Others who signed the statement are:

Hampton Adams, pastor, Park Avenue Christian_Church (Disciples), New York City; John S. Bonnell, pastor, Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, New York City; Aubrey N. Brown, Jr., editor, Presbyterian Outlook, Richmond, Va.; Truman B. Douglas, executive vice president, Board of Homeland Ministries, United Church of Christ, New York City;

Harold E. Fey, editor, the Christian Century, Chicago; A. Raymond Grant, bishop, Oregon Methodist area, Portland; Dwight E. Loder, president, Garrett Theological Seminary, Evanston, Ill.;

Malvin H. Lundeen, secretary, Lutheran Church in America, Minneapolis; Edward O. Miller, rector, St. George's Episcopal Church, New York City; and Richard H. Raines, bishop, Indiana Methodist area, Indianapolis.

[20. Statement approved by executive board, Missouri Baptist Convention, July 17, 1962]

STATEMENT

We commend the majority opinion of the Supreme Court which ruled that no State can impose a prescribed prayer upon public schools.

[21. Statement by S. A. Whitlow, executive secretary, Arkansas Baptist State Convention, July 19, 1962]

OUT OF THE FUROR

"Government in this country, be it State or Federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity."

So stated the U.S. Supreme Court in its June 25 decision handed down in connection with the prayer required by the board of regents to be said in every public school in the State of New York as an opening exercise. The Court, in a 6-to-1 decision, thus barred "official" prayers in public schools. The Court has not barred voluntary prayers on the part of teachers or pupils in the schoolrooms but it has simply stated that prayers required by any branch of the government are unconstitutional.

Justice Black, in delivering the majority opinion of the Court, said, "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." The exercise of religion thus should be kept in the area of the voluntary and not be a part nor parcel of any activity required by the government.

The real benefits of prayer are not to be found in reciting or reading some prayer prescribed by the government, however good the prayer may be within itself. Prayer, to be worth very much, should be voluntary, sincere, and prompted from within.

James, the disciple of our Lord, may have pointed to the prime defect in prayer in the lives of many of us when he said, "Ye have not, because ye ask not ***"'

It would be wonderful if this furor over the Supreme Court's decision should lead us to better understanding of the genuine essence of prayer, and then to practice it.

[22. The Word and Way, Missouri Baptist Convention, H. H. McGinty, editor, July 19, 1962 (circulation, 67,448)]

THE SUPREME COURT AND PRAYER

With the possible exception of its ruling on segregation, nothing that the U.S. Supreme Court has done lately has created such a furor as its recent decision declaring that the recitation of a certain prayer in the public schools of New York State is unconstitutional. The Court ruled (6 to 1) that the so-called regents' prayer violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.

The State board of regents in New York is a governmental agency created by the State constitution. In 1951 these State officials composed the prayer for use in the public schools every morning along with the Pledge of Allegiance

to the United States. The teacher was obligated to conduct this opening exercise, but the pupils participated or refused to participate voluntarily.

The prayer itself appears to be harmless enough. It is contained in the one simple sentence, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country." But the Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional.

On what basis did the Court reach this decision?

Not because the Court is antireligious, as some charge. The Court went out of its way to point out that its action is not hostility toward religion or prayer. It is for the protection of religion and to guarantee its free exercise that the Court arrived at its conclusions, the Judges said.

Why then did the Court render this ruling?

Certainly not because the prayer itself seems to be harmful. It is really not harmful and, perhaps, not too helpful. It is stripped of the mention of practically all elements which would be objectionable. It is not sectarian. Christians would say it is not even Christian, because it does not mention the name of Christ. It could be sincerely recited by a follower of Confucius, Buddha, or Mohammed.

Upon what basis, then, did the Court make its findings? Mainly on two factors which have been overlooked by many people.

First, this was a government-prescribed prayer. The Court faced the issue Shall government agencies write and direct the prayers of the American people? The responsibilities of government are many, but the writing of prayers is not one of them. If the formulating of the prayers of the American people should fall into the hands of the politicians, one of the most precious American heritages would be endangered. Justice Hugo L. Black in rendering the decision said: "It is not part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by the government."

Second, the recitation of the prayer was compulsory. The fact that it was denominationally neutral or that it was voluntary for the students to recite, the Court said, did not matter. The teacher was required to recite it in the schoolroom.

If one thinks that prayer is the sincere outreach of a human soul to his God, "required prayer" becomes an absurdity. The American concept of prayer is not prayer by legislation, but the people praying in freedom under the guidance of the spirit of God.

The announcement of the Court's decision was the signal for an outburst of indignation. Some declared that the guilty members of the Court should be impeached. Others asked, “Will they declare it unconstitutional to use the name of God in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag?" Some suggested that it will be necessary to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency. Others said, "Will they try to stop the U.S. Senate and House from opening their sessions with prayer?" Some said that the President of the United States could no longer put his hand on the Bible when he takes the oath of office. Others interpreted the vote as a vote against God. Said Georgia's Methodist Bishop John Owen Smith portentiously: "It is like taking a star and stripe off the flag."

The Congress also got into the act. Forty-two bills have been presented in the House to override the Court's prayer ruling. Three resolutions proposing similar amendments sponsored by 13 Senators have been offered in the Senate. Then the members of the clergy began to speak. Catholic prelates were particularly outspoken in their condemnation of the decision. On the other hand, Protestant leaders, one by one, took their place on the side of the Court.

In a meeting in Chicago on July 8 the leaders of nine Protestant denominations hailed the Court's decision, which forbids any Government official from writing or prescribing prayers for use in public schools. The 19 clergymen and lay leaders, in a statement released by Harold E. Fey, editor of The Christian Century, a nondenominational weekly published in Chicago, said: "The Court's decision protects the integrity of the religious conscience and the proper function of religious and governmental institutions."

Baptist leaders who have voiced their opinions have been almost unanimous in approving the Court's action. None has stated his point of view better than the president of the convention, Dr. H. H. Hobbs. Preaching to his congregation at the First Church, Oklahoma City, Sunday, July 8, he said: "The Supreme Court of the United States in its decision has struck one of the most powerful blows in our lifetime, maybe since the Constitution was adopted, for the freedom of

religion in our Nation. We should be eternally grateful to them * What appeared to be a tragedy is now clear to me to be one of the greatest blessings that could come to those of us who believe in the absolute separation of church and state," he said.

This need not be interpreted as a setback to prayer. It is inconceivable that an individual could not pray in a schoolroom if he so desired or that a group could not do so. Silent prayers in the schoolroom would not be in danger of any adverse Court ruling. But a governmentally produced prayer forced upon the children in the schoolroom the Court has declared to be un-American. We believe the Court was right and justified in its decision.

The upsurge of fury will subside, and when the tumult and the shouting have died the New York Prayer decision may well be hailed as a landmark in a neverending search to strike a proper balance between church and state.

[23. Baptist New Mexican, Baptist Convention of New Mexico, Horace F. Burns, editor, July 19, 1962 (circulation, 17,000)]

PRAYER IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Asked to make a statement for a broadcast following the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in the public schools, the editor released the following:

"In America we believe that all people are entitled to complete religious freedom. It is not a simple thing to work out the rules by which we operate where matters of religion are concerned. To make a law which favors any one religious faith is to discriminate against all the others.

"I do not believe that any person has a right to force his religious faith or practices upon another. Our public schools are essentially secular.

"At the same time we will do well to remember that our Nation was founded by those who had deep faith in God. The phrase upon our coins, 'In God We Trust,' and the faith which prompted it, have made us great.

"Complete religious freedom for all is not a reality if some are compelled to participate in or attend sessions in which their religious convictions are violated."

As any Baptist knows the editor is speaking only for himself on this point, or any other. He has neither the right, the desire, nor the wisdom to speak for all Baptists.

This is a good time for us to think about what is happening in our Nation. The Bible is rapidly being outlawed in many areas of public life.

When our Nation was established those who charted her course were people who had endured much. George Washington and those who were at Valley Forge with him were well aware of the existence and power of God, and their need of Him. The Founding Fathers had endured enough hardship to be fully aware that it was God who really overruled the forces of the enemy and the elements, and enabled them to establish a nation known to them as "the land of the free, and the home of the brave."

It was natural then that in public life provision should be made for recognition of God and His providence. Prayer and recognition of the Bible became as much a part of the American way of life as taxes and political speeches. But some things have changed.

In our desire to safeguard the religious freedom of some who cannot believe in our God, we have tossed aside, one by one, some important things. A graphic view of some of these changes may be seen by placing, side by side, the school textbooks of today, and those used 50 years ago. No longer do we find scripture verses and proverbs. Instead we have created a situation in which those who deny the Bible may speak freely, while those who believe the Bible are denied opportunity to present it. Herein lies a great danger.

It is interesting to read "that prayer" which was ruled unconstitutional. Nowhere does it mention the name of Jesus. It was written skillfully, in such a way that it was not expected to be offensive to Jews, Moslems, or other groups. The whole idea of a group, any group, prescribing a prayer to be read or recited, as an "approved" prayer, is ridiculous. Is God obligated to hear a prayer just because it was written to be offensive to no one and officially approved?

The prayer life of any person is an individual matter. Laws may be made concerning public recitations or pronouncements, but they cannot be made to regulate the communication between the believer in Christ, and the Heavenly Father.

[24. Baptist Press feature, July 20, 1962]

DARE TO BE A BAPTIST

(By C. Emanuel Carlson, executive director, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs)

In recent days scores of Senators and Congressmen have made proposals for tampering in one way or another with the first amendment to the Constitution. All this uncertainty about our American free society has come about because the Supreme Court handed down a ruling which said that State boards of education violate the Constitution if they try to write prayers for the pupils and impose or promote them by public authority.

The American Constitution has served the Nation well, and probably no item in it has done more to make the United States the world's leading free nation than the first amendment. This is the basic, abiding public policy which has prevented politicians and churchmen from utilizing the powers of Government for the regimentation of the souls of the American people. This freedom is vastly more important than the freedom to spend all our money as we may please. Give to Caesar the coin that bears his image, but give to God the soul that bears God's image, was the force of Christ's statement on this comparison.

FREEDOM OR REGIMENTATION

Why have our leaders begun to want to tamper with our basic freedom? What has gone wrong? Why are the hearts of men failing in their freedom under God and therefore seeking the intervention of Government agencies in the prayer lives of the people?

The human mind is always complex.

Yet a number of maladies can be identified, maladies for which remedies can be arranged. The cause of freedom is not defeated. Our time is a time for alertness and action, not for panic or alarmism.

The confusions, however, are of such magnitude that many organizations and movements that do favor freedom are now seeking words for doubletalk. Civil liberties organizations, religious denominations, interdenominational agencies, economic associations, et al., that one would expect to speak out for the spiritual freedom of men under God, are silenced or hampered by the diversities of their members' interests. Perhaps it is "for such a time as this" that the Baptist movement has been given its remarkable growth and strength?

DISTORTION OF THE ISSUE

Misinformation is probably one of the major reasons for the current proposals. The Supreme Court's decision has been badly reported in many areas, and some politicians apparently have adjusted themselves to the misinformation rather than assume responsibility to correct the reports.

At this point Baptists who have taken time to be well informed should be able to give much help. Visits with the editors of local papers, letters to the editor's "mailbag," conversations at work, sermons in churches, discussions at ministers' meetings, adoption and release of statements in churches, associations, State conventions, and national boards-all of these and many more will help get the truth to people. A respect for honest truth is a Christian witness and a service to our fellow men.

ANSWER TO COMMUNISM

Concern about communism is probably also contributing to the present confusion. Some seem to think of "prayer" as a kind of vehicle or tool by means of which to transmit our heritage and our moral values. This is true only if prayer is sincere and voluntary and if our ways are upright before God. "Required prayers" produce revolt rather than appreciation. Those countries which now have strong Communist movements have in the past had much regimentation in prayer. Anticlericalism, church disinterest, and even atheism develop in situations where religion seeks to perpetuate itself by coercion.

In this matter Baptists should also be able to serve this generation well. A sermon on the nature of prayer, another on the nature of worship, would be helpful in every church. Other messages could search the Scriptures to discern how God chooses to deal with people. The use of government powers for gaining responses to the love of God will be scarce, and the Master's deliberate rejection

of such tools for His kingdom can be meaningful for all. The issue before us goes to the very basis of the kind of response that God desires of sinful men, and merits thoughtful, soul-searching meditation of the Bible in all branches of a church's program. Check your facts and interpretations; doublecheck your motivations. Then send a copy of your sermon to your Congressman.

A POSITIVE WITNESS NOW

Popular information and spiritual insight, however, must find civic expression. Most Congressmen and Senators know the facts, and see at least some of the values. However, they are "representatives" in a nation that has "representative" government. Let us give them the chance to represent us by knowing how we think and feel about the first amendment. That amendment protects us against laws with reference to establishment of religion, and it also guards our free exercise of religion. Your Congressman would be glad to know two things in this matter: first, that you hope they will not tamper with the first amendment to the Constitution, and second, that you are strongly averse to all attempts to coerce or regiment people into prayer.

We have a stewardship unto God of our influence in this generation. This stewardship must take priority over our political party interests, over our different economic and regional interests, and over the fears and fads that are our distinctive climate. Freedom is best guarded at its deepest level. Baptists can be of help, in the name of Christ.

[25. Biblical Recorder, Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, J. Marse Grant, editor, July 21, 1962 (circulation, 72,400) ]

AIRING OF CHURCH AND STATE PRINCIPLES IN UNITED STATES IS HEALTHY Perhaps it was just as well that the Recorder did not publish the week after the Supreme Court made its historic decision banning "official" prayers from the Nation's public schools. The temptation would have been present to have rushed into print with something without the advantage of adequate time in which to carefully study all aspects of the decision. Even now, almost a month after the decision, we are not quite sure about its far-reaching implications, but there are some conclusions on which most Baptists can agree, we believe.

Dr. C. Emanuel Carlson, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, and his associate, W. Barry Garrett, have worked diligently to inform Baptists on the decision. They have gone behind the headlines and have come up with solid information that is needed to arrive at an intelligent conclusion.

"The decision involved prayer and freedom," Dr. Carlson pointed out, "and Baptists believe in both." He says that the decision does not exercise a restraint on prayer but a restraint on government involvement in prayer. "The practice of one's religion on one's own volition is something altogether different from the use of official prayers 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," Dr. Carlson concluded.

Despite the variance of views on the decision, Baptists will agree that continued public discussion of the principle of separation of church and state is healthy. How long has it been since this principle has been so much in the spotlight? Isn't it better to have this public airing than to forget that this principle exists and is guaranteed by the first amendment?

Another thing Baptists can agree on-the home and the church are the institutions established for teaching children about God and Christ. As President Kennedy said, "We can pray a good deal more at home and attend our churches with fidelity and emphasize the true meaning of prayer in the lives of our children." To put it another way, let's be sure there is prayer with our children in the home before we are tempted to lament its absence in the schoolroom. Such prayer will be spontaneous and from the heart instead of being written by the government as was the case in New York.

This is not the last decision the court will make on this cherished principle. Let's be alert, well-informed citizens and thus be prepared to analyze for ourselves the true meaning of such decisions.