The layman's opinion, therefore, must be based on whether or not he believed the decision to be moral, fair, American, and best for the preservation and progress of the Nation. From these angles we have no doubt that the Court was right, and we say that as one who believes very much in prayer. Nevertheless, real prayer is personal. We have never believed that even the Lord's Prayer should be recited in unison. In fact, if it is a recitation then it is not much of a prayer.

If it may be legal to have volunteer prayers in the public schools, then may many of them be offered every day; but there is no place in American life for prayers formulated by the Government.

Some branch of government already controls just about everything we do. It is encouraging to know that American citizens will, at least, be left free to compose their own prayers and offer them when and where they choose.

[6. The Alabama Baptist, Alabama Baptist Convention, Leon Macon, editor, July 5, 1962 (circulation, 111,081)]

SCHOOL PRAYER DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The New York Board of Regents had ruled that the following prayer be uttered at the start of each schoolday:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country."

Any pupils who did not want to join in the prayer could abstain.

A group of Unitarians, Jews, a member of the Society for Ethical Culture, and one nonbeliever had appealed to the Supreme Court the New York State court's ruling upholding the prayer. The Supreme Court declared that the Constitution is violated by any legal requirement that a public school teacher lead her pupils in prayer.

Those Supreme Court Judges voting in favor of this decision declared that it is not part of the business of the government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by the government. It was argued that any such legislation which requires students to recite a prayer, although undenominational in nature, violates the first amendment to the Constitution. It was argued that: "When the power, prestige, and financial support of the government is placed behind a particular religious belief, indirect coercive pressure is placed on religious minorities."

We should all thank the Supreme Court for this decision simply because such a required prayer is using the Government to establish religion in our public schools. This is in direct conflict with the first amendment which guarantees that there shall be no laws passed regarding establishment of religions.

We do not believe this ruling forbids prayer in any of our public institutions, the House or the Senate in Washington, or in any of our schools, however it could lead to this. It is a ruling against the State's requiring a legal prayer to be prayed in our schools and if this stood, then the Federal Government could come in and take over all of our public schools and enforce its will on what is now a State and local prerogative.

For the sake of the separation of church and state, we should all be very happy that this legal requirement for a religious observance in public schools was not upheld.

If we ever have government-established prayers, this will be used as a precedent by those who want the government to support their schools with tax moneys. Any emotional reaction against this Supreme Court decision is ill founded for there is by far more danger to the separation of church and state than any other consideration.

We have our churches in which to teach our children their religious practices and beliefs, and trying to use some State agency to accomplish what the church ought to be doing is a confession that one's particular church program is ineffective. This is a warning for all of our churches to become vitally concerned about all the people and, therefore, to strengthen their program of reaching people for Christ and spreading the gospel among all the people.

There are forces today which would like to see our public schools forced by law to practice religious rites. (Prayer is a religious rite.) This would give them procedure to appeal to in order to get government moneys for their parochial schools. This ruling will do more than anything else to thwart the efforts of those who believe their religious schools should be supported by tax moneys.

[7. The Baptist Record, Mississippi Baptist Convention Board, Joe T. Odle, editor, July 5, 1962 (circulation, 92,500)]

PRAYER IN THE SCHOOLROOM

The Supreme Court of the United States has declared unconstitutional the regents' prayer prepared by the regents of the State of New York to be read or recited in the public schools.

The greatest furor raised by any Supreme Court decision in recent years has been raging across the Nation since the day the ruling was read.

The hue and cry that is being raised actually is based not on what the decision says, but on the principles related to it.

Christian leaders all across the Nation are speaking, with far more of them opposing the decision than favoring it. Editorials have appeared in many of the country's leading newspapers with the majority of the writers decrying the Court's action. Congressional leaders are already planning legislative action.

The decision itself relates to a much smaller matter than the principles being discussed. The Court simply has said that officials of government agencies may not prepare a prayer to be read or used in the schools. If we understand the decision, it has not outlawed praying or the repeating of the Lord's Prayer in the schoolroom. Neither has the Court said that there may not be other types of religious exercise.

This does not mean that later decisions may not rule out all types of prayer, Bible reading, or other religious exercise. The present ruling suggests that such decisions may be forthcoming in the near future. Justice Douglas, in his written statement on the ruling, implied such.

Most believers in the absolute separation of church and state would agree that school officials cannot legally prepare a prayer to be imposed upon the pupils. This seems to be the basis of the Court's decision.

The principle involved, however, is the cause for the alarm in the hearts of many people. Many see in this decision a move toward taking religion completely out of our culture, and the vast majority of Americans do not want that. There are many Americans who practice their religion very little, and to whom church relationships mean nothing, who still believe that God must be recognized in all areas of life. They fear that this step by the Supreme Court is the first move toward taking recognition of God out of the schools and national life. They can see other minority groups objecting to reading the Bible in the schools, using the name of God in the pledge to the flag, having the word's "In God We Trust" on our coins and currency, using chaplains in the Armed Forces, and many other practices which recognize spiritual values and our dependence upon an Almighty God.

There is full recognition of the rights of minorities, who do not want such worship, but many believe that in the case of the prayer in the school, the rights of the minority were not trespassed, since no child was required to participate. After all, the majority has some rights, too, and we are convinced that most of them do not want the public schools to be completely secularized, with all spiritual values removed.

Perhaps the decision of the Court was inevitable and right. At the same time the questions raised may help clarify the whole issue.

The majority of Americans want the Constitution upheld and the separation of church and state held inviolable.

However, they do not want the recognition of God and worship of Him to be completely removed from the relationships of life. As the National Observer said editorially, "Surely most of us would recognize and resist any effort to establish a state church. But it is something quite different to demand that religion be kept out of the classroom. That is an argument of absurdity, an affront to our whole heritage, and a threat to religious freedom itself."

Perhaps out of the present discussion can come the means of preserving both of these great cherished principles.

[8. The Baptist Messenger, Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, Jack L. Gritz, editor, July 5, 1962 (circulation, 78,000)]

PRAYER IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Most Baptists will approve the U.S. Supreme Court's recent 6 to 1 decision against the New York State regents' official prayer for use in the public schools there. They will do so because this prayer written by a government group and made an official part of the activity of a government agency was a clear

violation of the "establishment of religion" clause of the first amendment to the Federal Constitution for which our Baptist forefathers earnestly contended in the beginning of our national history.

On the other hand, most Baptists are shocked at the mistaken assumption by many newspapermen and educators that the Court's decision is somehow a ruling against any prayer (and possibly against Bible reading) in the public schools. This emphatically is not the case.

The Court decides only the technical legal issues which are presented to it and upon which it agrees to render a decision. The point at issue in this case was the recitation by all students (unless individually excused) of a prayer which had been prepared for them and was a part of the daily opening exercises. The prayer was adopted in 1951 by the board of regents which administers education in New York State for use in local schools as desired. It was intended to be nonsectarian and read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependency upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.”

In writing the majority opinion Justice Hugo L. Black declared, “By using its public school system to encourage recitation of the regents' prayer the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the establishment clause (of the first amendment)." He continued, "It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit State laws respecting an establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer. *** Nothing, of course, could be more wrong. * * * 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."

He said, "It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by the government." He added that this was the sort of thing which "caused many early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America." He cited the Book of Common Prayer prepared under the direction of the English Parliament and approved by it in 1549.

Significantly the protesting parents who had carried the case all the way from New Hyde Park, N.Y., to the Supreme Court included two Jews, one Unitarian, one member of the Society for Ethical Culture, and one agnostic.

The Supreme Court's decision in no way affects the Oklahoma State law which provides for the reading of the Bible without comment and the practice of having prayers in classrooms and assemblies.

The Court has yet to rule on prayer in general and noncompulsory Bible read. ing in the public schools, and cases involving these questions are now before it in appeals from Pennsylvania and Maryland. The Court has now adjourned until October. Perhaps these decisions will be reached and announced in the fall or sometime early next year.

In Pennsylvania a three-judge Federal district court in Philadelphia has twice held that the reading of Bible verses without comment is a violation of the separation of church and state provision of the Constitution and this decision has been appealed by the attorney general of the State. The Pennsylvania law states: "At least 10 verses from the Holy Bible shall be read without comment at the opening of each public school on each school day. Any child shall be exempted from such Bible reading upon the written request of his parents or guardian." The suit against this practice was brought originally by the Unitarian parents of three children in Abington Township school district of Montgomery County (a suburb of Philadelphia). In asking for a Supreme Court ruling the State attorney general and attorneys for the school board said, "It is of paramount importance to the parents and teachers of this Nation to have the Supreme Court determine whether the Constitution requires that none of the students shall be allowed to listen to the Bible being read without comment simply because one family, whose children do not attend the reading, do not want others to listen."

The Maryland case arose when a woman who is a nonbeliever and who is raising her son to be a nonbeliever objected to the practice of daily Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer in a Baltimore school. The court of appeals in the State upheld the practices. But her attorneys have appealed to the Nation's highest tribunal.

With the lower courts so divided and the country so confused, definitive rulings by the Supreme Court seem imperative.

[9. The Religious Herald, Richmond, Va., Reuben E. Alley, editor, July 5, 1962 (circulation,

33,000)]

AN AFFIRMATION FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

By the recent decision that "New York laws officially prescribing the regents' prayer are inconsistent with both the purposes of the establishment clause and with the establishment clause itself" as contained in the first amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed the American heritage of religious liberty. In the light of this forthright defense of the principle of separation of church and state, the near hysteria of adverse criticism that followed announcement of the ruling was discouraging. Statements by some national figures were disappointingly shallow and strained. We understand why the Catholic hierarchy deplores every move that supports the idea of separation, but it is strange to hear Baptists and Christians of other congregational groups protest against a decision of the Court that protects the foundation of religious liberty in this land. Most alarming was a report from Washington that named several Baptist Congressmen among those who are advocating an amendment to the Constitution that would abridge minority groups of the right of religious freedom.

Justice Hugo L. Black, who wrote the majority opinion, supported the contention of plaintiffs that the regents of New York had composed the prayer "as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs." He agreed that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that "in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government."

After a brief résumé of pertinent events in English and American history, the Court directed attention to the establishment clause in the first amendment which "is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not." Justice Black proceeded to define the twofold purpose of the establishment clause as, (1) to stand as an expression of the principle "that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed perversion' by a civil magistrate," and (2) to perpetuate the awareness of "the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand." Baptists, and other lovers of religious liberty, ought to understand that.

In a petition to the General Assembly of Virginia in 1784, citizens of Rockingham County declared: "Onely say that if you can do any thing in Religion by human laws you can do every thing. *** We think that where ever Religious Establishments hath taken place it hath been attended with Pernicious Consequences And the Baptist General Committee in 1785 received a report from Reuben Ford that, according to directions given him, he had presented a petition to the General Assembly of Virginia. The document explained among other things that a fear that religion would die without State support "is founded neither in Scripture, on Reason, on Sound Policy, but is repugnant to each of them." In harmony with these sentiments written during the days of American Revolution, the Court made its decision. Though adverse critics seem to scorn the idea, the Court effectively argued that interference in any degree by the State with religious observance is dangerous; therefore citizens should "take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties."

Some opponents of the majority opinion have followed the lead of Justice Potter Stewart who, in a dissenting opinion, cited several practices as violations of the principle of separation. He could have lengthened the list with other and more flagrant violations. To accept that course would lead to utter confusion by the invalidation of all laws. Admittedly both citizens and institutions have seriously breached the first amendment, but it does not follow that we should accept this condition and encourage more violations. Rather we should continually protest against error, seek corrective means, and stand firmly against additional encroachments.

Irked by an incident like the recent ruling, well-meaning citizens often refer to early colonial days in America when the first settlers accepted the pattern of the mother country with its close relationship between religion and government. Most of the Colonies had an established church or a tight theocracy, as in Massachusetts, with strict rules for clergy and laymen. This order continued for a century and a half before the American Revolution. Error arises by ignoring the fact that the American Revolution was much more than a war of liberation from Great Britain. American ideas of democracy and government have their

origin in the period of the Revolution and not in the colonial period. A great achievement during the American Revolution was the dissolution of the establishment after a long, bitter struggle. Framers of the Constitution did not believe in unrestricted rule by majority, nor did they believe that a majority of citizens had a right to decide all questions pertaining to the lives of citizens who comprised minority groups. Jefferson and Madison preached the revolutionary doctrine of human rights-those inalienable rights of every man before God. That doctrine is the foundation for the principle of religious liberty in the United States. Separation of church and state is the inevitable corollary of the doctrine. Americans today should carefully weigh their concepts of religious experience, religious education, and religious worship against the doctrines of human rights as set forth in the Constitution.

Nowhere is the observance of separation of church and state more necessary for the protection of individual rights than in the public schools. This is so because children are present in state-owned schools under compulsory attendance laws and subject to instruction by teachers who receive salaries from public tax funds. Boys and girls from many different homes and faiths constitute a captive audience under the complete control of the state. Under these circumstances the state must use every precaution to safeguard the inalienable rights of each child. To claim that a child can exercise freedom to participate or not participate under these conditions is absurd. To attempt justification of minor infringements is a breach of faith with principle. Justice Black concluded his opinion with these questions from James Madison: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute 3 pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" Baptists and other citizens who cherish religious liberty under the Constitution of the United States, should see this, and make a proper resolution this Independence Day.

[10. Baptist Press news report, July 6, 1962]

BAPTISTS BACK FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT PRAYER

WASHINGTON.-A denominational leader here predicts broad Baptist support of the Supreme Court decision banning "official" prayers from the Nation's public schools.

C. Emanuel Carlson, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, observed that many Baptist ministers probably criticized the Supreme Court from their pulpits following its decision on the regent's prayer in New York. Most of these sermons were based upon an inaccurate understanding of the decision, he said.

"The decision involved prayer and freedom," Carlson pointed out, “and Baptists believe in both."

"Where the mass media interpreted the case as a decision violating the freedom to pray," he continued, "Baptists will react against it. They will rise in defense of prayer."

"As soon as they find out this is not the Court's decision and that it does not exercise a restraint on prayer but a restraint on government involvement in prayer," Carlson predicted, "the ministers will turn around and recognize this as a defense of freedom."

The Baptist executive said that he was pleased with the decision and he is amazed "that some who are ordinarily in favor of less government are in this case asking for government influence on the inner man."

However, there was a clear warning in Carlson's observations. He pointed out that the Court's clarification of the "no establishment" clause of the first amendment "must not be taken to imply a restriction on people's religious freedom, even while they are on public property."

"The practice of one's religion on one's own volition is something altogether different from the use of official powers to advance the acceptance of a religious idea or practice," he continued. "Alongside of the 'no establishment' clause is the provision for 'no restraint on the free exercise' of one's religion." "If aggressive opposition to this right arises, the Supreme Court will need to make additional and perhaps more difficult decisions," Carlson concluded.