"3. Opposing efforts to use the public schools or tax funds to advance sectarian religious aims.

"We pledge our efforts to strengthen the system of public education for the full development of the capacities of our children and for the enrichment of our common life."

10. United Lutheran Church in America, October 10, 1956:

"The United Lutheran Church in America:

"(a) Affirms its belief that the public school is a basic institution for general education in our society.

"(b) Asserts the responsibility of its constituency to support and improve the public schools of the communities.

"(c) Approves the establishment of Christian day schools by congregations where local conditions make such action advisable ***"

SUPPLEMENT: 1. DISCIPLES OF CHRIST

Received too late for inclusion in the preceding classification is an action of the Annual Assembly of the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) in the Los Angeles, Calif., September 30-October 4, 1962. A resolution No. 64 as considered was approved, as follows:

"CONCERNING APPROVAL OF THE SUPREME COURT ACTION REGARDING PRAYER IN

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

"Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in its June 25, 1962, decision on Engel v. Vitale 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 the Government' and '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'; and

"Whereas this ruling is criticized by people who misunderstood it as an attack on religion, or who rightly understood that this ruling precludes a later favorable ruling breaking down separation of church and state in relation to public support for parochial schools, or who wish to discredit the Court because of its stand on other issues: Therefore, be it

"Resolved, That this convention approve the action of the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale, that we commend the Court's defense of the rightful role of the church from encroachment by the state and call upon our people to study this decision prayerfully and to defend it vigorously."

STATEMENT TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STUDYING PROPOSALS TO CHANGE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

My name is C. Stanley Lowell. I am the associate director of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and editor of its official publication, Church and State Review. This is a legal and educational group with some 175,000 members in all the States, maintains close liaison with major Protestant groups. The legal program of POAU has received the endorsement of the General Conference of the Methodist Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Convention, and other Protestant groups. The president of POAU is Dr. Louie D. Newton, pastor of the Druid Hills Baptist Church of Atlanta, Ga., and former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Its executive director is Glenn L. Archer, former dean of Washburn Law School at Washburn University in Kansas.

We would like to register the entire influence of this organization and its affiliated groups against any proposal to change the first amendment along any of the lines which have been suggested in the hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Our major objection is that such suggestions as we have examined would, in our judgment, open the way for Government assistance to churches in a manner which would be entirely contrary to the American tradition of the past 150 years. The present language of the first amendment is, we believe,

proper language which accurately depicts the intention of the Founding Fathers: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is true that this language is general and that it leaves to our courts and legislatures a great deal of discrimination in the matter of carrying out its meaning. We believe, nevertheless, that this amendment states exactly what ought to be stated in regard to the rights of a free people to be protected from acts respecting establishment of religion, and to be protected against interference in the free exercise thereof.

The various proposals to amend which are before the committee would, in practically every instance, open the way for various kinds of "cooperation" between the state and the churches. This would be true of financial assistance which, according to all these versions, could be offered by government to churches on a "nonpreferential" basis. This would mean, in effect, that the state could provide financial aid for religion provided only that it extended such aid to all churches on an equal basis. This would be equivalent to saying that while a monagamous union of church and state could not be tolerated, a polygamous union would be proper.

Amity among the creeds in this country, and a church-state situation which has been free of both clericalism and anticlericalism, can be ascribed to our historic financial wall between the state and the churches. To amend our Constitution so as to make financial aid from government to the churches possible would be to disrupt this entire pattern. There would be the vying of the creeds one against another for preferred position and larger emolument. All the abuses which have been historically associated with the granting of financial subsidy to churches would be invited to come upon us through these proposals to change the first amendment.

What did the Founding Fathers intend by the present language of the first amendment? It is clear to us that they meant something far more than the barring of a single church establishment. They meant to postulate the noninvolvement of government with the churches. They meant to keep government out of the realm of religion. It is not just establishment which is barred by the present language, but "acts respecting establishment"; that is, anything which is about this, anything which pertains to this, anything which relates to this field of religion-all this is shut off from government activity. The first amendment means that religion is not within the purview of human government. It is a matter for the individual conscience and the churches. Its authority rests upon these who have been designated by believers to assume it. It is not within the competence of the civil power.

To change the first amendment in ways which would open the realm of religion to legislation, to officially designated practices of religion, and to the financing of religious programs would be to upset and destroy the delicate balance between state and church on which our felicitous religious situation has depended. To do this would, we believe, inject government into a realm where it has no business to be.

In their proposals to change the first amendment, Bishop J'ames A. Pike, Francis Cardinal Spellman, and others have spoken of the necessity of reasserting the intention of the Founding Fathers. What is this intention? Certainly it was not to provide government aid to religion on a nonpreferential basis. It was the opposite of this. The records of the debates on the Bill of Rights as contained in "The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, I," compiled by Joseph Gales (Washington, Gales and Seaton, 1834), and "Journal of the First Session of the Senate" (Washington, Gales and Seaton, 1820), provide a most interesting commentary on what the intention of the Founding Fathers actually was. A helpful presentation of this material has been offered by Dr. James H. Smylie, professor of church history at Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Va., in the October 31, 1962, issue of the Christian Century. The progress of these debates, the various wordings which were proposed and rejected, and the eventual emergency of our present first amendment, all make it clear that what the Founding Fathers intended was to take the Government out of the business of religion. They wanted to prevent the single establishment, but they wanted no less to prevent a plural establishment. They wanted the churches to be free voluntary societies functionally separated from the civil power. They wanted no Government promotion for religion and no patronage for religion. It is significant, as Dr. Smylie notes, that "Members of the House made no concerted attempt to state the amendment in terms that Bishop Pike says they had in mind' and the Senate refused on at least three occasions to

adopt a wording almost identical with that of Bishop Pike's 1962 recommendation." It is evident that the intention of which Bishop Pike speaks was not that of the Founding Fathers but, rather, his own.

One function of government which we believe should stand entirely clear of church operations is that of the taxing power. One of the distinguishing freedoms of this country has been that which protects a man from taxation for a religion in which he does not believe. If a way should be opened up to breach this freedom, then the proposed tampering with the first amendment shall have done great and irreparable damage. Virtually all the proposals which relax the restrictions of the first amendment or open it up to certain government activity in the field of religion, would compound this damage.

The real intent of the Founding Fathers can be discerned in the constitutions and statutes of 48 of our 50 States which clearly express a prohibition on Government financial aid to churches or their schools. It is inconceivable that those who drafted the basic laws of our States could have utterly missed the intention of the Founding Fathers. On the contrary, they were carrying out their clear intention as they understood it. This meant the separation of state and church; it meant a free church alongside a free state with no exertion of the state's compulsion on behalf of the church. To seek to impose church patronage and sponsorship on the States by the Federal power via the 14th amendment would seem to be an unnecessary and gratuitous enlargement of the Federal power at the expense of the States. It is to be hoped that the Congress will not seek to extend the Federal power against the rights of the States and the rights of the people in any such manner.

Finally, the officers of Protestants and Other Americans United would like respectfully to lodge a solemn protest against a conduct of public hearings on an issue vitally affecting the basic liberties of the entire American people, and permitting only one side to be heard. We can scarcely believe that this has been true, yet the record would seem to bear it out. This nationwide organization whose top officials have served the top elective posts of the major Protestant denominations in the United States has been denied permission to present its views orally and publicly before the Senate committee. We understand that of all the church representatives requesting to be heard only Bishop Pike was permitted to appear because of his known position favoring a change in the first amendment.

We challenge the impartiality and, indeed, the propriety of Senate hearings which have been arranged to give only one side an opportunity to present its views. It is our feeling that on an issue of such gravity a committee of the U.S. Senate is entitled to have full information presented at its hearings. If the Senate Judiciary Committee decides to proceed further with the matter of amending the first amendment, we strongly urge that public hearings should be resumed and that both sides be given an opportunity to appear.

STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

(By Frank E. Karelsen, vice president and chairman of the executive committee)

The Public Education Association believes that the prohibition against establishment of religion in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States is a vital bulwark for the protection of the liberties of all Americans, including the freedom to worship or not, to believe in organized religion or not, according to the dictates of conscience. Because of this philosophy, our Nation has been free of religious strife, although it cannot be doubted for a moment that we are a religious people. Under no other government past or present have the people enjoyed such freedom to worship as they please and to indulge such freedom in more different ways and according to more diverse tenets. The "great object" of the Bill of Rights, Madison said when introducing his draft of the amendments to the House, is to "limit and qualify the powers of Government," this in order to make certain that none of the powers granted the Government can be exercised in certain forbidden fields. One such forbidden field was religion. Jefferson, too, foresaw the danger of action by Government in the field of religion. Both he and Madison opposed any Government aid whatsoever to religion. They reasoned that religion should remain a voluntary and private matter in which Government should not interfere in any way. This farsighted action has saved our country from much of the bitter religious conflict and sectarian strife that have plagued other nations.

In our view, none of the various resolutions proposed to authorize prayer in schools would do anything to enhance the education of American children. In many communities, on the contrary, the effect of such authorization would stimulate continuing pressure for inauguration of school prayer and counterpressure against it. Battles over the allocation of school time for acts of worship and over the language and suitability of particular prayers would divide community after community and wreak havoc upon their educational programs.

The objections to these proposals are not based upon any lack of understanding of the point of view of parents who want their children to benefit from all the resources of their particular faith for conviction and commitment to worthy ends. However, religious observance is not the proper function of the public school. Religious ceremonies achieve their fully intended meaning only within the home or in a congregation which holds in common the faith expressed by the ceremonies. Prayer in school, if it is to have meaning for those pupils who share the faith it implies, is bound to be offensive to the others. Even in the unlikely event that the theists in a community could agree upon a given prayer or religious ceremony, its use in the public schools would abrogate the rights of others who, though not theists, may have deep religious convictions.

Mechanical repetition of a prayer in a classroom atmosphere without religious background, on the other hand, is not good religion, and it certainly is not good education. The schools are hard pressed to perform their function of inspiring in students a love of learning. An act without meaning demeans both education and religion.

It seems to us that President Kennedy came closest to a constructive interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision when he pointed out that it placed squarely on the homes and the churches, responsibility for the religious training and development of our youth-a responsibility which can neither be delegated nor successfully shifted to any State agency. We believe that our churches and our homes are the safest and best places to conduct this training and, furthermore, that they are equal to the task. In our pluralistic society the encouragement and development of religious consecration and commitment must be left to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.

CONCLUSION

The school prayer decision is sound constitutionally and historically. The constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion is vital to the preservation of public education and has proved to be beneficial to education and religon in its present form.

The Public Education Association is strongly opposed to all pending proposals to amend the Constitution so as to permit prayer or religious services in schools.

THE RULING ARCHBISHOP AND DIOCESAN COUNCIL

OF NORTH-AMERICAN AND CANADIAN DIOCESE

OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH, INC.,
New York, N.Y., October 20, 1962.

Mr. JAMES O. EASTLAND,

Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR EASTLAND: Thank you for your kind letter of the 17th instant. I am commanded by the Synod of Bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church Outside Russia to communicate with you and to register the synod's determined support for the proposed constitutional amendment stemming from the school prayer issue.

The Synod of Bishops entreats you and your colleagues to view with favor and to take vigorous, patriotic steps toward amending the Constitution so that it be firmly settled that article I solely and simply states that a state church is never to be established in the United States of America and that at no time is it unconstitutional for peaceful public prayer to be said in or at a government institution, the rights of unbelievers being duly protected.

The recent dismaying Supreme Court decision states in effect that children of religious parents and who have religious concepts do not have the right to public prayer in a government institution-the public school. The decision further implies that public prayer in a government facility is against the public weal.

If this point is left uncontested, how long might it be before occupants of other government facilities, a naval vessel or public hospital, are likewise told that they have no constitutional right to public prayer in these government institutions?

The opinion given by Mr. Justice Douglas clearly shows that he feels God has no place in any government activity. We are left with the foreboding of what to expect in the not too distant future.

This un-American decision lays the foundation for an irreligious state which is totally at odds with the aspirations of the Founding Fathers. If we today shrug off this corrosive assault upon the rights of the religious American, then, there is serious reason to believe that the rights which past generations of Americans enjoyed will not be passed on to future generations.

To protect the rights of the agnostic minority, the rights of the God-loving majority cannot be imperiled.

I have the honor, sir, to remain,

Yours sincerely in Our Lord,

ARCHBISHOP NIKON,

Archbishop of Washington, D.C., and Secretary to the Synod.

STATEMENT OF THE UNITARIAN FELLOWSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE JOINT RESOLUTIONS 205, 206, AND 207; SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 81, AND SENATE RESOLUTION 356

The Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice, with headquarters at 245 Second Street NE., Washington, D.C., and the Unitarian Universalist Association, with headquarters at 25 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass., wish to record their opposition to the above resolutions and their support of the Supreme Court's decision in Engel v. Vitale.

The Supreme Court has made what appears to us a valid interpretation of the first amendment to the Constitution. Since 1791 this amendment has served the cause of good church-state relations in the United States. On the one hand, it has prevented the domination of the Government by religious bodies; on the other hand, it has permitted religious persons and groups to pursue their own religious interests without interference from any governmental authority. In striking down as unconstitutional the prayer composed by the Board of Regents of New York for use in the public schools of the State, the Court has affirmed the principle of freedom of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment.

When a governmental body takes upon itself the composing of prayers for use in the public schools, it steps beyond its province. Prayers belong to the practice of religion. Religion is a personal matter, a relation between the individual and the deepest reality he knows. Religion is a family matter, a bond of a common commitment. Religion is the business of those institutions and movements which have as their primary concern the religious development of their adherents. The practice of religion is not the business of government. We would also appose the use of a prayer in the public schools, such as the Lord's Prayer, which is derived from a particular religion. The use of such a prayer obviously discriminates against children who come from differing religions. The use of such a prayer, in our opinion, constitutes an establishment of religion, just as the use of the regents' prayer in New York State does.

Even a broadly phrased prayer such as the regents' prayer inevitably falls short of universality. Views of God and man's relationship to what is considered of ultimate reality are so varied that no prayer can include all views. Because it is not universally acceptable, the prayer constitutes religious discrimination. And because it represents no particular religious group but claims to represent them all, it really represents none adequately. Religion in general is hardly religion at all. Religion which lacks the dimension of commitment and faith is an empty shell.

We believe that in the Engel v. Vitale decision, the Supreme Court has ably discharged its duty to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, we oppose any attempt to override the Court's salutary interpretation and to alter the intent of the founders of our country to keep church and state separate. If the state engages in religious practices, religion in the United States will suffer. And if religion suffers, so will the Nation. We need government and we need religion, each working in its own sphere, each acting for the good of all.