NO PRAYERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PLEASE! There are three basic reasons why I, as a Christian minister, wholeheartedly support the Supreme Court's decision regarding the regents' prayer and the Court's June 25 decision to make such prayers illegal in public schools. 1. It is not the role of government to foster worship practices. In regard to religion it is the role of our Government to judge, to umpire, in matters of fair or unfair religious practices. The umpire cannot take sides; he cannot be the pitcher; nor must he be the prayer. He has one role and only one role in matters of religion: he renders judgment. In these United States the role of government as it relates to religion is specifically written into the first amendment. We religious people must come to a realization that our Government is basically secular in its function. People in government may be, and I, personally, hope are, deeply religious. Their witness to their faith can be a testimony of interior integrity and a recognition of the awe and mystery of life. But as public servants their role is to keep the practice of their worship out of their official responsibilities. This role is incumbent upon all government employes, from the President of the United States to the public school teacher in the primary grades. Inherent in our democracy is the system of checks and balances. This law works equally well outside government and within. Our religious institutions and our political institutions operate best in a framework of checks and balances. Protestantism stands in an objective state of healthy tension with the state. It is in our tradition to say to the state, "Attend to your constitutional responsibilities and we will attend to our religious responsibilities." This healthy division of roles of responsibility tend to keep both religious institutions and government institutions on the alert. Mix these roles and you invite chaos. 2. I am opposed to prayers in public schools because such prayers inevitably violate the essential nature of prayer as Jesus taught it in Matthew 6: 6-8. Prayer is there presented as a private, spiritual experience, and repetitious prayers in public are downgraded. Prayer by rote violates the essential nature of communication between spirit and Spirit. The act of prayer is a private relationship between the prayer and God. In its public or corporate form the art of prayer becomes more complicated and even more subject to laws of magic than an enhancement of the mystery of spiritual communication. There are wide differences between deeply religious persons regarding prayer. The devout Roman Catholic may say his prayers by rote and believe in their efficacy on the principle of the more frequent, the better. The pious Quaker may find his richest relationship with God in absolute silence, without a spoken word. To merge these and other forms of prayer into a meaningful relationship with God is not the task of the public school teacher or any other public official. The practice of prayer is the responsibility of home and religious institutions. The kind of prayer presented in the regents' prayer tends to produce a picture of God totally inconsistent with the concept of God as given by Christ Jesus. It suggests a prayer pattern totally inconsistent with what Jesus taught. Its use would inevitably destroy the spirit of true religion as understood by the Protestant Christian. 3. Prayers in public schools tend to take away from the home, from the family, and from the religious institutions their primary responsibility for the worship practices of their children. The home is the greatest personality and characterforming force in the life of a child. The home will condition its children for good or bad more effectively than any other agency. We do a great disservice to home and church by taking on their most important function. To the services rendered by Government, many of them excellent-public education, public health, public postal services, guardian of law and order-we must never add the responsibility for religious practices. This is the high priority of church and home. Remove religious responsibility from famly and relgious institutions and the cornerstone of a free society has been removed. It is where family and religious institutions are separate from the state that democracy flourishes. A healthy religious homelife is essential to a healthy democracy. I repeat: All devices by the public school to teach religion or practice religion or go through any religious exercises are contrary to the best interests of the religious development of the children. Besides giving erroneous conceptions of prayer, all actions on the part of public school officials to exercise any religious practices remove that responsibility from its proper base-the church and the home. We in religious circles owe a great debt of gratitude to the Supreme Court for its objective role as umpire in the case of the regents' prayer-and for calling it "out." O. WALTER WAGNER. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. ST. JOHN'S EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, GENTLEMEN: Thank you for your letter of November 8. While it would have been much better to explain one's thoughts in person, I am nevertheless grateful for this opportunity to render this one small voice on the "prayer issue." In order to avoid being redundant and lengthy in my discourse, I shall say at the outset that I believe that there is a new trend in our Nation, not only in religion but in all aspects of thought, that are contrary to the concepts held valid and valuable by the founders of the Republic. It is absolutely impossible for any government to be objective about religion with which it lives. The Government has the choice of either being favorable or unfavorable to religion. There can be no purely objective middle ground. In Soviet Russia and in the United States, there is preached the dogma of "separation of church and state." The actual fact of separation is only true in part. In Soviet Russia, atheism is promoted over religion and in the United States, religion is promoted over atheism. Yet, both nations boldly state that there is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. An excellent example of this half-truth is the refusal of public communications to broadcast atheistic programs in the United States, while religious programs are wanting in Russia. My contention is not with the Supreme Court's decision. I am merely alarmed with the trend it represents. While this decision may be valid, it opens the door and encourages other steps to literally destroy the religious content in the American fabric of life. I would strongly suggest that the Court or the Congress find new concepts which will both preserve our heritage and also create a new avenue of human expression to meet the need our crisis of today. Sincerely, THE REVEREND WILLIAM H. RITTBERGER. ASTORIA, N.Y., November 8, 1962. Senator JAMES O. EASTLAND, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: Thank you for your letter of October 17 and for your offer to submit a written statement with regards to the Supreme Court's school prayer decision. I am disappointed that I was not given the opportunity to submit a public hearing in this regard, but appreciate nevertheless, a chance to state my views in writing. I have been appointed as representative of a group of mothers and U.S. citizens to protest the Supreme Court's school prayer decision. We believe the ruling interferes with the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by our Constitution's first amendment. We further feel that future interpretations of this ruling might have far-reaching effects in our reference to the Almighty-on our coins, the prayer invocation at the opening of the Senate, any reference whatsoever to God in our public schools, etc. It might be interpreted to the extent of outlawing God (the mentioning of his name) in any public institution or function. We believe also that the New York State Board of Regents had no intention of establishing a religion in our public schools, but rather an intention to implant in the minds of our children the strength obtained spiritually when invoking help from the Almighty. Our country was born through faith in God and this faith should be passed on to our young. The principles of our forefathers will be lost forever if our faith is abolished in public places. Some say that faith in God should be taught in the home. This is true. But are we preaching religion by a prayer asking for God's help and blessings not only for us but for all? 92395-63-15 We respect the Supreme Court and the vital part it plays in our Government. We firmly believe that its members in reaching their decision might not have realized the consequences involved. In this spirit, we know the Judges will find that an amendment to counteract their decision, is very necessary. We further trust, in conclusion, that the 88th Congress will proceed in this regard and hope that our statement herein will prove worthwhile in the evaluation of proposals. If possible, I would appreciate hearing from you further as to the progress in this matter. Respectfully yours, Hon. HIRAM L. FONG, Miss ALICE OPRYSKO, FLINT JEWISH COMMUNITY COUNCIL, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR FONG: We are writing with reference to the hearings now being conducted before the Judiciary Committee, which is considering proposals for amendment to the Constitution in view of the Supreme Court decision on the regent's school prayer in New York. We are opposed to any amendment which would tamper with the guarantees set forth in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion is a keystone of the American way of life. Any change in the Bill of Rights would only weaken this important safeguard. We commend the Supreme Court for their decision which is in the best interests of all Americans. We respectfully request that this expression of our opposition to a constitu tional amendment be incorporated in the record of the hearings. Respectfully, Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND, IRVING L. GEISSER, Executive Director. MARVIN LEVEY, Chairman, Community Relations. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, August 22, 1962. Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Have received the enclosed statement signed by leading clergymen, attorneys, and educators from Greater Kansas City with respect to the Supreme Court decision in the New York School Prayer case. It has been requested that this statement be made a part of the record of the hearings by our committee on the various proposals to amend the Constitution. Would greatly appreciate the committee complying with this request. Kind personal regards. EDWARD V. LONG, U.S. Senator. Senator EDWARD V. LONG, ST. PAUL SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, METHODIST, DEAR SENATOR LONG: Enclosed is a statement on prayer in the public schools signed by leading clergymen, attorneys, and educators from Greater Kansas City. May I urge you to call this to the attention of your colleagues by inserting it in the Congressional Record and including it in hearings of the Judiciary Committee. Sincerely yours, JOHN M. SWOMLEY, JR. STATEMENT ON PUBLIC PRAYER IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS The Supreme Court on June 25, 1962, handed down an important decision forbidding the use in the public schools of a prayer written by the New York State Board of Regents. The majority opinion written by Justice Hugo L. Black stated: "It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance." We want publicly to endorse and support this decision of the Supreme Court. Although we might not agree precisely at every point in our reasons for opposing the use of public worship as a part of the public school's curriculum or practice, we nevertheless set forth the following 10 reasons for believing the Supreme Court decision is worthy of support by the American people, including those who hold religious convictions and those who do not: (1) Prayer used in the public schools is bound to be offensive to some individuals and groups in our pluralistic society. These include not only persons whose approach to prayer is from a unique religious or denominational background, but also atheists, agnostics, and those who for other reasons are of the belief that prayer in the public schools constitute a violation of the separation of church and state. (2) The responsibility both for religious education and worship rests in the home, the church, and the synagogue. The delegation of this responsibility to the public school, an agency of the State, is but an invitation to promulgate a vague, watered-down, so-called nonsectarian religion, a non-Biblical, artificial faith that must, in the long run, constitute a grave disserve to religion. (3) If prayer is reduced to a lowest common denominator approach in order to be inoffensive to different religious groups, by the same token it becomes theologically inadequate. Prayer thus is secularized through public policy so that public schools may have the appearance of being religious. (4) This lowest common denominator approach to religion not only tends to establish as a new state-sponsored religion the residuum of religious belief acceptable to all faiths, but it relegates the minority of the religiously unaffiliated to a second-class citizenship. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution is intended to preclude such state invasion of the religious sphere as well as to safeguard the rights of minorities. (5) If the state or public servants can constitutionally compose, require, or permit use of a prayer that is allegedly inoffensive to religious groups, what is to prevent government officials from using prayers that are patently offensive to some part of the population? (6) Governments are by nature instruments of restrains and coercion to enforce justice and to promote the general welfare. The worship of God is by nature a voluntary expression and ought not to be associated with the coercive functions of the State. Governments should guarantee freedom of private and public exercise of religious conviction as well as freedom for the expression of objection to any or all religious doctrines. But governments must not be permitted to determine what is orthodox or heretical and hence must leave to the home and the church the ritualistic or doctrinal expressions of religious faith. (7) When persons in a captive audience who do not approve of prayer or a particular prayer or the context in which the prayer is said, are involved in religious worship as a part of government policy, some are alienated from genuine religious expression and commitment. Others may become antagonistic to institutional religion and even intolerant because of its readiness to rely on government coercion of children for external religious expression. In such cases a program designed to foster religious commitment may be responsible for retarding it and may even injure the religious freedom which we in this country so highly prize. (8) It is important to have religious communities that are distinguishable from the political community. Too often the actions of Spain, Israel, or England have been identified with a dominant religious group in those countries. The danger is not only that religious groups will be identified with the mistakes and injustices of political units, but that prayer to a God of all nations may be used to hallow narrow nationalism. This merging of the religious expression with cultural and even governmental activity may mute the prophetic religious criticism that so genuinely serves the best interests of the state. (9) Schoolchildren who object or whose parents object to their participation in religious practices in the public schools may hesitate to declare themselves as nonreligious or as members of a minority religious group. Pressure upon children in such circumstances is an invasion of the privacy of belief that so many consider essential to genuine liberty. (10) Teachers ought not to be expected to perform public religious functions in public schools even if they should be qualified to do so. There is danger of overzealous religious activity as well as of prayer so perfunctory as to be a mockery of religion. Under some circumstances teachers who are identified with a particular religious expression may even become for their students objects of ridicule or hostility. James E. Amick, CLU. SIGNERS Carl Bangs, associate professor of historical theology, St. Paul School of Theology, Methodist, Kansas City, Mo. Ernest E. Bayles, professor of education, Lawrence, Kans. Eleanore C. Blue, professor, University of Kansas City Law School. Stanley Bohn, pastor, Kansas City Mennonite Church. Arthur Brand, Brand & Puritz Co. Girard T. Bryant, school administrator. Clifford P. Buck, director, Department of Religious Education, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Shrum Burton, pastor, Country Club Methodist Church. Ramon C. Butts, pastor, Methodist Churches in Camden and Orrick, Mo. Mr. and Mrs. W. W. Chick. Carolyn Benton Cockefair. Clayton M. Crosier, professional engineer. Mrs. A. Henry Cuneo, CPA. E. Dale Dunlap, associate professor of theology, St. Paul School of Theology, Methodist. C. L. Duxbury, pastor, Antioch Community Church. John D. Fischer, pastor, First Congregational Church. William A. Greenbaum II, rabbi, Temple Beth El. Morton Goldman. Ruth Anne Hatcher, teaching dietitian, St. Luke's Hospital. T. Ben Hatcher, physicist, University of Kansas Medical Center. Francis H. Hayward, pastor, Southminster Presbyterian Church, Prairie Village. J. R. Hodges, professor of economics. Harold L. Holliday, attorney. Berndt L. Kolker. Charles A. McRowen, executive secretary, Missouri West Conference, the Methodist Church. Morris B. Margolies, rabbi, Beth Shalom Congregation. J. L. Mitchell, pastor, St. Matthew and St. Mark's Methodist Churches, Independence, Mo. Filbert Munoz, attorney. G. E. Olmsted, pastor, Countryside Christian Church, Mission, Kans. Robert B. Olsen, attorney, Prairie Village. Alvin C. Porteous, professor, Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Mark A. Rouch, pastor, First Methodist Church, Baldwin, Kans. Ben Morris Ridpath, pastor, Trinity Methodist Church. Norman N. Royall, Jr. Mrs. A. Harold Schmidt, past president and member at large, United Church Women of Greater Kansas City, Mo. William B. Silverman, rabbi, Congregation B'nai Jehudah. John M. Swomley, Jr., associate professor of social ethics and philosophy, St. Paul School of Theology, Methodist. Kenneth S. Waterman, pastor, First Presbyterian Church. John W. Williams, pastor, St. Stephen Baptist Church. Howard L. Thompson, pastor, Randolph Memorial Methodist Church. Braxton J. Boyd, pastor, Bowers Memorial CME Church. M. A. Burgess, president, Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance. Sidney Lawrence, director, Jewish Community Relations Bureau. Anthony P. Nugent, Jr., attorney. (Organizations are listed for purposes of identification only.) |