countless similar examples could be listed, but there is no need
to belabor the obvious. [ Footnote
3/9 ] 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 , 343 U. S.
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. [ Footnote 3/10 ]

															I dissent.

															[ Footnote 3/1 ] See Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History,
Vol. 1, p. 469.

															[ Footnote 3/2 ] 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 3/3 ]

															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 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."

															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
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 3/4 ]

															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 3/5 ]

															36 U.S.C. § 170.

															[ Footnote 3/6 ]

															36 U.S.C. § 172.

															[ Footnote 3/7 ]

															36 U.S.C. § 185.

															[ Footnote 3/8 ]

															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 3/9 ]

															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. 370 U. S. 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 3/10 ]

															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."

Summary: In Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that state officials cannot compose an official state prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even if it is denominationally neutral and participation is voluntary. The Court held that such actions violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. This decision affirmed the separation of church and state and protected religious freedom in public education.