It's a Stevens opinion. The State of Alabama had a law allowing silent meditation in the schools. It passed a new law adding the word "prayer." A District Court found no violation of the Establishment Clause. An appellate court overturned the District Court, and was affirmed by the SC.
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/472/38.htmlAppellee Ishmael Jaffree is a resident of Mobile County, Alabama. On May 28, 1982, he filed a complaint on behalf of three of his minor children; two of them were second-grade students and the third was then in kindergarten. . . . . The complaint alleged that the appellees brought the action "seeking principally a declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining the Defendants and each of them from maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services or other forms of religious observances in the Mobile County Public Schools in violation of the First Amendment as made applicable to states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." 12 The complaint further alleged that two of the children had been subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination "from the beginning of the school year in September, 1981"; 13 that the defendant teachers had "on a daily basis" led their classes in saying certain prayers in unison; 14 that the minor children were exposed to ostracism from their peer group class members if they did not participate; 15 and that Ishmael Jaffree had repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested that the devotional services be stopped. The original complaint made no reference to any Alabama statute. <472 U.S. 38, 43>
. . .
The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the schoolday. The 1978 statute already protected that right, containing nothing that prevented any student from engaging in voluntary prayer during a silent minute of meditation. 47 Appellants have not identified any secular purpose that was not fully served by 16-1-20 before the enactment of 16-1-20.1. Thus, only two conclusions are consistent with the text of 16-1-20.1: (1) the statute was enacted to convey a message of state endorsement and promotion of prayer; or (2) the statute was enacted for no purpose. No one suggests that the statute was nothing but a meaningless or irrational act. 48
We must, therefore, conclude that the Alabama Legislature intended to change existing law 49 and that it was motivated <472 U.S. 38, 60> by the same purpose that the Governor's answer to the second amended complaint expressly admitted; that the statement inserted in the legislative history revealed; and that Senator Holmes' testimony frankly described. The legislature enacted 16-1-20.1, despite the existence of 16-1-20 for the sole purpose of expressing the State's endorsement of prayer activities for one minute at the beginning of each schoolday. The addition of "or voluntary prayer" indicates that the State intended to characterize prayer as a favored practice. Such an endorsement is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion. 50
The importance of that principle does not permit us to treat this as an inconsequential case involving nothing more than a few words of symbolic speech on behalf of the political majority. 51 For whenever the State itself speaks on a religious <472 U.S. 38, 61> subject, one of the questions that we must ask is "whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion." 52 The well-supported concurrent findings of the District Court and the Court of Appeals - that 16-1-20.1 was intended to convey a message of state approval of prayer activities in the public schools - make it unnecessary, and indeed inappropriate, to evaluate the practical significance of the addition of the words "or voluntary prayer" to the statute. Keeping in mind, as we must, "both the fundamental place held by the Establishment Clause in our constitutional scheme and the myriad, subtle ways in which Establishment Clause values can be eroded," 53 we conclude that 16-1-20.1 violates the First Amendment.
Stevens' decision is not long. If you are not familiar with the format of SC decisions, please note that the first section summarizes the opinion in what are called "headnotes." You have to go down to the section that begins with "JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court." The concurrences and dissents also look interesting.
Roberts should be asked whether he still holds that opinion about this decision. If he chooses not to answer, we will know his answer.
As for prayer in the schools. Each of us knows of some religion that we would rather not have our child exposed to. What is to prevent your child from being placed in a class with a teacher of that religion?
I went to school in Alabama. My homeroom teacher was an atheist. She was required to have us say prayers in her class, however, she let us know in her own way that she hated the ritual. I cannot tell you how many times she chose me to read from the Bible, etc. She did that because she knew my father was a minister and would not object. Besides, I was hopelessly, miserably shy, and she got sadistic pleasure from picking on me and embarrassing me. That's my very personal reason for being strongly in favor of separation of church and state. One less instrument of torture and bullying in the classroom.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
