tions may make it extremely difficult for many private institutions to survive”— indeed, that these proposals “will undoubtedly force many of the weaker private schools out of existence." The context makes it perfectly clear that what are here referred to as "private institutions" and "private schools" are precisely the 587 independent and church-related colleges to which the Commission elsewhere refers with such high esteem and deep affection. The climax of the Commission's argument is reached when it extols the "competitive advantages and free inquiry which they (the independent and church-related institutions) have established and which are so important in providing certain safeguards to freedom." It holds that anything which would tend to destroy these "would be contrary to the best interests of these institutions as well as to those of society in general." And it gives as the basic reason for excluding these institutions from Federal aid the opinion that acceptance of such aid would tend to destroy free inquiry in these institutions, and so impair their service as safeguards to freedom. This opinion of the Commission is in my judgment sound. The acceptance of the proposed Federal aid would tend to destroy free inquiry in the institutions receiving it and so impair their service as safeguards to freedom. But can it be that that unhappy result would follow in the case of independent and churchrelated colleges only? Would not the same result follow in the case of State colleges and universities? By what magic will Federal aid impair freedom of inquiry in the one group of colleges and universities, and not impair it in the other group? The report is at this point very confusing. Does the Commission wish freedom of inquiry in our institutions of higher education, or not? If it does, why propose a plan of public support and public control which in its opinion tends to destroy freedom of inquiry? If it does not, the report had better be quickly filed away in a folder labeled "Dangers Which We Have Escaped." The basic assumption of the Commission is that support and control go together. The principle is stated on page 58 of volume V as follows: The acceptance of public funds by any institution, public or private, should carry with it the acceptance of the right of the people as a whole to exercise review and control of the educational policies and procedures of that institution." That sentence sems innocent and platitudinous when one first reads it; but it is full of ambiguities and as dangerous as an atom bomb. In the end, its meaning for higher education in America, despite any protestations by the Commission to the contrary, is this: Federal aid to higher education involves Federal control for higher education. Until I carefully studied this report I was in favor of Federal aid to the States in the interest of raising standards and equalizing opportunity in elementary and secondary education. The principles which should govern such aid were soundly stated, in my judgment, by the Federal Council of Churches, as follows: (1) That no Federal funds shall be made available to States to be used in such a way as to discriminate against any minority racial group. (2) That the administration of Federal funds made available to States shall be safeguarded against the imposition of Federal control in matters of educational policy. (3) That Federal funds shall be used only for such schools as the constitutions or statutes of the several States make eligible for support. In making this statement, the council further affirmed its continued adherence to the American principle of separation of church and State, and to the principle that public funds should not be used for sectarian purposes. If these principles were rigidy adhered to, Federal aid might be afforded to the States for education without great peril other than the inevitable undermining of the sense of local responsibility for the schools. But I have now come to see that the second of these principles is not practicable. It is not possible to distribute Federal funds for education without the imposition of an increasing measure of Federal control in matters of educational policy. Federal control of education, at any level, would be calamitous. The local control of education is not only in accord with our Constitution and our established policy; it is fundamental to the American type of democracy. "More than any other activity," said the president of one of our great State universities, "education calls for adaptation to local needs, and a sense of local responsibility for its successful prosecution. If the responsibility is placed elsewhere, democracy is unavoidably weakened at the grassroots." The first amendment to the Constitution has two clauses dealing with reli gion. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Most of the discussion in these recent years has centered about the first of these clauses, quaintly disguised as the erection of a wall. It is time to center our thought and action about the second clause; it is time for believers in God to claim and to justify their full religious freedom. The separation of church and state, as we have conceived it in America, surely means that the church is to have its full chance to live and worship, to work and teach; it means that believers are to have freedom to educate their children in schools that will at least not impair their faith. When the state, through the Supreme Court, threatens to take all religion out of tax-supported schools and colleges and commit them to atheism, the religious freedom of American citizens is gravely endangered. And when it is proposed that the Federal Government should so expand the number and equipment of tax-supported colleges and universities as to put out of business all save the few hardiest of the independent and church-related colleges, this proposal, added to the other, comes close to a basic denial of the religious freedom of American citi zens. Russia has separation of church and state. Article 124 of the Constitution of the Soviet Union reads: "In order to insure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens." Is that what we want in America? Is freedom of worship enough? The questions answer themselves. The Rus sian conception of the separation of church and state is completely alien to our history and heritage as a people. Yet just such a separation is the trend of the movements here in America which we have been discussing. It is not too late for those of us who believe in American democracy and who have faith in God to rally our forces, and to see to it that this Nation, under God, shall retain its full freedom. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, IN BOSTON, MASS., Washington, D.C., May 1, 1964. DEAR MR. CELLER: The Christian Science Board of Directors, the administrative head of the Christian Science Church, has asked me, as their official representative in the Nation's Capital, to state our position on the Becker amendment, House Joint Resolution 693, on which hearings are currently being held by your committee. We are definitely opposed to this resolution and to similar proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution so as to allow officially sponsored prayers and Bible readings in the public schools, even though participation is voluntary. When the issue involved is examined through the lens of objectivity and reason, and given prayerful thought, it will be seen that prayers and Bible readings are too intimate and sacred rights ever to be exposed to the dangers of control and dictation by a government agency-Federal, State, or local-as to what prayers shall be offered and whether readings from Biblical Scriptures shall include the holy books of any religion. The proposals to amend the Constitution through congressional initiative so as to allow officially sponsored prayers and Bible readings in the public schools set a dangerous precedent which would usher into being problems of the greatest magnitude. We sincerely believe that the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp are correct and actually strengthen rather than weaken the freedom of religion. In fact, these decisions reinforce that which is well known to religious leaders of every faith-that rather than perfunctory prayers and Bible readings in the public schools, the quiet of the home, church, or synagogue provides the best atmosphere for such religious activity. May we respectfully request that this letter be included among those inserted in the official record of hearings of your committee. Sincerely, J. BUROUGHS STOKES, Manager, Washington, D.C., Office. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Concerning current proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution so as to permit prayer and Bible reading in public schools, we wish to call to your attention the action taken by the General Assembly (plenary body) of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in May 1963: "Religious observances (should) never be held in a public school or introduced into the public school as part of its program. Bible reading in connection with courses in the American heritage, world history, literature, and social sciences, and other academic subjects is completely appropriate to public school instruction. Bible reading and prayers as devotional acts tend toward indoctrination or meaningless ritual and should be omitted for both reasons ***" This statement had previously been studied in committee for over a year, and was then referred to the Presbyteries and churches for further study before its final adoption. Of the 131 Presbyteries and 989 congregational groups reporting the results of their study, nearly two-thirds of both gave their approval. The statement was adopted in the general assembly by a vote of 528 to 298. The general assembly is half laymen, half ministers. We are aware of the apparently widespread popular support for proposals like the Becker amendment (H.J. Res. 693). But we have the very clear impression from the experience of our denomination that, in contrast to unconsidered and emotional reactions to the Supreme Court decisions, careful study of the issue by responsible groups usually results in decisive opposition to such devotional practices in governmental institutions. The same general assembly also "Express (ed) its convictions that the first amendment to the Constitution in its present wording has minimized tension and conflict among religious interests, and for 180 years has provided the framework within which responsible citizens and our courts have been able to afford maximum protection for the religious liberties of all citizens." We hope you will oppose all efforts to make the freedom to worship and the other liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, subject to majority vote. JOSEPH J. COPELAND, Chairman, Counseling Committee, Church and Society. MARGARET E. KUHN, Acting Director, Office of Church and Society. LAWTON STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Dear Mr. CELLER: I had the honor of receiving from you a letter expressing your appreciation for my telegram congratulating you on your part in obtaining the House passage of H.R. 7152 on civil rights. I write now in regard to another matter which I understand is presently before the House Judiciary Committee. I understand you, the committee, are considering an amendment to the Constituion which would permit prayers and devotions in our public schools. If I understand the most recent Supreme Court decision on this matter, I am in accord with that decision and oppose legislation (or a constitutional amendment) that would change that. This may sound strange for a clergyman to say. However, I think a mistake was made long ago when we began to allow these religious exercises in the schools. Many of those who are part of the church say that some pupils might never hear of God or learn important religious teachings if this was not done. I think that this is really an indictment upon the church for not having carried out the great commission. We are trying to turn over our duty to the teachers. I believe they have a different task of great importance. I certainly think that there is nothing wrong with the reading of the Bible as literature or from a historical point of view. I see no reason why pupils could not have a study of the major religions of the world. I understand the Court's decision upholds these. I think I would tend to favor the continuance of baccalaureate services. One of the problems is that many of those who favor prayers and devotional services are people who call themselves "Christians" and want the religious exercise "Christian." They would greatly object to a religious exercise acknowledging Allah or some other religious personage. Yet, they would seek to force their religious exercises on non-Christians in our society. This is not right according to my understanding of the American idea of freedom. It is also disturbing to me as a clergyman because these exercises are often called "Christian" but fall far short of what I would understand as the proper Christian worship and service of the Lord. I note from information I have that you are of the Jewish faith. I know that there is a great deal of anti-Semitism in America and I do not wish to place the onus upon you to oppose this legislation. For I know that many misled people people would charge you with being an atheist, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum. I wish that I were an important enough authority that I could be of value to testify before the committee. Since I am not, I would like to have you share these ideas with the committee. Thank you for your attention to this matter. DANIEL C. GARRISON. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: I write to express in specific terms my strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 693, or any legislation to the same effect, which in my opinion would tend to weaken our great and much needed American experiment in religious freedom. May I beg you to consider the grounds as well as the fact of my opposition? I am using this stationery, not in order to commit anyone but myself, yet to indicate that as a professor and as chairman of the Department of Religion at Columbia University I have for many years given sustained and critical attention to questions of religion and its public relations. My opposition to a constitutional amendment, such as is proposed in House Joint Resolution 693, is not merely to hold the line of protection for minority views on religion, important as that consideration is. But I believe there is something vital to the wholesome development of all religion, whether theistic or humanistic, whether adhered to by many or by few, in the separation of church and state, as our courts have been interpreting it. The proposed school prayers and readings must tend to be formalistic. Or, in the minds of thoughtful children, they are likely to raise questions which the schools are ill prepared to handle, and which risk becoming divisive. The benefits of religion require a soil, such as the home and church can provide, where it can be deeply developed in its meaningful nuances and full strength. It is an immensely important world contribution of our country to guard and cherish this possibility in all its variety. It is also important that the proper work of our public schools should not suffer by the taking on of functions that they can only dubiously serve. However, "an establishment of religion" be defined, the proposed amendment would permit a school cultus to become established with official governmental sanction. Our society offers much place for active and full and beneficial religious life; the proposal in my view would misplace it in a way likely to be harmful. Sincerely yours. HORACE L. FRIESS, Professor of Philosophy. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Judiciary Committee, House Building, Washington, D.O.: ST. LOUIS, Mo., April 30, 1964. After spending four night sessions totaling 10 hours of study of textbook "Religious Liberty," by Emanuel Carlson and Barry Garrett, of Baptist Joint Committee, Washington, D.C., some 30 of our church leaders now understand the dangers of changing the first amendment and they voted unanimously that I convey you their feelings. Also that we have a sermon on the subject this Sunday and that our church of 1,000 members be asked to pass a resolution in this respect. Sincerely, J. EDWIN HEWLETT, Pastor. HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH, Springfield, Ohio, April 30, 1964. HONORABLE SIRS: I have recently read the testimony of Mr. Edwin H. Tuller, general secretary of the American Baptist Convention, urging the committee to reject the proposed constitutional amendments before it. Mr. Tuller states that he speaks for the people of the American Baptist Convention. Inasmuch as each Baptist church is autonomous, the only way Mr. Tuller can rightfully speak for the people is to poll every American Baptist Church. This has not been done. This church, a regularly affiliated American Baptist church, urges the passage of the amendment. Yours truly, Rev. R. A. MAUGANS. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE, DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, Riverside, Calif., April 29, 1964. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Judiciary Committee, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE CELLER: I should like to urge you as chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives to vote against any attempt to alter the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution to permit Bible reading or prayers in the public schools. As a historian I know that the American Constitution created the first lay, secular state in history, and that 18th-century opinion both in Europe and America praised our Founding Fathers for freeing man from the bondage of ecclesiastical tyranny and the curse of religious intolerance. Our first amendment has preserved us from both the virulent clericalism and the fanatical anticlericalism which have so characterized most European nations and have rent asunder their social fabric. Let us not now turn our backs on our free heritage and tamper with our constitutional liberties in such a fashion as to inflict on our free churches, our free state, and our free people the religious quarrels of Europe. Let us rather justify the 18th century's faith in the American Republic as a new birth of freedom and a visible sign of human progress. Those supporting the subversion of the first amendment may in many cases be well-intentioned; you, sir, are in a better position than I to judge that. But I do fear that the supporters of such a constitutional change are misguided and "know not what they do." I trust, sir, that one can continue to rely on you to defend our liberties against the attacks of subversives of both the left and the right. Yours very sincerely, NORMAN RAVITCH, 32-696-64-pt. 2—10 |