Summary

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg Abington School District v. Schempp… (1963)

The First Amendment does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercises or in the favoring of religion as to have meaningful and practical impact. It is of course true that great consequences can grow from small beginnings, but the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg Abington School District v. Schempp… (1963)

Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg Abington School District v. Schempp… (1963)

The pervasive religiosity and direct governmental involvement inhering in the prescription of prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, during and as part of the curricular day, involving young impressionable children whose school attendance is statutorily compelled, and utilizing the prestige, power, and influence of school administration, staff, and authority, cannot realistically be termed simply accommodation, and must fall within the interdiction of the First Amendment.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature