Evening star., 1948-11-21

Cnurc0, no SCdIc TeilSlCIl. All tllc
rest of its contents depends on the
letter of the law that sets it up and
can in the concrete imply anything
from the impartial cooperation be-
tween government and free religious
bodies (as in Holland and tradit-
ionally in our own country all the
way down to bitter persecution OF
religion (as in France at the turn OF
the century,. AS was pointedly re-
marked in a dissenting opinion: "A
rule of law cannot be drawn from
a metaphor"
A glance at the history OF Jeffer-
sons own life and work would have
served as a warning against the
broad and devastating application
of his wall of separation" meta
phor that we find in this case. The
expression first appears In a letter
written by Jefferson in 1902 and,
significantly enough, in a context
that makes It refer to the "free ex-
ercise of religion" clause rather
than to the establishment of re-
ligion" clause of the First Amend
ment.
Twenty years later Jefferson
clearly showed in action that his
concept of separation of Church
and State" was far different from
the concept of those who now ap-
peal to his metaphor as a norm OF
Interpretation. AS the rector OF the
State University of Virginia, Jeffer-
son proposed a system Of co-opera- =
ton between the various religious
groups and the University which
goes far beyond anything under
consideration in the case at hand
And Madison. who had proposed
the First Amendment and who led
in carrying it through to enactment
by Congress, was one of the visit.
ors of the University OF Virginia
who approved Jefferson's plan.
Intent of Legislators.
Even one who is not a lawyer
would expect to find in the opinion
of the court some discussion OF
what was in the mind of the men,
bers of Congress when they framed
and adopted the First Amendment
For it would seem that the intent
OF the legislator should be of capital
importance in interpreting any law
when a doubt is raised as to the
objective meaning of the words in
which it is framed. In regard to
the establishment of religion
clause, there is no doubt of the in
tent of the legislator. 1t is clear in
the record of the Congress that
framed it and of the State legis-
latures that ratified it. To them it
meant no official church for the
country as whole, no preferment
of one religion over another by the
Federal Government-and at the
same time no interference by the
Federal Government in the Church
State relations of the individual
States
The opinion Of the court advances
no reason for disregarding the mind
of the legislator. But that reason
is discernible in a concurring opin-
ion adhered to by four of the nine
Judges. There we see clearly the
determining influence of secularist
theories of public education-ano
possibly of law. One cannot but re-
mark that If this secularist infiu-
ence is to prevail in our Govern
ment and its institutions, such a re.
suit should In candor and logic anc
law be achieved by legislation
adopted after full popular discus,
sion, and not by the judicial pro-
cedure of an theological interpreta.
ton of our Constitution.
We, therefore, hope and pray that
the novel Interpretation of the FRS
Amendment recently adopted by ths
Supreme Court will in due process!
be revised. To that end we shall
peacefully, patiently and persever.
ingly work. We feel with deep con.
viction that for the sale of botf
good citizenship and religion there
should be a reafflrmation of oul
original American tradition of fret
cooperation between Government
and religious bodies-co-operati