26 have witnessed the invalidation of such benign legislative accommodations as the loan of maps and the payment for costs of field trips to governmental and cultural centers. Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 248-55 (1977). In Walz the Court noted that "for the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." 397 U.S. at 668. The presence of any of these elements raises a concern, as observed in Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672. 677 (1971). However, whether a particular instance of aid must be nullified calls for a value judgment which must "turn on whether particular acts in question are intended to establish or interfere with religious beliefs and practices or have the effect of doing so." Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. at 669. REMEDYING THE TRAGIC LOSS OF PRAYER AND RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS statement to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution submitted on May 16, 1983, for the record by Willel W.G. Reitzer private citizen, Washington, D.C. Religion in the public schools has been a major interest of mine for two decades. I have researched material for a full-length book, which is in advanced draft form. In addition, I have written essays on numerous contemporary issues. Because two are pertinent here, I append them to this statement: "The Fatal Defect In Public Education" on secular education in general and "Praying Always With All Prayer and Supplication In the Spirit" on prayer in general. I am also putting together a book on the Ten Commandments. This school prayer issue I approach from five aspects: the theological, the legal-historical, the practical, the socio-political, and the educational-historical. I offer a synopsis by way of background, followed by a conclusion that goes to the proposed legislation itself. BACK GRO UND I. Theological. Too many people fail to see a need for school-opening exercises based on prayer--much less, Bible-reading. And many who do, do not see why prayer cannot be offered at home. These people seem oblivious to why those exercises ever got started in the first place. But Holy Scripture states: "In everything by prayer and supplication let your requests be made known unto God" (Phil.4:6). In early American history, Bible belie vers took that literally. And rightly so. Thus not only schools opened with prayer, but also church meetings, business meetings, town meetings, court sessions, family outings, community doings, festive occasions. Even major international activities opened solemnly. The 1783 Treaty of Paris began: "In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity." To get around the problem that opening prayers might be too sectarian--too confined to the distinctives of a particular sect--same school boards stipulated that only the Lord's Prayer be said. But in time people objected even to that. And then they objected to saying grace at mealtimes. And now they object to any religion in the schools--or in public life whatever. It is true, prayer rates as a most meaningful practice, and, yes, it has its prerequisites, preliminaries, and particulars in order to be most effective. Yet, even when religious leaders offer prayer, there remeins considerable error in attitude, motive, form, and content-fram & general perspective. So whenever prayer is made in a group setting, there has to be a large degree of tolerance. The point not to be lost sight of is: prayer is essential. It is essential to EVERYTHING. And it should be made immediately prior to the activity about to take place--not earlier at some other location. The author attended two theological seminaries where prayer opened each class period. II. Legal-Historical. The most far-reaching legal change on this issue was the 1962/63 Supreme Court decisions removing the long-existing prayer and Bible-reading opening exercises from the public schools, and imposing on them a policy of religious rutrality. Involved were four legal issues: i) whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, ii) whether complainants had the right to sue, iii) whether the First Amendment establishment clause had been violated, and iv) whether the practices were outside the people's free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. To each the Supreme Court said yes. But the author--and others--put forward a good case the Court erred each time. The key point is thet neither the framers of the First Amendment nor the people generally, .then or since, envisioned such far-reaching restrictions--as evidenced by the fact prayer (and Bible use) in public school opening exercises continued many, many years unhampered. For a fact, the Colonists foresaw the problems of religious pluralism in society clearly, and enacted laws putting various restrictions on nonconformists in their midst. But the nonconformists complained loudly of intolerance. So in time Tolera ti on Acts were passed to permit nonconformists to worship differently within the community. But the nonconformists soon were not satisfied with that concession. They began to object to public religious practices they disagreed with--again from the basic standpoint of unfairness. They complained the traditional practices singled out their children as different, thereby causing serious trauma. Some then have become so bold as to complain that the traditional practices are offensive to them-objeoting not only to prayes in the name of Jesus Christ, but to crosses, and creches, and everything Christian. Actually, it is almost impossible for public school pupils to keep their religious identity und isclosed. There are religious holidays, Sabbath days, funerals, and other functions that require school absence. There are special dietary rules, dress requirements, and other religious distinctives. Besides, is it not hypocritical--even in the face of possible adverse reaction from other pupils--to seek to hide religious identity? We have come to the point where everything is permitted in the public schools except viewpoint and practices and group activities that have a religious basis. It has become necessary for Senators to sponsor legislation giving students "equal access" to public schools in order to meet for religious purposes. Thus, the people who founded this nation on Biblical principles, but who tolerantly let nonconformists stay in their midst, discovered that the latter were taking their Constitution and by legal cunning doing away with one essential after another to their general way of life. Someday the Supreme Court may rectify the school prayer decision. In the meantime several avenues are available to attain the same result. This I call the practical aspect. III. Practical. 1) Congress could remove Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction so that individual States would have final authority in this matter; ii) the Constitution could be amended: a) by a "Prayer Amendment" that would guarantee prayer in public schools--in one form or another, ог b) a stronger amendment that would declare such prayer and Bible use as existed at the time of the enactment of the First Amendment not to be a violation thereof; or o) a still stronger emendment, called the Christian Amendment (which has been proposed at times in the past), that would make Biblical principles part of the law of the land; iii) abandoning the public schools and instituting private schools where beliefs can be practiced beyond court interference. IV. Socio-political. Which option will be put into effect depends, of course, on the sociopolitical pressures that prevail. A number of people like the status quo. They resist any change. They argue: "Don't tamper with the Constitution." But that is a self-serving argument without merit. In fact, it is duplicitous. For it was the Supreme Court that tampered with the Constitution by reading into it prohibitions that were not there. Now they use the "can't tamper" argument to sanctify the error. In a democracy the MAJORITY is supposed to rule. Judging from all the polls taken, it appears a large majority of citizens favors school opening prayer periods. But minorities have a way of raising obstacles, sometimes very cleverly, that effectively frustrate the majority will. One series of argument is that the exercises consist of a form of religious indoctrination, coercion, and discrimination. But as the late Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter of the Supreme Court observed: "To deny the political power of the majority to enact law concerned with civil matters, simply because they may offend the consciences of a minority, really means that the consciences of a minority are more sacred and more enshrined in the Constitution than the omsciences of a majority" (W.Va. v. Barnette, 1943). That rationale applies in religious matters as well. Religious nuetrality is a fiction: in essential areas it favors some while denying others. Admittedly, the will of the people is difficult to establish. What is deplorable, however, is the sleight of hand that too many outfits are using to slant the outcome in the direction they desire, such as by prejudicial formulation of questions. Even religious organizations are prone to this: through stacked resolutions committees, railroading voting procedures, and biased reporting. Thus "official" resolutions give no real indication of the convictions of the constituency, no careful poll having been taken in advance. Moreover, often the resolutions are too wordy, too broad, too narrow, too vague, too confusing to be sufficiently enlightening per se. Nevertheless, if democracy is our form of government, the will of the majority ought to be ascertained--and obeyed. V. Educational-historical. Historian Robert Baird called the Colonial Period, when prayer and Bible in education and public life were most in evidence, America's "golden age". Their gradual removal has contributed to the gradual decline in educational achievement and national well-being, And it keeps accelerating, because of the mushrooming spiritual void in national life. All human history proves that national peace and prosperity are in direct proportion to a nation's adherence to Biblical doctrines, morals, services to God and humanity, and piety. One must not be misled by the false signs of advancement. Although the populace is relatively better off materially, this is predominantly due to deficit financing--which also keeps accelerating. We are better off health-wise, but working less, producing less, and dipping in to the federal treasury more to finance health care. We see astonishing technical progress, but overall less competency to keep up with it. we take the Ten Commandments as a guide, we find less commitment to each one of them. There is less knowledge of and devotion to God (and correspondingly more profanity, irreverence, and blasphemy). There is less observance of the Sabbath Day. There is less respect for parents, for marital vows, for government leaders, for teachers, for the police, for neighbors. There is less respect for sex, for property, for truth. There is less rightful desire, less noble aspiration, less real contentment, less genuine thankfulness. And less respect for health and life. We keep looking at the continual decline in education in the last 20 years as if the public schools were great at the start of that sharp decline. The fact is the schools had already attained a deplorable state long before then. CONCLUSION The restoration of school opening exercises--even with real prayer (not to mention Bible-reading) --will only be like an ounce of blood for a sick patient that needs a complete transfusion. And any opening exercise less than this will be that much less worthwhile. Further, should a legal remedy be adopted that would permit even a potent school opening exercise, I fear it may do more damage by raising false hopes and by slackening efforts toward more far-reach ing remedies, because the public schools would still have little vitality in them. I'm surprised so many Bible-believing, individuals still do not see this. For every subject is infused with Biblical principles which cannot be separated out. Scripture clearly states children are to be reared "in the instruction and discipline OF THE LORD" (Eph.6:4). Thus, conscientious parents must establish schools where this can be done. And God certainly will emble them to do it--even in the face of inflation/recession, high taxes, and no tax breaks for not sending their children to the public schools. Universal Christian Publications P.O. Box 2020 Fashington, D.C. 20013 STATEMENT TO: SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBJECT: S.815, S.425, s.1059. EQUAL ACCESS BY: THE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION OF CHURCHES THE AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (AHA) THE COUNCIL FOR DEMOCRATIC AND SECULAR HUMANISM (CODESH) PRESENTED BY: EDD DOERR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE VOICE OF MAY 4, 1983 Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee The Unitarian Universalist Association of Churches of North America (UUA), the American Humanist Association (AHA), the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH), and The Voice of Reason (VOR), while generally favoring the concept of equal access in principle, would like to register opposition to the equal access bills as written and also to suggest that the problem which the bills address could best be solved by the ingenuity of local school districts without assistance from Congress. The UUA, with 175,000 members and over 1,000 congregations in the U.S., has a long history in our country, going back at least as far as the American Revolution. Indeed, the church of the Pilgrims in Plymouth, Massachusetts, formed in England before their departure for the New World in the Mayflower, is a Unitarian Universalist church. The UUA has long supported religious liberty and the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. At its annual General Assembly in June 1982 the more than 2,000 delegates voted almost unanimously for a resolution reaffirming support for church-state separation and specifically supporting the religious neutrality of public education. Prior to the General Assembly, that resolution was voted the highest priority in a poll of all Unitarian Universalist congregations (the parish poll). The AHA and the CODESH are smaller associations of religious liberals who also strongly support religious liberty, churchstate separation, and the respectful neutrality of public schools toward all religions. VOR is an interfaith organization dedicated to defending religious liberty and church-state separation. The Lubbock and Brandon rulings, to which the equal access bills are responses, did not close the door on students discussion of religion in school. At lunch, before and after classes, and during recesses students enjoy the right to discuss anything, including religion. Religion is appropriately discussed in the academic atmosphere of history, English, art, music, and other classes. If a school has a policy of allowing all groups of students without exception to meet in school during free time, a truly open forum policy, then students could meet to discuss religion. Denial of that right could be adjudicated, as occurred in the Widmar case. No federal legislation should be needed to secure equal access. Of the proposed bills, Sen. Hatfield's S.815 is the best because it applies only to secondary schools and utilizes the courts for remedies. But even it does not address itself to the following questions: Would student initiated discussion, prayer, or Bible study groups be allowed to bring in adult clergy or other leaders? In hundreds of communities across the country, certain fundamentalist groups have been allowed free access to to public schools for the purpose of proselytizing. Wouldn't the proposed legislation tend to favor more aggressive, evangelistic, proselytizing groups over those which are more sensitive to the religious pluralism of our schools? Would adulttrained student religious leaders be able to turn public schools into arenas for proselytizing and sectarian competition? Would newer religions, often pejoratively called "cults", be allowed equal footing with more traditional groups? apparently, though to mixed groups of Sen. Denton's bills, S.425 and S.1059, extend the equal access principle to elementary schools and the language of the bills is not clear students and teachers. Elementary students are too young and too impressionable not to be under careful supervision in school by competent school personnel. The kind of supervision of student initiated religious groups required by the nature of elementary schools and students aged 6 to 13 would certainly be the kind of school sponsorship of religious activity which the courts would find incompatible with the First Amendment. Parents have the primary responsibility for the religious developement of their children and most would be quite upset if their elementary children came home from school converted to another religion. The Denton bills would also seem to allow mixed religious groups of students and teachers. It is hard to see how such arrangements would not have the appearance, if not the reality, of impermissible school sponsorship. Further, group meetings of students, or teachers, or students and teachers, could easily have the effects of calling attention to religious differences and of creating divisions among students and among faculty along religious lines. Such divisions could well disrupt the smooth running of the academic enterprise. Congressional action, either on the Hatfield or the Denton model, would be a disproportionate and excessively far reaching response to the problems perceived by some in the wake of the Brandon and Lubbock cases. We believe that the elected boards and administrators of our 16,000 local public school districts have the ingenuity and the knowledge of local situations needed to resolve any perceived local equal access problems, subject of course to court test. We therefore urge that the Senate allow local school districts to deal with these problems. Тоо little time has elapsed since Lubbock to permit Congress or anyone else to assess its effects. Haste in this matter could lead to more serious problems of government involvement with religion than presently exist. 39-015 0-84-42 |