In 1955, the New York Board of Regents composed a voluntary prayer to be recited in public schools at the start of the day, following the Pledge of Allegiance:
“Almighty G-d, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.”
The Rebbe regarded this development as a striking instance of hashgachah peratis (Divine Providence). The Torah defines prayer as twofold: to request one’s needs from G-d, and to preface those requests with praise of Him.
Astonishingly, this short prayer fulfilled both requirements exactly. Thus, thousands of Jewish children—who were otherwise attending public schools without formal Jewish education—were able to fulfill a biblical command of prayer in its most complete form.
Beyond Jewish Law, the Rebbe emphasized the societal value of such an institution. G-d’s commandments were given for humanity’s benefit, and acknowledging the Creator as the source of one’s needs is a foundation for a healthy and stable society.
Yet this prayer quickly became the center of controversy. In 1962, a small group of parents – primarily Jewish – challenged the practice, arguing that it violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion. Their case, Engel v. Vitale, reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which on June 25, 1962 (23 Sivan, 5722), issued a 6–1 ruling striking down the Regents’ prayer. The Court declared that official sponsorship or endorsement of prayer in public schools was unconstitutional.
Just weeks later, at the farbrengen of 12–13 Tammuz, the Rebbe spoke publicly on the matter.
The Rebbe lamented that hundreds of thousands of Jewish children were not taught to pray daily, and many did not even attend synagogue on Shabbos or Yom Tov. In His mercy, G-d had arranged for the government itself to compose a prayer that included the central elements of a halachic tefillah.
Moreover, the Rebbe stressed, belief in G-d is not only a Jewish obligation. It applies to all humanity, and this prayer introduced millions of non-Jewish children to daily awareness of a single Creator—fulfilling one of the Seven Noahide Laws.
At that farbrengen the Rebbe also addressed two objections circulating among religious Jews:
Might the prayer evolve into a halachically forbidden text?
Critics feared it might acquire a Christian character. The Rebbe responded that halachah requires us to rule based on present reality, not on hypothetical possibilities.
Doesn’t Torah obligate observance of civil law?
Some argued that since the Court had ruled against the prayer, Jews must accept it. The Rebbe rejected this argument, noting that Jewish law does not demand passive acceptance of every government policy, especially when laws are subject to revision. The very basis of the Court’s ruling was an amendment, demonstrating that laws can change.
The Rebbe concluded by pointing to the opposition’s identity. Those against school prayer were the same activists who had opposed Jewish day schools, kosher hospitals, and the “released-time” program for Jewish children. Their alignment made clear where the true Jewish position should lie.
At the time of the farbrengen, although the Court had ruled, the decision had not yet taken effect. The Rebbe noted this was precisely the time to press for reversal. On 4 Cheshvan 5723 (October 31, 1962), during a private audience with New York Mayor Robert F. Wagner Jr. and gubernatorial candidate Robert M. Morgenthau, the Rebbe inquired as to their stance on the matter, stating that now was the proper time to discuss the issue.
The Rebbe’s Letters
The Rebbe wrote several letters on the Regent’s Prayer, two of which were officially released and circulated. The first emphasized the prayer’s halachic aspects and benefits, while the second focused on its broader educational and moral value, as well as its constitutionality. In both, the Rebbe consistently stressed that acknowledgment of a Supreme Being is the essential foundation of a stable and upright society.
Below are additional key points which appear in the Rebbe’s subsequent letters:
Religious freedom vs. banning religion
Drawing on his experience in Soviet Russia, the Rebbe warned that banning religion from schools under the pretext of “freedom of choice” was historically the first step toward eradicating faith altogether.
Non-sectarian vs. sectarian practice
The Rebbe distinguished sharply between a neutral, non-denominational prayer and explicitly sectarian practices such as the “Lord’s Prayer” or mandatory Bible readings, which he opposed as contrary to Halachah. A universal prayer to G-d, the Rebbe argued, could actually prevent sectarianism.
Democratic process
Since the Constitution is by and for the people, any practice beneficial to and accepted by the majority could legitimately become American law.
Epilogue: A Moment of Silence
After this initial period of advocacy, the Rebbe rarely returned to the subject of school prayer.
More than a decade later, however, when controversy arose in New Jersey over requiring a daily “moment of silence,” the Rebbe launched a new campaign in support of the idea. This subject—now practiced in many public schools across several states—will be explored further in the third installment.
Additionally, it appears that the Rebbe’s later call for a moment of silence was directed toward society at large, whereas the earlier campaign for the Regents’ Prayer (especially in the first circular letter) focused primarily on enabling Jewish children to fulfill the halachic obligation of prayer—something seemingly not accomplished through a moment of silence.
