Question one
The government of United States had been exposed to extensive communism that had been considered an element of exclusive concern. Through the element massive changes had been experienced in the nation. The government had used its extensive powers to influence how activities flow in the country. The case was revolving around a prayer that had been defined as the overall prayer that all the public schools were supposed recite. The prayer dictated “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.” It was believed that this prayer was meant to develop students to the kind of people they need to be in future. This was meant for proper preparation of citizens to future duties as citizens.
The case was connected to Engel and Vitale, who were the main definitions of the case. The Engel were parents to some of the students who were against the move by the government to introduce a common prayer to be recited by all students in all public schools. The parents believed that there was a requirement for the government to keep off the business of prescribing any kind of religious practices to the public. The prayer had been perceived to overlook various social provisions of the constitution (Dierenfield 53).
The community was in a controversial position concerning the issue of Regents’ prayer. People had been aware of the previous allegations of the constitution regarding personal beliefs. There were beliefs that some rights had been violated by the Regents. The provision by the government was clear violation of the freedom rights that had been given to students. It was not in order for the government to set specific time for prayer during school day. There were extensive concerns on whether the prayer represented an unconstitutional action. This was based on the concern whether it had effect on establishment of a religious code through a public agency. The community was extensively concerned of the issues that would have followed if the government continued to impose rules and conditions that have already been dictated by the constitution. The community is made of different groups of people who may have different religious views. Therefore, commanding people to pray in a similar manner is against the principals of other people and this has been the main element that the New York community has been thinking of as sensitive (Dierenfield 42).
In definition of the take of the community, Hugo also explained that it was extremely dangerous for the government to execute massive pressure on religious practices of its citizens. The government would do that through use of exclusive financial support and campaign. This would be proper way to execute massive pressure on minority beliefs. Hugo quoted the constitution to have been protective to individuals as it takes religion as a personal element and it needed to remain independent as much as possible. The founders of the constitution did not have any element against religion and they treated it as personal as possible (Dierenfield 39).
According to the Regents of the New York State, they did not bring up a religion by coming up with a prayer for those who were willing to recite it. Different religious elements are connected to governments, as well as officials, in reflection of the religious heritage of the nation. New York acted accordingly as directed by the constitution in providing an optional nonsectarian prayer. However, it was viewed as an intrusion into the affairs of the state matters by the Supreme Court to bring down the role of the regents in composing the prayer and encouraging students to recite it in schools (Dierenfield 47).
The issue of the prayer had gotten into a point where it had to be solved into a court. The court found the prayer unconstitutional. Justice Hugo Black who was the main judge in the case was supposed to give a ruling that was to be determined by seven judges, where six of them came up to similar conclusion while one of them defied the ruling of the rest. The ruling that had been made by the six judges was the winning ruling. It dictated that the use of the Regent prayer was a sign of how God would be showering blessings into students before they start their classes. This is an indication that the state ruling was in extreme favor of the use of Regent prayer among students. Indeed, it was one of the most outstanding ways to define people acceptance of God’s blessings through seeking the right channel of prayer. (Dierenfield 38).
Question two
At the beginning, the ruling by the Supreme Court seemed to have overlooked the thoughts of the plaintiffs. The Framers had suggested that people would be free to subscribe to the Regents’ prayer as it was so brief and it could do no danger to religious freedom. The assurance by the Framers would have been exhaustively convincing to the schools that could have found it extremely difficult to recite the prayer. The ruling was clear that the Regents’ prayer was a worthy religious practice. It was hard for the parents to accept the ruling as it had exclusive negative impact to them. They could not imagine how inconsiderate it was to assume that all students had equal beliefs. At last, the individuals had to agree with the ruling since the court had rule the case on consideration of the majority who were main concerned with the wellbeing of the society (Dierenfield 68).
The local community was experiencing an extremely appealing moment as a decision on one of the most controversial cases had been passed to its favor. Although, not everyone was happy of the decision that had been made by the court, it was rejoicing time for a large section of the community. It was time to let the society understand that proper religious practice are needed in the society. The element of religious sensitivity had to be implanted in children early in their lives. There had to be exclusive sensitization of religion and the need to recognize God as the source of life and joy (Dierenfield 73). It is through this that the community recognized the significance of prayers in their daily lives and they had every reason to stick into the meaning of prayers.
On the other hand, the religious community was extremely jovial following the campaign that the court had introduced in support for prayers among students. The community recognizes prayers as one of the most critical tools that individuals should cling to in a bid for excellence in the walk of faith. A prayer is a way of communication to the almighty God and it should be passed to generations. It is the duty of the elderly to let the children understand the role that they need to play in making them get closer to God through prayers. The constitution has been extensively useful in defining the need for prayers in the society (Dierenfield 72). This has acted as a boost to the religious community since people have become extensively sensitive to different religious practices.
In addition, the public policy makers experienced exclusive forces when the Supreme Court ruled to the favor of Ragents prayer. Public policy makers had positive response to this move as it extended support for the moves that were to be imposed on schools. This was an indication to them that the court would continuously support the positive moves or strategies that would be useful in supporting the wellbeing of the members of the society. it had become extremely easy to extend public policies since the constitution had become favorable to execution of various public activities.
Question three
Following the ruling by the Supreme Court that the prayer was unconstitutional, the prayer was connected to exclusive negative impacts. The ban of the prayer and Bible reading in public schools had exclusive impacts. First, it is worth noting that not all schools supported the prayer. There were various groups of people who were against the prayer and they felt that it should not be practiced in schools. This was major motivation for many principals not to allow use of the prayer in specific schools. For example, in Cincinnati in California, different schools have been against the prayer and they do not practice it. A good number of schools in the region found it difficult to comply with the principles that came with the prayer. Hence, they were not willing to practice it. Other schools found no significance in the prayer as they used to carry out other pledges in the morning (Dierenfield 76). This means there was no significance that the prayer extended to them even if it was to be recited every morning.
Religious activities in schools had become extremely sensitive elements that needed exclusive concern. These elements brought in exclusive concern on other constitutional issues that touched on religious activities in schools. It became a bit sensitive to deal with issues that touched on religion in educational facilities. Analysis was the central point in deriving meaning for any rule that was supposed to be passed in support for education. It was extremely difficult to set up new rules to govern constitutional changes in schools. It had gotten into the minds of people that most of the constitutional rules could not work in schools. Also, the challenges that followed the issue of prayers in schools were instrumental in defining the fate of any other constitutional change to be introduced in schools (Dierenfield 83).
The long-term impact of Engel v. Vitale (1962) was the sensitization of how instrumental religious practices would be to students and the community around schools. It is expected that students who have full understanding of their religion will be out for positive influence. Students gain exclusive outstanding morals that make them useful in the society(Dierenfield 85). Religion defines behavior, which is vital in influencing the behavior of the rest of the people in the society.
Work Cited
Dierenfield, Bruce J.. The battle over school prayer: how Engel v. Vitale changed America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2007. Print.
