Court Opinion

ID: 9453089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:01:48.087898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:29.940636
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge,
(dissenting).
A witness for plaintiffs, Reverend A. Donald Davies, an Episcopalian priest, testified that he was familiar with the curricular content of manuals used in kindergartens, and that in all of them which he had seen there is some verse “like this”1 in which the child expresses that he has received all of the things mentioned, by saying “thank you” for them. Reverend Davies insisted, however, that the verse in question with *841“God” removed “is still a prayer ’. But he admitted that, with the word “God” left out, “They might regard that, then, as an expression of gratitude to the community of animate and inanimate and human things in which they live.”
A witness for defendants was Edra Lipscomb,2 a kindergarten teacher for 19 years, and now a professor at Northern Illinois University, teaching kindergarten courses. According to her testimony, the curriculum followed at the school here involved is typical of kindergarten currículums now in use, as embodied in a comprehensive compilation thereof introduced in evidence. As to the particular verse under attack in this ease, Mrs. Lipscomb testified that verses of this kind are commonly used, and they are not regarded as prayer exercises. She also swore that in a kindergarten workshop in 1964, where she had 40 kindergarten teachers participating, she ascertained that all of those present used such a verse, the purpose of which
“is to help the youngsters become a part of the world around them, and so they do a lot of things in the kindergarten as a part of introduction into society, into the culture, and this ‘thank you’ verse would certainly fit part of this philosophy of helping the children not prepare themselves for life but actually become a part of the living society, contributing society. Also it is used to establish a quiet atmosphere ' in preparation for food.”
Thus the record of the district court reveals that the daily kindergarten schedule, which was used at the school in question, provides for the children to recite:
Every morning when the sun comes smiling up on everyone It’s lots of fun to say good morning to the sun.
Good morning, Sun.
1. We would not be justified in disturbing the findings of fact of the district court; in fact, we are not asked to do so. Certainly we should not rationalize (as do plaintiffs) that the elimination of the word “God” from a verse tends to prove that what remains is a prayer. The verse which remained to be recited by the pupils, after they were served cookies and milk, undoubtedly reflects in their young minds the pleasant prospect of eating. Naturally the recitation of the verse was a vocal expression of their gratitude. Moreover, this court has no right to take on a burden (which plaintiffs have voluntarily assumed) of establishing that a benefactor, to whom each child feels he is speaking, is a deity.
Human lives are replete with incidents where happy or wondrous events evoke voluntary, deep-seated emotions from those who witness them or participate therein. For instance, people may look at a glowing sunset and in admiration exclaim “Thanks for the opportunity of seeing that!” While one who overhears the exclamation might wonder why the remark was made, the fact remains that it is not a prayer. The expression of thanks evinces a sense of gratitude. And gratitude is a virtue, whether evoked by the marvels of nature or by the unidentified suppliers of tasty cookies and milk to kindergarten pupils. The enraptured viewer of the sunset, as well as each eager, usually hungry, child, gives expression to his gratitude.
Despite the elimination of the word “God” from the children’s recital of thanks, plaintiffs maintain, in effect, that that word is still there in the minds of the children. Thus we are asked as a court to prohibit, not only what these children are saying, but also what plaintiffs think the children are thinking. Certainly thought is a matter varying with each child, be he Christian, Jew, atheist or agnostic. One who seeks to convert a child’s supposed thought into a violation of the constitution of the United States is placing a meaning on that historic doctrine which would have surprised the founding fathers.
*8422. There was a conflict in the evidence at the trial in the district court on several issues of fact, (1) as to whether the children took a “devotional attitude” in reciting the verse in question, (2) whether some children said “amen” and “crossed themselves” and (3) whether the children’s heads were bowed or they looked either at each other, at the teacher, or at the food. The court found as to these matters that it was “not convinced” that such devotional acts actually occurred. This is a finding of fact which is not clearly contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and this court has no right, under 28 U.S.C.A. rule 52(a), to make a contrary finding.
3. The district court concluded that this is a case “de minimis”. The court supported its conclusion by saying:
“ * * * Despite the theologians’ characterization of this verse as a prayer, the court believes that set in the framework of the whole school day, its purpose was not to pray but to instill in the children an appreciation of and gratefulness for the world about them — the birds, the flowers, the food, and everything. They asked no blessing; they sought divine assistance.
“The teacher was exercising her pedagogical function of making the pupils socially acceptable persons, as well-mannered guests, grateful in their appreciation of their provider. * * * ******
“The court believes that this case presents the situation characterized by Justice Goldberg in the Schempp case, [2] supra, at 308, thus:
‘It is of course true that great consequences can grow from small beginnings, but the measure of constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to distinguish between real threat and mere shadow.’
I agree that this is a case de minimis.
I would affirm.

. We thank you for the flowers so sweet; We thank you for the food we eat; We thank you for the birds that sing; We thank you for everything.

. She was educated at the University o£ Dlinois, Southern Illinois University, University of Michigan and Indiana University.

 School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963), Justice Goldberg’s concurring opinion.”