Evening star., 1963-01-03
Jurist on Prayer

0HsSS VII I6YCB
1t is difficult for me to
see how Justice Clark (This
Week, December 23) can ex-
tol the efficacy of prayer in
the home when he and his
Court brothers have, in ef-
feet, declared prayer in pub
lie schools to be a crime in
the same sense as is a vio-
lation of the express prohibi-
tions of the Constitution,
such as double jeopardy; de-
privation of life, liberty, and
property without due process
of law; and the inflicting of
cruel and unusual punish
mentS. To emphasize the
criminal aspect of prayer, the
State proposes to permit this
onerous act only in the pri-
vacy of the home.
Even If the State tacitly
encourages the efficacy of
prayer in the home, the
American family, condi-
toned by testimonial in
dorsement of cigarettes. soap,
automobiles, etc, is not apt
to follow an unlettered and
obscure parent who attempts
to encourage prayer in his
home when a hierarchy of es-
teemed jurists and educators
illuminate against religion in
school, and even threaten to
deracinate prayer and relig-
ion from our public life.
Justice Clark, in his role
as a scrupulous exegete of
the Constitution, says that
mo means no.. Yet, this
same Justice who, perhaps
inadvertently, attributed a
phrase from the Declaration
of Independence to be a part
of the Constitution, fails to
note that Congress" means
Congress" and not State"
and that free exercise of
religion" means free exer-
else of religion, and not free
exercise of irreligion." BY the
same token, free exercise of
religion" does not mean that
a citizen shall be taxed solely
because he chooses to exer-
else his religion as he deems
appropriate. Such taxation
limits freedom. For the pow
er over a mans purse is a
power over his will. Nowhere
does the Constitution say
that the free exercise of re-
ligion shall be confined sole
ly to the home and church.
Justice Clark AYERS that
the free exercise of religion
is not an absolute. Thomas
jefferson in his famous
Court-invoked wall of sep
aration" letter to the Dan
bury Baptists says that it is
absolute, so long as 1t is not
preferential, and does not
disturb public peace and good
order. Chief Justice Waite in
the precedent Reynolds deci-
sion concurs with jefferson.
Similar concurrence was held
by Mr.. Justice Story in the
Court-cited precedent deci-
sion Of Terret v. Taylor. FL
nally, James Madison in his
famous Memorial and Re-
monstrance," which the
Court invoked in the Everson
decision, stated that religion,
"or the duty which we owe
our Creator" is precedent to
any civil obligation. My per-
sonal search of Constitution
al history and precedent
Court cases prior to l947
fails TO disclose any absolute
right for the free exercise OF
irreligion or atheism - par
ticularly when 1t blasphemes
Christianity. the religion pro-
fessed by 90 per cent of this
Nations population, and his
torically reputed TO be a part
OF the law Of the land.
Paul A. Fisher.
sNA
Thank you and Supreme
Court Justice Clark for the
fine article in This Week 4"
| spent a lot OF time read
ing and rereading "A SUI
preme Court Justice speaks
Of God" | have not read
anything for many years,
except the Bible, that moved
my very soul so much, es-
pecially these words I'VE
may be parochial and bigot-
ed, but God has never been
limited In His love 10 any
one people or race or ma
ton"
am having this article
framed under glass for fu-
ture generations 10 read.
Mrs. Louise Thorpe.