[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.

[11. Interpretative article, July 12, 1962]

THE STORM IN THE CAPITAL

(By W. Barry Garrett, Washington regional editor, Baptist Press) The lid blew off when the Supreme Court announced its decision, June 25, that official government prayers in the public schools are unconstitutional. Clergymen, legislators, and parents throughout the country have poured rivers of venom on the Supreme Court for its decision. Not since the 1954 decision on school desegregation has there been such a public reaction to the Nation's High Court.

Shouts against the Court members have been heard across the Nation. "Impeach the Supreme Court." "Pass a constitutional amendment to reverse their decision." "Proof that they are Communist sympathizers." "Another step toward the secularization of America." "The decision is the most tragic in the history of the United States." "June 25, 1962, will go down as a black day in our history."

These, and many other bitter reactions, fill page after page of the Congressional Record. The newspapers have been full of quotes from the Roman Catholic hierarchy and other clergymen who condemn the decision.

Fortunately, however, emotions are beginning to subside and the public is beginning to ask, "What happened? What was the actual decision? Is there really any cause for alarm?" Commonsense is beginning to return. Reason must take over before the Congress or the public does something which would be regrettable.

THE STORM EXPLAINED

Pent-up anger.-For the past decade, feeling against the Supreme Court has been rising. This is natural and in line with the history of the Supreme Court. Major Court decisions have always resulted in: (1) moves to limit the terms and powers of the Court members; and (2) efforts to amend the Constitution to reverse the Court's decision. So far, neither has been done.

A large part of the explosion against the Court comes from sectional and regional differences. Much of the Nation views this reaction as a carryover from earlier historic divisions. Time heals most wounds, but some are slow to heal.

Furthermore, in the system of checks and balances of the American Government there is a built-in tension between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It is normal to expect each branch to be jealous of its own powers and prerogatives. Much of the fury of Members of Congress can be interpreted in this light.

Johnny didn't read.-Much of the reaction to the Supreme Court decision is irrelevant to what the Court did and said. Plainly, many clergymen and Members of Congress have not read the decision. Some have obviously relied on the less competent newspaper reports. They heard a rustle in the bushes, and shot before they looked.

When people take time to read the full text with care, most Americans will agree that the Court's decision and the accompanying opinions constitute one of the finest documents in the history of church-state relations in the United States. An almost full text of the Court's opinions was published in the leading newspapers in Washington and in New York. Probably many other papers in the Nation did the same thing.

There is no excuse for a Member of Congress or for a clergyman to express uninformed and unintelligent opinions in a case as important as this decision on "official" religion in public schools. All have a right to dsiagree, but they have a responsibility to be informed if they are to be respected leaders.

Aid to parochial schools.-The Roman Catholic hierarchy has been bitter in criticism of the Court's decision. This is to be expected. The cardinals see their campaign for Federal aid to parochial schools disappearing as vapor on a hot summer day. This decision makes the Catholic Church's chances for aid from the Federal Government for its parochial schools almost nil.

Already it has affected the bills on higher education that are tied up in conference committee between the House and Senate. A scheduled meeting of the committee was postponed a week in order for the Court's decision to be studied. Even spokesmen in the House for Federal grants to church-related colleges are pessimistic about their chances. The Court's decision will affect elementary and secondary parochial schools even more directly.

It is no wonder that the Roman Catholic clergy is attacking the decision. Politics.-Congress is tense and nervous. Frustrations over inabilities to enact a far-reaching legislative program and jumpiness over approaching elections this fall lead Congressmen to grasp at any diverting issue. The Regents' Prayer case is made to order. They are taking full advantage of it. The play to the grandstand is in full swing. Like love for mother, Congressmen cannot appear to be against God. Little children need religious education, and legislators cannot be against this. Votes are too important for them to take any chance on losing them by agreeing with the Supreme Court.

Prejudice.-Nobody will admit it but resentment against Jews, freethinkers, Unitarians, and atheists goes a long way to explain the negative reaction of many people against the Supreme Court. While it is true, and perhaps unfortunate, that many of the cases involving religious liberty have been initiated by minority and unpopular groups, it is not true that these groups are imposing their views on the majority of the American people.

Basic policies of American life should be decided on principle. Reactions to decisions should be made on the basis of right or wrong rather than on prejudice.

WHAT WAS NOT DECIDED

The Court did not say that children cannot pray in the public schools. It did not even say that classes cannot have prayer nor that teachers may not refer to God.

The Court did not say that Bible reading in the public school is unconstitutional. This problem will come up in the next session of the Court.

The Court did not eliminate "God" from our public life and did not rule out references to Deity in national ceremonies and observances. Prayers on public occasions are unaffected.

The Court did not limit the free exercise of religion, and it did not say that people could not practice religion in public places and on public occasions.

The Court specifically said, “There is, of course, nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that schoolchildren and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer's professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance."

WHAT WAS DECIDED

The Supreme Court said that prayer "composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs" is unconstitutional.

The point of the decision is that the Court said that the regents' prayer in New York State was an "official" prayer and thus it violates the rights of the citizens of New York and of the United States under the provisions of the 1st and 14th amendments.

The Court said that such an "official" prayer constitutes an establishment of religion, thus violating the establishment clause of the first amendment. Justice Douglas dissented from this reasoning, although he agreed that the regents' prayer is unconstitutional.

The Court said that the establishment of religion has a tendency to destroy government and to degrade religion. Furthermore, the Court opined, that governmentally established religions and religious persecution go hand in hand. Rather than its decision being an attack on religion or a furtherance of the secularization of American society, it was the opinion of the Court that it was rendering a service to religion.

PROPOSALS FOR ACTION

The customary types for handling this kind of crisis are now prevalent. Among the current proposals the following are most prominent.

1. Either impeach the Supreme Court Justices, or limit their term of office. At present their appointments are for life.

2. Amend the Constitution to state specifically that in spite of the first amendment it is not unconstitutional to have prayer and Bible reading in the public schools. This proposal ignores the fact that such practices have not been ruled out by the Court's decision.

3. President Kennedy said that some will agree with the Court and others will disagree. But, as believers in constitutional government, we must abide by the decision. Respect for the orderly processes of government must prevail.

4. Teach the true meaning of prayer to our children at home and be faithful to the churches. President Kennedy said that this simple remedy is open to every American. He urged the Nation to avail itself of this opportunity.

[12. Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine, Arkansas Baptist State Convention, Erwin L. McDonald, editor, July 12, 1962 (circulation, 53,000)]

THE RULING ON PRAYER

Tempers have flared across the country against the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court outlawing a prescribed prayer for New York public schools. And according to press reports, the families that brought about the High Court hearing are being besieged by threatening and abusive telephone calls. Lawmakers, sincerely or in an effort to cash in politically on the situation, have started legislative action aimed at a new amendment to the National Constitution to override the Supreme Court.

Few Baptists are so well qualified to reveal the real facts of the case as our representatives in Washington, D.C.-C. Emanuel Carlson, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, and his associate, W. Barry Garrett. We are happy to carry in this issue of our paper a complete news report by Garrett on the new ruling and an appraisal of the action by Dr. Carlson. It is hoped that all of our readers will read both of these features, in trying to make up their own minds on the issue.

One point Dr. Carlson makes is that the question is not whether or not we are for or against prayer. And Mr. Garrett points out that the Court, in a 15-page opinion, "went out of its way to point out that its action is not hostility toward religion or prayer." Continues Mr. Garrett, "It is for the protection of religion and to guarantee its free exercise that the Court arrived at its conclusions, the decision said."

As reported by Mr. Garrett, the Court stated: "It is neither sacriligious 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 Court anticipated the possibility of misinterpretation and misuse of its ruling: "There is, of course, nothing in the decision reached here that is inconsistent with the fact that schoolchildren and others are officially encouraged to express love for our country by reciting historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused anthems which include the composer's professions of faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there are many manifestations in our public life of belief in God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise that the State of New York has sponsored in this instance."

One vital consideration in appraising the High Court action is "clarity as to what prayer is," Dr. Carlson emphasizes. "When one thinks of prayer as sincere outreach of a human soul to the Creator, 'required prayer' becomes an absurdity. The 'recitation of prayer' has been called morally uplifting without recognizing that hypocrisy is the worst of moral corrosion. Some have felt that our 'national heritage' is in danger, without realizing that the distinctive of our heritage is not legislated prayer but a people praying in freedom under the guidance of their church and of the Spirit of God. The strangeness of the present debate is that the call for 'less government' coincides with a public defense for government-formulated prayer. Obviously we need time to rethink the New Testament premises of our faith and practice, and also to rethink the meaning of American history."

Although sensing that this will not be a popular decision, this editor can do no other than stand with President Kennedy on this issue.

The President has placed the spiritual emphasis where it needs to be placed— in the home as he urges that the Supreme Court ruling be received as "a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more