Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-06-30

tiers on this and the opposite po9e
conclude, for the time being at
Ieost, the debote on the Supreme
Courts school proyer decision.
may have occurred in the
Engel case.
Alfred L. Seaman.
It seems that the Supreme
Court can turn loose con-
victed rapists, murderers, and
Communists without a qualm,
but it appears to be shaking
in its boots with fear and
trepidation Of the conse-
quences Of q 22-word prayer
uttered in the public schools.
II Justice Douglas and some
other members of the Su-
preme Court would take a
long sojourn high up in the
mountains that he so dearly
loves to climb, the country
would be far better off.
E. P. Webb.
Richmond, Va.
A%
I believe that the Supreme
Court decision on school
prayers will benefit the
people of this nation.
The ruling does not pro-
hibit children from reciting
any prayer. Any child who
wishes to do 50 can certainly
find a time for it, in or out
of school. The ruling only
prohibits requiring or pres
surfing q child to say a
certain prayer, especially a
Christian prayer such as the
Lords Prayer. Therefore the
ruling increases religious
freedom, and does not de-
crease it.
Although it Is true that in
New York and other States
students not wishing to
participate could be excused,
the pressure upon the stu
dents to conform was prob
ably great enough to keep
many students who wished
to be excused from asking to
be excused.
The effect Of prohibiting
official school prayers will
not be a decrease of morality
or religion because. in my
opinion, recitation Of a GER
tain prayer day after day soon
becomes nothing but q dull
tireSome ritual mumbled in
a monotone 50 often that it
loses almost all its meaning,
and may even make q child
antagonistic to religion, since
this sort of prayer recitation
represents real religion rather
poorly. Good moral behavior
can be taught by basing it
on a social attitude Of con-
Germ for others.
Prohibiting school prayers
Is not atheistic nor does it
make our schools resemble
Russian schools. An atheistic
approach would be to have
taught in public schools that
there is no God. This Is done
in Russian schools. but not
in American schools.
Many protest the recent
decision on the grounds that
we have a tradition Of re-
ligious belief in America, and
that this tradition should be
continued. It Is this attitude
Of continuing the status quo
for its own sake that is most
Objectionable. We have no
right to assume without
doubt that our forefathers
were right. There are good
traditions and there are bad
traditions. Belief in God may
be a good tradition, but, like
all traditions, it should be
open to question and criti-
cism. not treated by the
Government as something
holy, to be officially in
doctrinated into children's
minds, with questioning or
criticism considered taboo.
Other governments, past and
present, have made the mis-
take of matchmaking in
their children certain re-
ligious beliefs, such as poly
theism-beliefs which were
hardly questioned then but
are now. We would be very
foolish to assume that we are
infallible, that we have
arrived at the ultimate re-
ligious truth, and that now
we need to perpetuate our
present beliefs. The question
of whether there Is a God is
an important philosophical
question that should be left
open to question. We are
intelligent people who want
religious freedom for our
selves. It Is right, in fact
morally obligatory, that we
should keep ourselves free