Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-06-29

IhlS is TO express my deep
appreciation for the stand
made by you in the lead edi-
torial July 26 that took to
task the recent decision of
the Supreme Court against
prayer in the public schools.
The Interpretation of the
First Amendment made by
the majority in the Supreme
Court seems to be far-fetched
to say the least.
This turn of events gives
impetus to the feeling that
we are ii the initial stages Of
a growing tyranny based on
the power of those in the Su-
preme Court to create law by
interpreting law according to
what happens to be the par
ticular whim of the moment.
One has difficulty now in
warding off the impression
that our democracy is in dan
ger, for this subterfuge makes
it possible for a minority to
impose its will on the ma
jority.
If this reader is correct in
his thinking. we are faced
with a crisis more calami-
tous than most Of us possibly
realize.
Pierre M. Purves.
Your editorial, And For
bid Them Not" seems to me
to be a classic example of
sophistry. You decry the Su-
preme Courts decision by
stating, Little children may
not approach Him. however,
through the public schools of
New York. Six justices of the
Supreme Court have forbid
den it," Thus you present the
picture Of six ogre-like, athe-
iStic justices Sternly leading
our children one step further
away from God, while just
around the corner lies our
unsuspecting National An
them, third stanza, about to
be ruled unconstitutional
you say solely because of
its patriotic Goodness.
The part about the Star
Spangled Banner which you
glibly insert is obviously alb
Surd. AS for the school chill
dren, if they are so religious,
as you imply, then why do
they twiddle their thumbs,
make under the breath wise
cracks, and do homework
while the Bible is being read?
If you will. for once, be hon.
est with yourself, can you
really imagine even a stable
minority of public school chill
dren INDUCING in spontan-
eous, unprompted prayer
during school hours, that Isl
for any reason whatsoever?
Of course not. But Of what
real value is prayer, if it is
not spontaneous? I should
hardly think that God really
needs to be defended in such
a Slipshod manner as He was
by an editorial writer of The
Star.
Andrew Moursund, Jr.
y y
The lead to your editorial:
And Forbid Them Not"
was truly a bon jus"
The frightening part of the
Supreme Court ukaSe is not
the narrow legal opinion of
the Board of Regents COM
posing a prayer, but the in
flammatory obiter dicta with
which the opinion is laced. OF
particular concern is the gra-
tuitous comments of Mr.. JUS
tice Douglas concerning the
"divisive influence" of Gov
ernment-Sanctioned religious
exercise. and his disavowal of
the conStitutionality of the
EverSon decision. I agree that
the Everson case is not based
on valid history or law, but
for reasons directly contrary
to his, yet predicated on the
legal and historical citations
listed in Everson, $50 U. S. l
Q94O.
The recent court decisions
on religious conflicts have
been predicated on question
able interpretations of con-
stitutional history. An apa-
thetic nation. has not con-
cerned itself with court deci-
sions which have been pri-
marily concerned with the
denial of natural and consti-
tutional rights to a minority
Christian sect.
The First Amendment con-
Germs itself with religion. OF
as Madison defined it in his
celebrated Memorial ano
RemonStrance" which is sc
consistently quoted by the
court. 'the duty which we
owe our Creator" None of the
six States which recon-.
mended amendments to the
Constitution interpreted reli.