A. Harmonizing to the First Amendment. the passage of any jurisprudence set uping a faith is prohibited. Under the supervising of the Constitution. Congress can non interfere with the freedom of faith ; nevertheless. the Fourteenth Amendment does non let the provinces ( or their functionaries ) to restrict the basic rights of all citizens.
B. In the instance of Engel v. Vitale. the Board of Regents for the State of New York approved a short. voluntary supplication to be recited at the start of school each twenty-four hours. A group of parents whose kids attended the School District disagreed with this spiritual pattern and argued that the reading of a nondenominational supplication at the start of the school twenty-four hours violates the establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment.
C. In the sentiment of the children’s parents. the use of the official supplication in the public school was contrary to the beliefs. faiths. or spiritual patterns of both themselves and their children” ( Engel v. Vitale” ) . The parents aimed to dispute the constitutionality of the School District’s mandate of the usage of supplication in public schools. In the eyes of the New York State Board of Regents. the supplication was a Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools” ( Engel v. Vitale” ) . The province functionaries declared that the statement will be subscribed to by all work forces and adult females of good will. and [ they ] name upon all of them to help in giving life to [ the ] program” ( Supreme Court Collection” ) .
D. The tribunal instance of Engel v. Vitale originated in the province of New York. and was brought to the attending of a New York State Court by the malcontented parents of their kids enrolled in the public school system. Reasoning behind the instance being sustained within the province of New York rests as it was the topographic point of beginning every bit good as it was. in fact. the School District of New York under enquiry. After the confrontation. the New York Court of Appeals had approved the lower province tribunals which had supported New York’s power to utilize the day-to-day supplication in public schools so long as the pupils were non required to fall in in the supplication.
Section 2: Fact
A. Initially. the instance that became known as Engel v. Vitale began as a case in 1958. Steven I. Engel was one of the five parents of pupils from the little suburb of New Hyde Park. Long Island who believed that the supplication was composed of spiritual nature and abused the constitutional wall of separation between church and province. William J. Vitale. Jr. was a member of the opposing side. in favour of the nondenominational supplication. In the early 1950’s. the New York State Board of Regents composed a supplication to be spoken aloud by the category under the supervising of a instructor at the start of each school twenty-four hours. Regularly. the supplication was read as follows: Almighty God. we acknowledge our dependance upon Thee. and beg Thy approvals upon us. our instructors. and our state. ” Under the belief that history of adult male is inseparable from the history of religion” ( Engel v. Vitale” ) . the Board of Regents were trusting to set up moral and religious counsel in the schools. However. the supplication was still made voluntary to pupils. In the instance that a student did non wish to declaim the supplication. they may stay soundless or be excused from the room. In 1962. nevertheless. the Supreme Court concluded that the state-sponsored supplication in New York public schools was unconstitutional as it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Section 3: MAJORITY OPINION
A. There is a profound bulk in the instance of Engel v. Vitale. The group consists of citizens of New York ( the parents of the kids go toing public schools ) . a assortment of administrative functionaries. every bit good as the establishing male parents. This bulk believes that the supplication authorized by the New York Regents non merely violates the First Amendment but was violative to parents and students of other faiths. As a concordant sentiment. some are under the feeling that the supplication was composed as portion of a governmental plan to further spiritual beliefs. ( Legal Encyclopedia” ) and was being forced upon unwilling pupils.
B. As written by Justice Hugo Black in 1962. The spiritual nature of supplication was recognized by Jefferson. and has been concurred in by theological authors. the United States Supreme tribunal. and State tribunals and administrative functionaries. including New York’s Commissioner of Education. A commission of the New York legislative assembly has agreed” ( Engel v. Vitale” ) . Proving that the Regents’ supplication was obviously spiritual. the mandate and usage of the supplication in public schools was and still is illegal as established by the First Amendment and reinstated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. Many Americans are cognizant of the dangers of uniting Church and State. Among these concerns include the commixture of faith and schooling. In a affair of history. harmonizing to the Book of Common Prayer ( approved by Acts of Parliament ) . spiritual services were to be carried out in Church. In add-on. although the supplication was voluntary. the schools did non mandate precautions for kids placed under force per unit area or embarrassments if they chose non to take part.
Section 4: DISSENTING Opinion
A. The dissenting group of Engel v. Vitale is made of the New York State Board of Regents ( established by the State Constitution and granted legislative powers by the New York Legislature ) . and the New York public schools system. Under the belief that history of adult male is inseparable from the history of religion” ( Engel v. Vitale” ) . local school boards of New York allowed the supplication to be said at the gap of each school twenty-four hours. Officials from the Board of Regents claim that they composed the supplication as a program of moral education” ( Legal Encyclopedia” ) . Mr. Justice Stewart expresses that the supplication was made wholly optional for all students. as those who object to declaiming the supplication must be wholly free of any irresistible impulse to make so” ( Supreme Court Collection” ) .
B. On a legal footing. the dissenting sentiment of Engel v. Vitale does non believe that the supplication established an official faith. Besides. because the supplication was made entirely voluntary. the school board allowed it to be spoken each twenty-four hours. In amount. the Board of Regents every bit good as the school territory agreed that the supplication was denominationally impersonal and wholly legal.
C. In consideration of our nations’ traditions. Justice Stewart explains that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag contains the words one Nation under God…” What’s more. Stewart calls attending to our nations’ currency. saying that since 1865. the words IN GOD WE TRUST” have been impressed on our coins” ( Supreme Court Collection” ) .
Section 5: Decision
A. How would you govern on this instance? ” Frankly. I truly did hold to believe in order to reply this inquiry. After consideration. I believe that the Supreme Court Case of Engel v. Vitale should be ruled in favour of the bulk. Although I agreed with the sentiments expressed by the bulk. I besides felt that the supplication was unethical and non suited for schoolrooms.
B. It is obvious that the supplication holds spiritual content. which qualifies it as unconstitutional. I consider this content to be violative. peculiarly to people who have different beliefs. If there were pupils whose faith ( s ) differed from those expressed in the supplication and they chose non to take part. they may be faced with uncomfortable inquiries or ridicule. Use of the supplication was concluded illegal by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The fundamental law defends our Freedom of Religion. and under the influence of this supplication. I do non experience that it protects the pupils. I think that there should be a definite line between faith and schooling. and public schools should be kept free of all spiritual activity. I believe this supplication is clearly illegal and immoral.