Covenanter Witness Vol. 86 - Rparchives.org

leaders, the relegating of the Bible to "secular" use in theschool while denying its religious use, along with prayer,has many opponents. Their opposition centers in thefallacy that we can divorce the religious from theeducational spheres in our educational system. The truthis that man is a whole and cannot be bisected as thoughthe physical earthly things of life and the spiritual religiouslife can be squeezed into watertight compartments whichwill not affect one another. No true teacher can besatisfied with this impossible task of simply being an instructorof skills and knowledge. Rather he will desire hischarges to learn about the meaning of the subjects of thecurriculum within the larger meaning of human existence,(and I personally believe if he's a Christian within themeaning of God's purpose for man). Only this will keepthe schools from becoming more and more godless institutionsand the nation the same. (Dr. Robert Ulich; opcite pp. 2-6)This opposition to the Supreme Court's Decision isin the spirit of Washington's and Jefferson's statementsabout the place of religion in keeping America free.Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independencewrote, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can theliberties of a nation be secure when we have removed theconviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"George Washington in his Farewell Address warned usthat only "with caution indulge the supposition thatmorality can be maintained without religion." {Today'sEducation: Dec. 1969; "Teaching about Religion in thePublic Schools")Opposition to the Supreme Court's Decision againstreligious reading of the Bible and voluntary prayer alsocame from Constitutional scholars. Some of these scholarsbelieve the Court was in error in its interpretation of theFirst Amendment upon which its decision rested. TheFirst Amendment states, "Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof." By reading into the First Amendment'sprohibition of "any law respecting an establishmentof religion" much more than its authors intended, theCourt had in effect "amended the amendment — not onlyusurping powers belonging to lawmaking bodies butarrogating to itself decisions traditionally left to local andstate school authorities.""By forbidding Bible reading and prayer, as well asany and all "religious exercises," the Court had, in thewords of Princeton's Prof. Edward S. Corwin, a leadingauthority on Constitutional law, "itself promulgated a lawprohibiting the free exercise of religion." Bypronouncing, for the first time in American history, theabsolutist dogma that as between religion and irreligion"the state is firmly committed to a position of neutrality,"the Court was, in the words of the late Episcopal BishopJames A. Pike, "establishing by judicial fiat a religion ofsecularism." This is surely a doctrine foreign to a landwhose founders regarded religion as the bulwark of thestate, who saw themselves accountable to "the SupremeJudge of the world," and whose citizens' rights to freedomand self-rule were "endowed by their Creator."8Further criticizing the Court's decree, Erwin N.Griswold, dean of the Harvard Law School, said, "This is aChristian country, in origin, history, tradition, and culture.It was out of Christian doctrine and ethics that itdeveloped its notion of toleration. The Muslim who comeshere may worship as he pleases, and may hold publicoffice without discrimination. But why should it followthat he can require others to give up their Christiantradition merely because he is a tolerated and welcomemember of the community?" (Clarence W. Hall op cite)Another Constitutional scholar, L. Brent Bozell,objected to the Court's interpretation of the FirstAmendment in his book The Warren Revolution. Hewrote: "If the construction of the clause advanced in theSchempp-Murray Decision is accepted as 'settled' law, nodefensible barrier remains to the total secularization ofAmerican public life by judicial order. If the States, aswell as Congress must observe a "high and impregnable . ..wall of separation between state and church," in thelanguage of the Everson and McCollum Decision, or a"strict neutrality" as in the language of the Schempp-Murray Decision, then every public action affectingreligious interests constitutes a prima facia case of unconstitutionality."(L. Brent Bozell, Arlington House, 1966p. 78) We shouldn't be surprised that some day on thissame reasoning the Court may proceed to order theremoval of God's name from coins, public anthems, andthe pledge of allegiance, and also chaplains from the jailsand the armed services. Mr. Bozell went on to write, "Dowe exaggerate? Consider the formulation the Court announcedin the Schempp-Murray Decision for applying its'neutrality' principle to concrete cases. (Quote "The testmay be stated as follows: to withstand the strictures of theEstablishment Clause, there must be a secular legislativepurpose, and a primary effect that neither advances norinhibits religion") It can be illustrated by the public schoolteacher's quandry on being asked whether human rightscome from a Creator-God, as asserted by the Declarationof Independence. Under the Court's 'neutrality' rule, theteacher cannot answer the question by either 'Yes' or 'No',for this would amount to the government 'taking sides'.The required reply is, T don't know' i.e., I cannot saywhether it is true or not, because the government cannottake a position on the existence of God." But that reply, asProf. Charles Rice has remarked, is a far cry from'neutrality'; plainly the teacher is aligning the governmenton the side of agnosticism through his affirmation that, asa matter of state policy, God's existence is unknown orunknowable."Another group who oppose the Court's interpretationof the First Amendment was theCongressmen on Capitol Hill, as well as the governors ofthe states. No fewer than 154 resolutions were put into thelegislative hopper calling for amendments after theCourt's Decision denying voluntary prayer and religiousreading of the Bible in the public schools."Joining in the demand for an amendment werealmost all of the 50 state governors, who at their 1962annual conference resolved, with reaffirmation in theirCOVENANTERWITNESS