[P-Marlowe]

William Murray claimed when he tried to leave the classroom after being "excused" from the mandatory prayer, that the principal locked the door and refused to let him leave. Is it true? I don't know, I wasn't there. He also claimed to have been physically abused by his fellow classmates when he tried to leave. I don't know if this is true either, but it would not surprise me. You and I both remember how kids and peer pressure can be in high school.

How about we read the facts as recited by the court?

I. The Facts in Each Case

The Facts in Each Case: . . . No. 119. In 1905 the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City adopted a rule pursuant to Art. 77, Sec. 202 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The rule provided for the holding of opening exercises in the schools of the city, consisting primarily of the "reading, without comment, of a chapter in the Holy Bible and/or the use of the Lord's Prayer." The petitioners, Mrs. Madalyn Murray and her son, William J. Murray III, are both professed atheists. Following unsuccessful attempts to have the respondent school board rescind the rule, this suit was filed for mandamus to compel its rescission and cancellation. It was alleged that William was a student in a public school of the city and Mrs. Murray, his mother, was a taxpayer therein; that it was the practice under the rule to have a reading on each school morning from the King James version of the Bible; that at petitioners' insistence the rule was amended [1] to permit children to be excused from the exercise on request of the parent and that William had been excused pursuant thereto; that nevertheless the rule as amended was in violation of the petitioners' rights "to freedom of religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments" and in violation of "the principle of separation between church and state, contained therein.... " The petition particularized the petitioners' atheistic beliefs and stated that the rule, as practiced, violated their rights "in that it threatens their religious liberty by placing a premium on belief as against non-belief and subjects their freedom of conscience to the rule of the majority; it pronounces belief in God as the source of all moral and spiritual values, equating these values with religious values, and thereby renders sinister, alien and suspect the beliefs and ideals of your Petitioners, promoting doubt and question of their morality, good citizenship and good faith."

The respondents demurred and the trial court, recognizing that the demurrer admitted all facts well pleaded, sustained it without leave to amend. The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, the majority of four justices holding the exercise not in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, with three justices dissenting. 228 Md. 239,179 A.2d 698. We granted certiorari. 371 U.S. 809, 83 S.Ct. 21, 9 L.Ed.2d 52.

And your solution, "he could have simply sued for false imprisonment," does not address the underlying unconstitutional promotion of religion by a government institution.

That is not in the constitution. Never was.

[Lunatic Fringe]

I'm sure your one little paragraph does not encompass all the facts of the case.

And the Constitution clearly states in the First Amendment that Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. The Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to provide these same protections to its citizens.

Since Congress is prohibited from making laws that promote religion through government institutions, states are also prohibited.

Also, Engel v. Vitale clearly stated that school prayer is unconstitutional, whether or not students were permitted to opt-out of participation. The case was settled years ago, and I feel no need to argue its points again.