Honorable J. W. Edgar. 

Commissioner of Education 

Opinion No.'WW-1445 

Texas Education Agency Re,: Implication of the recent 

Austi !I , Texas United States Supreme 

: Court-Is decision regarding 

prayer in the public schools 

.,' of New York, and related 

Dear Mr. Edgar: questions. .', 

You have requested an opinions from'this office 

upon certain questions relating to the implication of the 

recent United States,Supreme Court case of Eneel- v. Vitale, 

U.S. 8 L.Ed.2d ,601; 82 S.Ct. - 

xed "School'Prayer Case. 

(19621, the so- 

'I'. Specif,ically you have pos'ed 

the questions of whether, in view of the'deeis5on~'i.n Engel 

y . Vitale, ,+p& a ~schooldistrqc,tmay lawfully: 

"1. Permit a student or teacher to say a 

blessing at mealtime in,a homeroom group; 

"2. Provide a.pericd of silent meditation 

during mealtime; ~. 

‘3 . Have a prayer said at:the football 

g&es, or other school sponsored public gatherings; 

“4. Provide or allow for the'reading of 

Bible passages in a homework or during school 

assembly programs." 

In connection with the questions posed you have 

stated that there is no uniform policy, directive or practice 

in.the schools of this~ State concerning prayer or reading of 

the Bible in connection with activities such as set forth in 

the questions heretofore posed. 

In the case of &se1 v. Vitale,,sunra, the Board 

of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, Neil Hyde 

Park, had, while 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~schoolday: 
Honorable J. W. Edgar, page 2 (WW-144% 

"Almighty God, we acknowledge.our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon 

us9 our parents, our teachers and our country." 

This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents. The State Board of Regents is a governmental agency which had been created by the 

Constitution of the State of New York and such agency had 

been granted broad supervisory, execu 1 ive and legislative powers over the public school system of the State of New York 

by the Legislature of the State of, New York. The officials 

comprising the State Board of Regents had composed the abovequoted prayer which they recommended and published as a part 

of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in 

Schools." In the instant case the prayer was said upon the 

commencement of the school day and immediately following the 

pledge of allegiance to the flag. The prayer was said aloud 

by either the teacher or one of the students. However, no 

,~student 1Ja.S compelled to take part in such prayer, and could 

even leave the classroom if he so 'desired. 

'After the'practice of reciting'the Regents' prayer 

had been adopted by the School District,.the parents of ten 

children brought the instant action in a State court of New 

York, and, in the wordsof Mr. Justice Black in the United 

States Supreme Court's opinion in.Engel v. Vitale, w: 

‘1. . . challenged the constituti;zcni.z of 

both the state law,authorizine the SC strict to direct the use of nrav r in nubliq 

schools and the School District:s reaulation 

,~orderins the recitation of this aarticular craver 

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 lalJ 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.' . . .'I (Emphasis added). 

The trial court in New York inwhich this suit was 

commenced, denied the relief requeste d by the parents. The 

New York Court of Appeals sustained the order of the trial 

court which had upheld the power of New York to use the Regents' prayer as a part of the daily procedure 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. The 

United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and in its decision in En.ael v. Vitale, sunra, reversed and remanded the 
Honorable J. W. Edgar, page 3 (W-1445) 

decision of the New York courts. 

The implications-of Ennel v. Vitale, sunra, upon 

the questions posed in the instant opinion request are best 

revealed by excerpts of pertinent portions of the majority 

opinion of the Unived States Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale, 

m, and which are set forth as follows: 

"We think that by using its public school 

system to encouraae recitation of the Resents' 

prayer; the State of New York has adopted a 

nractice,whollv inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. : . . 

'1. . . 

"The petitioners contend among other things 

that the state laws requiring or permittinguse 

of the Regents' prayer~must -be struck do%Jn as a 

violation of the Establishment Clause because 

that nraver was comoosed bv sovernmantal official8 

as a cart of a'sov rnmental 

reliaious beliefg.e 

nroaram to furtha 

For this reason, petitioners 

argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in 

the public school system ~breaches the constitutional IJall of separation bet7rleen Church and St&t&. 

.We agree with that contention since we'think that 

the constitutional prohibition againstlaws respecting an establishment of.religion must at 

least mean that in this country~it is no Dart of 

the business of .aovernment to comnose official 

pravers for any sroun of the American oeonle to 

recite as a Dart of a relinious n roaram carried 

gn bv s overnment. 

II . . . 

II . . . One of the greatest dangers to the 

freedon of the. individual to worship in his own 

way lay in the Government's.placing its official 

stamp of approval upon one particular form of 

prayer or one particular form of religious services. . . The First Amendment was added.to the 

Constitution to stand as a .guarantee that neither 

the power nor the prestige of then Federal Government would be used to~control, support or influence the kinds of nraver that American people can 

say--. . 0 
Honorable J. W. Edgar, page 4: (ww-1445) 

I, 

. . . government in this country, be it 

state or federal, is without Dower to nrescribe 

bv law anv narticular form of Waver which is to 

be used as an official nraver in carrying on any 

program of governmentally sponsored religious 

activity. 

'1. .' . each separate government in this 

country should stav out of the business of writins or sanctioning official nravers and leave 

that purely religious function to the people 

themselves and to those the 

to for religious guidance."l 

people choose to look 

(Emphasis added). 

The majority opinion of the United States Supreme 

Court in Enaelv. Vitale, m, was adoPted upon the vote 

of five of the :,Justices. Justice Stewart dissented. Justice 

fiankfurter'and: Justice 'Aite took no part in the decision. 

Justice Douglas'i,corcurred in the result but upon different 

grounds which are set forth in his concurring opinion. 

Essen+$ally, the concurring 

Douglas deals.with the question of: 

'Whether the Government can 

finance a religious exercise.tt' 

opinlon.of Justice 

constitutionally 

Justice Douglas concurs with the result reached by 

the majority opinion; but bases -his reasoning, that there 

has been a violation of the First Amendment of the United 

States Constitution in the instant case, upon the grounds that 

the activities of the public schools of New York constitute 

the financing of a religious exercise by the State of New York. 

However, the reasoning set forth in Justice Douglas' 

concurring opinion can be given little or no more weight than 

me./t This last phrase was footnoted with the followings com- 

: 

"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 docume,nts such as the Declaration 

of Independence which contain references to the Diety 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 manv manifestations in our nublic life of 

belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no 

trues resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that 

t e S t of Uew York has sponsored in'this instance. 

Sts a%ie3). (Empha- 
Honorable J. W. Edgar, page 5 (W-1445) 

a dissenting opinion for the reason that the five Justices 

voting for the majority opinion did not see fit to agree 

with the grounds in such concurring opinionas a basis for 

the result reached by the Court. Consequently, in applying 

the decision handed.down by the United States Supreme Court 

in Engel v. Vitale, suvra, we must be guided by the majority 

opinion rather than the implications of the concurring opinion. 

Throughout the majority opinion of the Court in 

Enael v. Vitale, sunra, the Court repeatedly refers to lack 

of authority or power of any governmental body or agency to 

compose, prescribe, support, or influence the type or kind 

of prayer which may be said at any school activity. In turn, 

the Court condemns any such effort by a goverbmental body or 

agency to compose, prescribe, support .or influence the type 

or kind of prayer to be said as a violation of the First 

Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

We are of the opinion that the decision of the 

United States Supreme Court in Enpel v. Vitale; sunra, is one 

of narrow implication rather than broad and all embracing 

and we are of the further opinion that the Court by 

%~~ecision has merely rejected as unconstitutional any effort by governmental bodies or agencies to compose, prescribe, 

support, or place its approval upon any particular prayer or 

form of prayer which may be said during the course of some 

private, public, or governmental activity or function. 

Consequently, we are of the opinion that in regard 

to the questions you have posed none of such activities are 

illegal nor are they in violation of the First Amendment to 

the United States Constitution as long as there is no action 

by the State of,Texas or any of its agencies or political subdivisions to compose, prescribe, support or place its appro-- 

val upon any particular prayer or form of religious activity 

which may constitute a part of some public school or public 

school sponsored activity. 

: SUMMARY 

The decision of the United States Supreme 

Court in the Enael v* Vitale case does notprohibit the DUblic schools of the State of Texas 

from allowing the saying of prayers or the reading of p~assages from the Bible during the course 

of school activities or school-sponsored activities aslong as there is no action by the 
Honorable J. K. Edgar, page 6 (WW-1445) 

State of Texas or any of its agencies or political subdivisions to compose, prescribe, support, or place its approval upon any particular 

prayer or form of religious activity. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

BY 

PB:wb 

Pat Bailey 

Assistant 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE , 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Howard Mays 

Morgan Nesbitt 

Scranton Jones 

Ernest Fortenberry 

REVIEWED FOR T@ ATTORNE? GEmRAL 

BY:. Leonard Passmore