This is not an idle academic matter, for the religious issue raised by the Supreme Court involves the guts of American Government as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Is the Constitution premised on the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, that the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are God-given inalienable rights? Do rights come from God, or are they manmade, a gift of the state? If rights are given by the state, they can also be taken away by the state. With no God, rights are temporary, alienable. Where do our American rights come from, from the state, from the Constitution, or from Almighty God? The relevance of ideals to government was pointed out by the sixth President, John Quincy Adams, at the jubilee of the Constitution in 1839. Former President Adams pointed to the similarity in ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, while the Articles of Confederation, which failed, were totally foreign to the principles enunciated by Thomas Jefferson in 1776: “There was *** no congeniality of principle between the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. The foundation of the former was a superintending providence, the rights of man, and the constituent revolutionary power of the people. That of the latter was the sovereignty of organized power, and the independence of the separate or disunited States. The fabric of the Declaration and that of the Confederation were each consistent with its own foundation, but they could not form one consistent, symmetrical edifice. They were the productions of different minds and of adverse passions; one, ascending for the foundation of human government to the laws of nature and of God, written upon the heart of man; the other, resting upon the basis of human institutions, and prescriptive law, and colonial charter. The cornerstone of the one was right, that of the other was power * The only oath administered under the Articles of Confederation was for commissioners sworn in to judge disputes between the States. They swore 66* ** well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question according to the best* * * judgment, without favor, affection, or hope of reward." The only oath specified in the Constitution is for the office of President. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Upon being sworn in as our first President, George Washington added the words, "So help me God." According to this precedent, every President since has repeated the solemn words "So help me God." In addition, most Presidents have placed a hand on the Bible while being sworn in, while President Lincoln kissed the Bible. The real question which the Supreme Court has raised in its School Prayer decision is: "Is the United States one Nation under God, or one Nation without God?" While the Supreme Court has raised this question, it cannot answer its own question, since it can only declare on those issues brought before the Court. If no one ever brings a case involving this question to the Court, it will never be answered by the Court. Thus, those Americans who want an answer to the issue of prayer, the nature of American Government, and the 14th amendment will have to turn elsewhere than the Supreme Court for a solution to the problems the Supreme Court itself has created. For the Supreme Court has had an entire century to set straight the matter of Reconstruction and constitutional ideals. This lack of diligence in meeting a fundamental moral issue in American history does not increase confidence that the Supreme Court, the way it is now going, can find an answer to the question of whether the United States is truly one Nation under God. The solution for concerned Americans is to require specific action on the part of our elected representatives in Congress and in the State legislatures in two areas: (1) Pass a constitutional amendment to add the words "so help me God" to the President's oath of office. This addition would make legal what has been established and recognized by custom, after the example of George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. This amendment would indicate that American Government is founded upon spiritual principles and ideals. (2) Pass a constitutional amendment to resubmit the 14th amendment to the States for ratification. This time the amending process would be without the compulsion of Federal military force, and in accordance with constitutional procedure. Action on this amendment could be completed prior to April 14, 1965, in centennial commemoration of Abraham Lincoln's last week of life when he strove to bind up the Nation's wounds, even at the sacrifice of his own life. Passage of this amendment would indicate that the American people intend to bind up this Nation's wounds in memory of their beloved Civil War President, Abraham Lincoln, and that the United States of America was, is, and ever shall be one Nation under God. GAITHERSBURG, MD. RUFUS WEBB. U.S. SENATE, Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, DEAR JIM: I am enclosing several items which have been forwarded to me with the request that I insert them in the record of the Judiciary Committee hearings on constitutional amendments concerning prayer in public schools. They are the following: 1. A sermon delivered by Rev. E. Warren Rust, Sunday, July 15, 1962, at the First Baptist Church, Cleveland, Tenn. 2. Letter from Marvin K. Jacobs, of Jaffee & Jacobs, attorneys, Toledo, Ohio. 3. "Statement on Public Prayer in the Public Schools," signed by a group of lay and religious leaders of the Kansas City, Mo., area. 4. Letter to me from Mr. Irving L. Geisser, executive director, and Marvin Levey, chairman, community relations, of the Flint, Mich., Jewish Community Council. I respectfully request that each of these items be included in the record of the hearings. I would appreciate receiving about a dozen copies of the record when it is printed. Sincerely, ESTES KEFAUVER, Chairman. PRAYER, THE BIBLE, AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS (Sermon preached by Rev. E. Warren Rust, Sunday, July 15, 1962 (Matthew 6: 1-8), First Baptist Church, Cleveland, Tenn.) Public indignation, regret, and disgust have been deeply aroused by the recent decision of the highest court in our land. The Supreme Court ruled that the prayer recommended by the New York Board of Regents for use in the public schools is unconstitutional. The prayer recommended by the board and required by local school boards for use in the public schools reads: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country." The prayer was held to be constitutional by the high court of New York State but was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a 6 to 1 decision. Two of the members of the High Court did not vote on this decision. The State board of regents in New York is a governmental agency created by the constitutional processes of that State. It has broad supervisory, executive, and legislative powers over the public school system. In 1951, this board composed the prayer for use in the public schools every morning along with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States. Under the instructions of the board, the teacher was obligated to conduct this opening exercise, but the pupils participated or refused to participate voluntarily. The Supreme Court presented a 15-page opinion read by Mr. Justice Black. Mr. Justice Stewart presented a six-page dissent. On the surface, it seems the Court has laid down a ruling in opposition to prayer. The ruling insists that (1) the regulation of religion or "establishment" of religion by the State is a breach of the vital principle of separation of church and state; (2) composition of prayers by a legislative body is an imposition of religion upon some people who might not want it; and (3) the State has no business composing official prayers for any group of American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by the government. The pro and con of this decision will be discussed for months and years. It is a tragedy and a bad commentary upon our forebears, our liberties, and our religious fundamentals when a right ruling is set in the backdrop of anti religious intentions. While the Court was deciding essentially on the question of composition of prayers directed by an agency of the government, the common understanding and interpretation of the judgment of this Court is that they have ruled it wrong to pray. It is common knowledge that the pressure on this issue was placed by irreligious people. The plaintiffs are from minority groups and atheists who feel that their rights and liberties are being violated by majority pressures and compulsions. Their children were not required to recite the prayer; participation was voluntary. This definite minority group will, no doubt, persist with this encouragement to further use the public school system as a whipping boy for their persistent attack upon religion in our Nation. They seem to be shooting at the tearing down of every form or symbol which would give evidence of the religious roots of our Nation by using the legislative process through our public schools. They have a dedication to eliminate all hymns, poems, religious paintings, and special events, as Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter, which have spiritual significance. This is not the only issue. In Maryland, the court of appeals ruled 4 to 3 that required reading and/or recitation of the Lord's Prayer was constitutional. This case is headed to the Supreme Court. In Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, and in Virginia, the school officials are struggling over religious practices in the public schools. Our Nation has deep religious roots. If we understand the intention of the sentences of our Bill of Rights we must understand at least three things: (1) the setting in which they were framed; (2) the men who participated in their construction; and (3) the purposes our forebears saw in government relations to the basic institutions of the home, the school, and the church. These are all a matter of 186 years of history. In the home, the schools, and the churches of 1776 the Bible and prayer were conspicuous and experiential. It was never the intention of our forebears to eliminate either prayer or the Bible from the roots of any or all of these institutions. Rather, it seems evident, they intended that they stay and be used. Through this almost two-century period strange conceptions and ideas have now developed. Some good people feel that the Christian faith should be formally written into our Constitution-a kind of European state-churchism-and some Baptists are buying the idea. Some would turn "Christian citizenship" into a quasi-political party, a type of "Christian front" like the European Roman Catholic political thrusts. Some would organize Protestants against the Roman Catholics, or against the Jews, or against Democrats, or against Republicans. Some would organize the church against labor and some against management. "Freedom" tends to be the cry raised against government when it serves the "other fellow." Anyone who doesn't see things exactly according to the warped design of some minds is a "Communist." There are some questions which must be answered, and Baptists must accept their part in bringing forth the answers. Our Nation has rolled over in our beds of passive response and after 186 years of nominal acceptance that ours is a great religious heritage yet we wake now to try to find out what this heritage means. We must rethink our principles and premises in terms of current relevance. It is like writing some statements hundreds of years ago and letting them grow cold from misuse or no use, and then, reading them back to ourselves, we ask, "What did we mean?" We keep running head on into situations which call to focus our modern dilemma: What is the place of religion in public education, in tax policies, where the church is concerned, the place of our denomination's institutions in relation to government, the role of the Christian in politics, the monopoly of radio and television where religion or irreligion is flashed before millions of homes in America daily-the Supreme Court has solved only one dilemma. They have said that government has no right to write prayers and these prayers become a part of the academic setting in our public schools. They have said that government agencies should be out of the business of directing the prayers of American people. I I concur enthusiastically in this decision. The Court could have ruled no other way without doing an injustice to the fundamental concept of our Constitution. When I first heard of this decision, I felt as many others. I got the impression through the press that our highest Court had outlawed prayer. was fit to be tied. I felt that this was the last straw. I even questioned when it would become unlawful to pray about anything. However, upon further investigation and consideration of the Court ruling, I feel that it is, and will prove to be, a fundamental decision upon which many areas of our religious liberties can be determined. Historically, it reads like a Baptist document out of our yesterdays. It is filled with concepts and history which Baptists of a hundred years would thoroughly concur. But more questions have to be answered. What is the relationship of this decision to a previous decision (Everson v. Board of Education) in which the Court ruled it constitutional to transport parochial school children to parochial schools? Is it constitutional to pay part of the bill for private schools to indoctrinate children for the benefit of one religious group and unconstitutional to make prayers to be read in the public schools? Does this ruling mean that no parochial school should ever constitutionally receive tax money? In a neighboring State a judgment was given by their high court that garbed nuns dedicated to just one religious group can teach in the public schools. How can a nonsectarian prayer be out and garbed nuns be in? Is the Government right in outlawing nonsectarian prayer in public schools and at the same time picking up part of the check for parochial school systems across our country which teach a regular religious catechism? Is our constituency going to keep peace with ourselves when we outlaw nonsectarian prayer, the Lord's Prayer, and the reading of the Bible, while many teachers persist in using their classroom for denouncing religious truth? Is it wrong to represent religious truth in our schools and right to denounce them? These seem to be pertinent questions in the light of this recent and right decision. What is the obligation of the church in these complex matters? The current problem of the church is similar to the family that pulled the old clock from the attic to grace their living room. It had been so long since used that they couldn't find the way to make it run. Therefore, it became only a piece of furniture in the living room. We have written in our past a fundamental concept of relation of the church and the state, but we are having difficulty determining how to apply it. Baptists have never been "institutionalists." We do not stake God's ultimate purpose in one of two institutions. Rather, we have depended on a gospel preached and Christian witness to proclaim that "Christ is the way, the truth and the life." In this preaching of the gospel we have not depended on "church" to establish a fundamental concept of the mind of Christ. We have not depended on "state" to establish Christianity. We have tenaciously held to the autonomy of the individual and the priesthood of the believer as basic tenets in the propagation of the gospel. We have established institutions for healing, teaching, training, and extending the purposes of the local church beyond our immediate communities. Yet, because of our understanding of how God deals with men, we have continuously insisted on separation of church and state. But as Baptists, we do not run the Nation-nor should any other religious group. In the 186 years since the establishment of this country we have grown, but so has our Nation. And with its growth has come a heterogeneous population. Across this population has come the fundamental concept of separation of church and state and we have made the mistake of allowing others to define our position. We must come to do our own thinking on the current issues of religious liberty. Our forebears did well in their day, but they did not deal with our questions in our day. They stated the answers in general terms. We have suffered more confusion by accepting the instruction of legalistic, nonBaptists, and even, in many instances, non-Christian minds regarding the positions we should hold. It is urgent that we accept our own responsibilities and representations. We need to find ways and means of several things: We need to find ways and means of establishing principles and policies that enable our institutions to be representative of our ideas and commitments. Correlation of policy is so necessary where hospitals, homes for the aged, homes for children, colleges, and all other institutions are implicated. Institutional policies as well as the local church policies should represent our commitment to Him who is "the life." We need to exchange thought and information between areas where Baptist policy is determined. Various State conventions need to avoid confusing the Nation and the political leadership as to what Baptists mean in the separation of church and state. We need to educate our own people in the principle that adheres to our faith. The public press and mass media cannot do it. They are limited by compromise of political interests, and political pressures. The promotional efforts of civil liberty organizations can help make us good citizens but hardly good Baptists. We must, in this sense, find a process of cultivating civic competence and ex perience of our people. They have a responsibility for the Christian use of stewardship of influence. We need to find ways and means of correlating our Christian influence, conviction, and witness with other religious groups who advocate and defend this fundamental American and Christian concept. SOME CONCLUSIONS 1. With regard to prayer in our public schools: The nonsectarian prayer composed by the officials of New York would be no advantage to a Baptist who believes in fashioning his own prayers and saying them from his heart. True prayers are not written or composed by others and read as a ritual. Our Lord gave us the fundamental in prayer when he said, "Ask, and ye shall receive, seek, and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened." The Court has not not said, "No prayer." It has said that government has no business in composing prayer. Prayer must never be legalistic and ritual. It must be personal and sincere, from the heart. Our children can be taught prayer in our homes and in their churches and can have the example of lives of parents and teachers whose practices of prayer are evidenced in their moral conduct. 2. A Christian constituency can permeate our schools and can undergird public school education by a spirit of prayer for every child, every school administrator, and every teacher. If ours is a Christian nation, we have a right to assume that every facet of it wil be permeated by a spirit of prayer in our homes and in our churches and in the lives of public school personnel. 3. While our schools cannot promote any one church, it is inconceivable that public interest and concern could not be expressed pertaining to administrators and teachers who use their classroom to denounce religion and advocate atheistic ideas and immoral and unchristian conduct and behavior. The same interpretation which says, "Do not advocate or promote," must also be interpreted, "Do not denounce or oppose." 4. There is no law, or even any suggestion of any law that prohibits the prayer life of the church. Christian people can pray. They can pray anywhere. In Acts, chapter 4, two preachers, Peter and John, were forbidden to preach. The church gathered for prayer. The outcome was a complete dedication of themselves to carry God's message through their testimony and commitment. They prayed with such effectiveness that they brought their personal possessions and laid them down at the feet of the apostles. They were men of one heart and one mind and one purpose. This is as God would want it. Three men had a leadership position in the formulation of the Declaration of Independence. Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, a Virginia landowner, and edited by John Adams from Massachusetts, it came to the hands of Benjamin Franklin of Philadelphia. Where Jefferson had written, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable," Franklin has penned out "sacred and undeniable" and wrote in "selfevident." This was the religious consciousness of those who formulated the document around which our Nation was founded. It was self-evident that this Nation's identity was wrapped up in religious truths. We must not chisel the inscription "In God We Trust" from our coins, nor delete "one nation under God, indivisible" from the pledge to our flag. On the contrary we must go back and find those roots and water them and nurture them and cultivate them. It is as true today as it was a long time ago that God waits to find the response of a people upon whom He has laid His hand to influence this world for Him. "If my people, which are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways *** then will I hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." JAFFEE & JACOBS, Toledo, Ohio, August 2, 1962. Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: Please note my objections to the proposed constitutional amendment on the Regents' Prayer case pending hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee. You are requested to make my objections part of the record of the hearings. Yours very truly, MARVIN K. JACOBS. |