However, the minority opinion of Justice Douglas, if it ever becomes accepted by a majority of the Justices, would drive the very use of the word "God" from all public matters and all prayers utilized at the opening of sessions of courts or legislative bodies. It is this attitude which poses the greatest threat because we have seen interpretations of law change as the composition of the Supreme Court has changed in the past. As a former soldier, I recall President Roosevelt calling upon God to protect our servicemen and inspire them to victory on June 6, 1944, when our troops were invading Europe. Artists have pictured George Washington on his knees at Valley Forge asking God for assistance and strength. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence acknowledged their belief in the existence of God, their dependence upon Him and the creation of man by God. Surely the whims of an atheistic minority should not be able to drive God out of our schools and offices of government. Soviet Russia may have succeeded in doing it in the United Nations, but we do not want that here. To forestall any such action, I hereby state that the Department of New York, Catholic War Veterans, would heartily endorse an amendment of the Constitution of the United States which would clarify a very muddled and dangerous situation concerning prayer in public institutions. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, CARMINE MARINO, State Historian (For Francis X. McBarron, Commander). ST. MARY'S CHURCH, Scarborough, N.Y., July 30, 1962. GENTLEMEN: I am a priest of the Protestant Episcopal Church, the rector of St. Mary's Church, Scarborough, N.Y. I desire to present a statement regarding the recent decision of the Supreme Court outlawing the use of the regents' prayer in the public schools of the State of New York. 1. I believe the decision ignores the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution and of the first amendment. The whole history of the colonial period, the very words of the Declaration of Independence and of the Northwest Ordinance, the appointment of chaplains in the Continental Army, the well-nigh universal use of prayer and Bible reading in the schools prove that the Founding Fathers did not intend to found a secular state. The first amendment was not written to enforce secularism, but to prevent the establishment of a state church. 2. The decision is in conflict with the accepted usage of our country ever since the adoption of the first amendment. Note, for example, the tax exemption of church property, the appointment and maintenance of chaplains in the Armed Forces, Government hospitals and correctional institutions, the use of the Bible and a religious oath or affirmation in courts of justice and in the inauguration or induction of governmental officials, the addition by Congress of the phrase "under God" to the pledge of allegiance and the opening of sessions of the courts and of legislative bodies with prayer. 3. The success of a little handful of atheists, agnostics, and secularists in banning religious observances from the public schools, especially in our great cities, has been followed by an unprecedented rise in juvenile delinquency. May not George Washington have been right when he said: "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. *** Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that morality can prevail in absence of religion." 4. The same group that brought the suit into the courts for the outlawry of prayer now threatens publicly to bring similar suits attacking every aspect of religion in public life. The same logic which led the Supreme Court to its decision on the regents prayer may very well lead the Court to a series of decisions which would have as their result the establishment of a completely secular state. The result could well be as tragic as the result of another decision of the Supreme Court over a hundred years ago—the Dred Scott decision, that was one of the causes of the Civil War. 5. I therefore urge the adoption of a constitutional amendment restoring the interpretation of the first amendment to the intent of its framers. Such an amendment might read as follows: "The first amendment to the Constitution shall not be construed as forbidding the granting of tax exemption to religious institutions, the appointment and maintenance of chaplains in the Armed Forces, government hospitals, and correctional institutions, the use of the Bible, and of a religious oath or affirmation in courts of law or in the inauguration or induction of public officials, the opening of sessions of courts and legislative bodies with prayer, or the read ing of the Bible and the use of nonsectarian prayers in public schools, provided that no child shall be compelled to participate against his own or his parents' will." I urge you to introduce and to support a constitutional amendment covering these points. Respectfully yours, LELAND B. HENRY. CITIZENS' ACTION COMMITTEE, NASSAU-SUFFOLK COUNTIES, N.Y., Rockville Centre, N,Y., November 14, 1962. To the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hon. James O. Eastland, Chairman: The members of the Citizens' Action Committee of Nassau-Suffolk Counties wish to go on record as being unalterably opposed to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court of June 1962 concerning the recitation of a nondenominational prayer in the public schools. The greatest single threat to our political and religious freedom is posed by nations who deny the existence of God. We, in America, constantly proclaim that we are one nation under God and are desirous of passing on to generations yet unborn our rich heritage. The doctrine of the separation of church and state does not mean that the state should be stripped of religious sentiment. Organized atheism in our society today is striving for supremacy and as a minority are forcing their opinions upon the majority. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, seems to be lending its power rather to the suppression of religion and to be championing the cause of "freedom from religion." The nondenominational prayer said in the schools of New York did not purport to establish a religion but simply acknowledged the existence of God and dependence upon Him. However, the Court, in effect, by this ruling is prohibiting the free exercise of the right of our children and educators to pray in a public place and the right to pray is an integral part of our American heritage. We, of the Citizens' Action Committee, Nassau-Suffolk Counties, N.Y., do hereby urge this committee to prepare, submit, and pass the necessary legislation to invalidate this current ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court prohibiting the recitation of a nondenominational prayer in the public schools of the Nation. Mrs. JOSEPH MOOSBRUGGER, Chairman. U.S. SENATE, July 27, 1962. Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is a statement prepared by Dr. O. Walter Wagner, executive director of the Metropolitan Church Federation of Greater St. Louis, concerning the Supreme Court decision in the school prayer case. Dr. Wagner has requested that this statement be made a part of the record of the hearings now being conducted on various proposals to change the first amendment. This is a personal statement of Dr. Wagner, and he has made it clear that he is not speaking for the Metropolitan Church Federation. Respectfully request that Dr. Wagner's statement be made a part of the record. Kindest personal regards. Sincerely, EDWARD V. LONG, 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." COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. O. WALTER WAGNER. 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, Miss ALICE OPRYSKO, Rosary Altar Society. FLINT JEWISH COMMUNITY COUNCIL, Hon. HIRAM L. FONG, 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. |