Page 2
Summer Session Kansan Friday, July 6.1962
Alarmists And Prayer
A furor has spread across the nation during the last several days because of the Supreme Court's decision that the reading of an official prayer in New York public schools was unconstitutional.
Phrases such as "we're on the road to atheism," "we're trying to abolish God," ran away with meager minds. Public reaction could almost be called a panic.
Nationally known and respected men made statements that were shocking, but were in no way true.
Some said that the motto "In God We Trust" would have to be removed from coins, that anything hinting of God or religion would have to be banned from any national act or symbol.
But, despite the many fears, the Supreme Court's decision says only that no government official or officials have a legal right to establish an official prayer and sanction its use in a classroom, regardless of whether participation is voluntary.
It must be remembered, however, that these types of cases will be decided when they come up—the present decision is not a blanket rule against all aspects of religion in the U.S., as some spokesmen would have us believe. The decision will only act as a precedent in future cases of the same nature.
OF COURSE, the decision can have further implications. It can be used as a base for legal arguments against other aspects of religion in the classroom, or in national events.
HOWEVER, AFTER reading the full text of the majority opinion by Justice Hugo L. Black, only one conclusion stands out. That is, the decision will probably pervade only one aspect of religious training in the U.S.—simply the area where government officials, national, state, or local, attempt to establish a religious ceremony for classroom use and recommend its use.
This is the conclusion that "shocked and frightened" Francis Cardinal Spellman, and which, in his words, "strikes at the very heart of the Godly tradition in which America's children have for so long been raised"; that prompted Sen.
Robert C. Byrd, D-W, Va., to say: "Is it not the first step on the road to prompting atheistic and agnostic beliefs? . . . Somebody is tampering with America's soul. I leave to you who that somebody is."
THE COURT'S decision dealt specifically with the following prayer, entitled "The Regent's Prayer": "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country."
Justice Black said the official adoption of this prayer by a state government amounts to an "establishment of religion" which is forbidden by the First Amendment to the Constitution. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This is true, he said, even though the prayer is "denominationally neutral" and participation by students was on a strictly voluntary basis.
THE OPINION said the First Amendment prohibition "must as least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by the government."
The apparently narrow scope of the decision is widened somewhat by the words "at least." This would seem to imply that the Amendment's prohibition goes further than only banning official prayers.
It is not grounds to state that we are on the road to atheism, or are abolishing God. It is only grounds to believe that no government official may establish an official prayer and sanction its use in a classroom.
But again, further application of the Amendment will be decided by future cases, weighing the merits of each case.
It's time the alarmists of America calmed down, and realized that while the Supreme Court may have put a dent in the sacred cow of religion, they by no means put this country on the road to religious ruin.
—Karl Koch
Excerpts From The Justices' Opinions
(Editor's Note: Last week, the Supreme Court ruled, 6-1, that a prayer drafted by the New York Board of Regents and recommended for recital by teachers and children in the classroom violated the First Amendment. Presented here are excerpts from the opinions of the court—the majority opinion, the concurring, and the dissenting. The following is the excerpt from Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion.)
"... WE THINK that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of Government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by the government. . . It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate Government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance."
*******
(The following is from Justice William O. Douglas' concurring opinion.)
"... ONCE GOVERNMENT finances a religious exercise it inserts a divisive influence into our communities. ... The philosophy is that if Government interferes in matters spiritual, it will be a divisive force. The First Amendment teaches that a Government neutral in the field of religion better serves all religious interests."
(The following is an excerpt from Justice Potter Stewart's dissenting opinion.)
$$
* * * * * * * * * *
$$
"WITH ALL respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an "official religion" is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our nation."
SUMMER SESSION KANSAN
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Steve Clark and Karl Koch Co-Editors
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Bonnie McCullough and Bill Woodburn Co-Business Mgrs.
Possible Effects Of The Decision
WASHINGTON — (UPI) - The Supreme Court's ruling against prayer in public schools stirred one of the most far-reaching controversies since its desegregation decision.
One effect of that decision may be to give fresh impetus to a drive, already started among conservative Protestant groups, to write an amendment into the Constitution proclaiming the United States to be a "Christian Nation" and giving full legal sanction to religious expressions in public schools and other governmental activities.
But it has outspoken support among numerous smaller fundamentalist groups, who have cited previous lower court rulings against prayer and Bible reading in schools as evidence that a change in the constitution is needed to keep America "a nation under God."
This so-called "Christian amendment" has been opposed by many of the major Protestant bodies as a fatal departure from the tradition of church-state separation and religious freedom.
ANOTHER EFFECT foreseen by some religious leaders is a growing demand for establishment of Protestant parochial schools in which children may receive religious training.
Black sought in the majority opinion to head off any charge that the Supreme Court was "hostile" toward religion.
Black said the first amendment was written by men who had learned from the bitter experience of history that "whenever government allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs."
Points of View
"Road to Atheism"to "No Loss to Religion"
The reaction to the Supreme Court's decision has ranged between complete approval to complete condemnation.
The following are views on the decision sampled from religious and political leaders of the nation.
"THAT CONGRESS should at once submit an amendment to the Constitution which establishes the right to religious devotion in all government agencies—national, state, or local." (Former President Herbert Hoover)
"I AM shocked and frightened that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional a simple and voluntary declaration of belief in God by public school children. The decision strikes at the very heart of the Godly tradition in which America's children have for so long been raised." (Cardinal Spellman of New York)
"It IS important that people not be misled by distorted statements about the decision. The Supreme Court has nowhere in its decision denied belief in God, prayer, religious songs. Bible reading, or any other religious belief or practice." (Rabbi Albert M. Lewis, West Coast president of the American Jewish Congress)
"THE RECITATION of prayers in the public schools, which is tantamount to the teaching of prayer, is not in conformity with the spirit of the American concept of the separation of church and state. All the religious groups in this country will best advance their respective faiths by adherence to this principle." (New York Board of Rabbis)
"FIFTY STATE legislatures, 50 governors, several hundred members of Congress and the president in the White House have never been able to abolish God. But nine men who were not elected by the people and who are responsible to no one have succeeded in doing it." (Millard F. Caldwell, Florida Supreme Court Justice)
"THIS IS another step toward the secularization of the United States. Followed to its logical conclusion, we will have to take the chaplains out of the armed forces, prayers cannot be said in Congress, and the President cannot put his hand on the Bible when he takes the oath of office. The framers of our Constitution meant we were to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." (Evangelist Billy Graham)
"ALL PARTIES agreed that the prayer was religious in nature. This being so, it ran contrary to the First Amendment—which has served to save the United States from religious strife." (Representative Emanuel Celler, D, New York)
"I BELIEVE it is no loss to religion but may be a gain in clarifying matters. Prayer that is essentially a ceremonial classroom function has not much religious value." (Sterling M. McMurrin, United States Commissioner of Education)
"CAN IT be that we, too, are ready to embrace the foul concept of atheism. . . . Is this not in fact the first step on the road to prompting atheistic and agnostic beliefs? . . . Somebody is tampering with America's soul. I leave to you who that somebody is." (Senator Robert C. Byrd, D, W. Va.)
By Clarke Keys
Tad Szule covered the Cuban revolution during a six-year stint in Latin America for the New York Times. As a member of the Washington Bureau of the Times he covered the invasion from Miami and later took a look at the battlefield with Fidel Castro.
Post-event comments on the ill-fated Cuban invasion of April, 1961, have been as numerous as reports on the invasion itself. In this book, two newspaper reporters attempt to piece together all the events leading up to the invasion.
H
THE CUBAN INVASION: THE CHRONICLE OF A DISASTER, by Tad Szulc and Karl E. Meyer (Ballantine, 50 cents).
Karl E. Meyer commented editorially on the invasion for the Washington Post.
The authors have reached conclusions in this book (to wit: The CIA was in over its head and the idea was wrong from the start), but readers who disagree with the conclusions still may find some valuable background material on the event.
The book was prepared in such haste that considerable typographical errors appear in the finished product—errors than can change the meaning of a sentence to a great extent. It is suggested that a first-printing book be shunned for this reason.
$$
***
$$
STUDENT, by David Horowitz (Ballantine, 50 cents).
Supporters of various talkative—and active—groups on campus will find this book right down their alley. "Student" is the story of what students at the University of California, Berkeley, have been up to in the past few years as seen by Mr. Horowitz, a teaching assistant in English.
assistant in English.
If you are a believer in "Operation Abolition" don't read this book—you won't like it. 'Nuff said?