Evening star., 1962-06-30
Court Decision on School Prayer


the ground that they con-
travened the establishment
Of religion" clause of the
First Amendment. 1t should
be noted that Madison, often
called Father of the Con-
stitution," was an important
and influential member of
the Constitutional Convention
and the author of the chief
source Of material on what
went on in the Convention.
During the First Congress. he
was Senate floor manager of
the Bill of Rights, which, of
course, included the First
Amendment.
It is also interesting to note
that the founders Of our
Republic applied the spirit of
the amendment to politics.
Jefferson was not even a
Christian The was a deist)
Could such a man be elected
today? Yet it is generally
agreed that the early Amer
leans took their religion much
more seriously than do Amer
leans of the 1960s.
AS the importance of rei-
gion in our personal lives
has decreased, its social i'm
portance has increased. We
seem to have developed a
taste for the observance of
mere forms Of religion with
out substance. The less deeply
people are affected by the
church, the more important
church attendance becomes.
The less people get from
prayer, the louder become the
cries for prayers everywhere.
Now the process has gone so
far that there are cries that
religion cannot survive with
out governmental assistance.
Has religion indeed come to
such a sorry pass?
Joseph s. Ryshpan.
=
In what should be an age
of enlightenment, it is pro-
foundly disturbing to OBJ
serve the vicious reaction
displayed by certain groups
to the Supreme Courts most
recent ruling. Yet there is
nothing historically new in
attempts by religious groups
to force their way into Gov
ernment, With many his
torical precedents to guide
them, our Founding Fathers
with great wisdom and fore
sight embodied in our Con-
stitution safeguards against
this form of tyranny.
Now we are confronted
with proposedN amendments
to the Constitution itself. 1t
is clear that the proponents
of these amendments hold
our Constitution in utter con-
tempt: far from seeking to
abide by its embodied con-
cept of separation of church
and state, they seek fatally
to weaken that concept.
The reasons which impelled
our ancestors to define so
clearly the separation are no
less strong and no less ap-
plicable today. Let us not fail,
because we have thus far
been free from religious per-
secution, to realize how easily
we could be subjected to it.
One proposal would have an
amendment permitting re-
ligiouS exercises in the class
rooms with the provision that
whoever did not wish to par
ticipate could be excused. AS
a teacher I know very well
what this means: the greater
majority of the children
would stay and participate, a
number of them submitting,
and their parents too, be-
cause it would be the easy
thing to do. The very few
with the courage-their par
ents' or their own-to leave,
would become quickly os-
tracized and would suffer,
both within themselves and
from surrounding social pres
sures. Such a procedure would
without question be dis
criminatory, cruelty so. And,
of course, organized religion
would have gained an i'm
portant legal foothold in
government.
Despite the sinister victory
they would achieve by pas
sage Of an amendment, its
proponents would be among
the first to reject such a sys-
tenn as the following: that
those children whose parents
wish them to participate in
religious exercises could go
to a central hall or audito-
rum, before classes begin,
and all others could remain
in their respective classrooms.
Again as a teacher, I can as
sure you that the majority
of the students would be like
ly not to participate, certainly
not on a regular basis. The
proponents of the amend
ments, strongly suspecting
beforehand that this would
be the case, will never con-
sent to such a system, lest
it show they have not the
strength they imagine.
The public schools are and
should remain free from re-
ligion. The same is true of the
Nation at large. Permit such
an outrage as an amendment
to the vital principle of sep
aration of church and state,
and we move a long step to-
ward tyranny.
Let us in the name of Lib
erty oppose it. as our Fore
fathers did, in the hope of
preserving to posterity the
great principles on which
they staked their lives, their
fortunes and their sacred