AP U.S. Government and Politics 3.2: First Amendment: Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment bars government establishment of religion and protects the free exercise of religion. The Establishment Clause asks whether government sponsors or establishes religion. The Free Exercise Clause asks whether government improperly interferes with religious belief or practice. A government can violate religious liberty by promoting an official religious activity or by burdening a person’s religious exercise. These are related protections, but identifying one does not automatically answer the other.

In a public school dispute, identify who creates or organizes the religious activity. A state-composed prayer delivered as part of the school program raises a different question from a student’s own prayer. School sponsorship is government action. Individual religious expression is not automatically government establishment merely because it occurs at school.

The tension concerns both government power to make laws and the individual’s religious freedom. A helpful explanation states the government’s action, the relevant clause, and the reasoning connecting them. Saying only that religion is protected leaves the central constitutional question unanswered. Source: National Archives, Bill of Rights transcript.

In Engel v. Vitale (1962), New York’s Board of Regents composed a short, nominally nondenominational prayer. A public school district directed that it be recited at the beginning of the school day. Students could remain silent or be excused. Parents challenged the official prayer under the Establishment Clause.

Justice Black’s majority opinion held that the state-composed, school-sponsored prayer violated that clause. The Court reversed the state judgment upholding the practice. Government had composed and sponsored a religious activity. Its reasoning did not depend on proof that every student was forced to participate, nor did describing the prayer as nondenominational cure the constitutional problem.

The majority distinguished official prayer from individual religious freedom. The case did not forbid private belief or decide that all student prayer is unconstitutional. Its constitutional question concerned a government program of prayer in public schools. When describing the holding, retain that actor and activity. Removing them turns a specific limit on government sponsorship into an inaccurate claim about religion generally. Read the original majority, especially pages 424-425 and 430-435: Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 422-436 (1962).

In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), Amish parents were convicted for refusing to send their children to school after eighth grade, although Wisconsin required attendance until age sixteen. The parents argued that high school attendance conflicted with their sincere religious way of life. They provided evidence of a longstanding religious community and continuing vocational education.

Chief Justice Burger’s majority opinion held that applying the attendance requirement to these parents violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court affirmed the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s judgment setting aside their convictions. It weighed the severe burden on religious exercise against the state’s education interest, concluding that the state had not justified this additional schooling requirement under these facts.

The decision did not establish that any religious objection defeats any law. Its reasoning depended on the demonstrated religious burden and evidence addressing the state’s concern for education and self-sufficiency. Compare Engel: one limits government promotion of religion; the other protects religious exercise against a particular state requirement. Both apply constitutional limits to government, but through different clauses. Read pages 215-219 and 228-236: Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 207-236 (1972).