The Supreme Court's decision in Engel v. Vitale, 1962, brought a storm of protest from religious groups, politicians, and ordinary citizens. In that case, the Court found the 22-word, nondenominational prayer sanctioned by the New York Board of Regents an improper exercise of religion in the public schools. In cases like McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948, and in Justice Black's historical analysis in his dissent in Everson, 1947, the Court had begun to examine the "wall of separation between church and state." Solidifying that wall was a controversial undertaking given the role of religion in the heritage of the United States.
A Pennsylvania law required that "At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day. Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon the written request of his parent or guardian."
The Schempp family were Unitarians who objected to some ideas presented by a literal reading of the Bible. However, they did not want to ask that their children be excused, because the children would have to stand out in the hallway during the reading and would probably miss the school announcements that followed. So the Schempps, husband, wife, and two of their three children, brought suit to block the enforcement of Pennsylvania's Bible-reading statute. A State appeals court agreed with the Schempp family, declaring that the statute violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment "as applied to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…" Defeated, the Abington Township School District appealed.
Did the Abington School District and the State of Pennsylvania violate the 1st Amendment by sponsoring required Bible reading during the school day? Was the reading of the Bible a "religious activity"? Did this activity violate the Establishment Clause, and therefore make the State law unconstitutional?
For the School District: The Framers did not intend the 1st Amendment to forbid all government aid to religion, but only such aid as favored one religion over another. No persuasive historical case could be made for proving that the writers of the Constitution had in mind an absolute separation of church and state. The Establishment Clause was intended merely to prevent the creation of a national church, such as the Church of England. The required Bible-reading exercise was a legitimate and valid exercise of State authority in creating an appropriate learning atmosphere for students. The lower federal courts were in error in finding the Bible reading unconstitutional.
For the Schempp family: The Bible-reading exercise violated the individual rights of citizens under the 1st Amendment as applied to the States by the 14th Amendment. The Engel ruling made the separation of church and state quite clear. The Court should apply the Engel standard to this case and find the Bible-reading activity improper and unconstitutional. Public schools should be "neutral" on the subject of religion, and conducting Bible readings in the schools was tantamount to an endorsement of the beliefs contained in the text.
In its 6–3 decision, with Justice Clark writing for the majority, the Court found that "the practices at issue [Bible reading] and the laws respecting them are unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment…."
Clark began by discussing the role of religion in the history and traditions of the United States. "It is true that religion has been closely identified with our history and government…. The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself…. [But] the ideal of our people as to religious freedom [is]…absolute equality before the law of all religious opinions and sects…" With respect to religion, then, the "government is neutral, and while protecting all, it prefers none, and it disparages none…."
About the two principles of the Constitution regarding religion, Clark pointed out that the Free Exercise Clause "withdraws from legislative power, State and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion." The State, in short, cannot impose restrictions on what people may believe or profess in matters of the spirit. "Its purpose," Clark wrote, "is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions thereof by civil authority." On the other hand, the Court had determined time and again that the Establishment Clause prohibited any type of sanction by the State of any religion. To allow Bible reading would essentially constitute an endorsement of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which in the opinion of the Court would conflict with the Establishment Clause.
With this case the Court provided a standard of measurement for assessing the constitutionality of government involvement in religious activity. Clark wrote: "The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and primary effect of the enactment [law]? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion, the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power…."
In the same year, in Murray v. Baltimore School Board, 1963, the Court further clarified its rule about government and religion. "The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize…through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality…."