Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Medford mail tribune. (Medford, Or.) 1909-1989 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 7, 1962)
The Lockout of God in Our Public Schools A famous bishop who also is a lawyer favors strong action to counter the Supreme Court's prayer ban By the Rt. Rev. JAMES A. PIKE Kpiscopul llishop of California Kihtoks Norn: The U.S. Su preme Court's recent ban of a v--- m siate-wrtuen. tionseciarian i -- f prayer in the Sew York public I schools has created a nationwide i 11 debate. Hishop I'ike's views on the subject are controversial, but his qualifications for expressing them are excep tional. Hefnre entering the. ministry, he practiced law. He is a member of the Har of the Supreme Court, and for five years he taught in the. field of church-state relations at the Columbia University law school. When we close a church building that has been hallowed by genera tions of worship, prayer, and Godly fel lowship, we conduct a service called the "Deconsecration of a Church." With this in mind, it seems proper to say that the Supreme Court has deconsecrated the nation. Governments have three choices when it comes to religion: 1. They can establish one church as official, ' with or without full play for the activity of other churches. 2. They can secularize all public life. (This was the method chosen by the French Revolu tion and by Soviet Russia and other Commu nist countries.) 3. They can avoid establishment of any par ticular organized religious body; while still giving public recognition by solemn declara tion and by prayer to God and His Providence. Our Founding Fathers chose the third solution and since that time we have fol lowed this "middle way." It is not as clear-cut or strictly logical as the other two choices; but, by and large, it is workable in our pluralistic society. It recog nizes the religious dimension of our common heritage without imposing any sort of conform ity upon anyone. Now the Supreme Court has made a profound change in the American experiment. By its re cent opinion, "the middle way" is now out; and we are left, in logic, with the same approach as that of the Communist countries. Of course, the six members of the Court who voted this way did not have the slightest intention of favoring Communism. I am sure they sincerely thought they were achieving neutrality; but Godless institutions are no more neutral than Godly ones. The justices interpreted the First Amend ment to mean something it was never intended to mean. I?y prohibiting the "establishment of religion," the amendment meant to avoid and rightly so the first solution to the problem of religion: that is, church-state union. It did not intend to drive us into the second solution (sec ularization of our public institutions). Instead, it left the way open for the third solution, "the middle way." With us, separa tion of church and state was never intended to mean separation of religion from society. Fine as the brief New York prayer was, the saying of it is not crucial either to the churches or to education. It is the principle of this deci sion that is crucial. Let us look at some of the specific implications. In commenting on the opinion, President Kennedy urged the American people to pray more at home and to go to church more regu larly. Here our chief public official, right out in the open on office time, is seeking to further religion! What would be the outcome of an injunction suit against the President to prevent a repetition? I know this sounds strained; but so is the reasoning of the Court opinion. Government-paid clergymen conduct serv ices of worship for members of our armed forces in chapels built at government expense on government property, or in assigned space on government-owned vessels. Are we to say now that our young people in the armed forces are to be denied the opportunity for worship except when they are stationed reasonably near to parish churches or temples? Would this not interfere with the "free exercise of religion" clause of the First Amendment? What can we do about the impasse to which the Supreme Court has brought us? My answer is: the Court's decision should be erased by Constitutional amendment. But great care should be taken as to the form of this amendment. I propose that the First Amendment be left just as it is, except for the three words which the Court has distorted "establishment of religion." These should be replaced by words which would leave no doubt as to what our Founding Fathers intended: "the recognition as an established church of any denomination, sect, or other organized religious association." This would forever cut the ground from un der attempts to bar the "middle way" in all its traditional applications. At the same time it would protect us fully from an official favoring of any of the religious segments in our plural istic society, including secularism. Constitutional amendment takes quite a while. What do we do in the meantime? The President's idea is good, and it always has been : there should be more prayer at home, more frequent church attendance. But, in addition, why could not a teacher ev ery morning take a coin out of his pocket and read from it the inscription, "In God we trust"? This could be followed by reading phrases from the Declaration of Independence that mention God and by singing the third stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Also (and here I speak half-seriously), school boards could declare that school officially opens three minutes after the now-appointed hour and let the children gather outside the school and re cite a prayer under the leadership of their teach ers (who would be "off duty") or volunteer parents. This would vividly demonstrate the lockout of God which the Supreme Court has recently, achieved. COVER: This hunter and his dog, photographed by Jim I'ond, seem ready for the new hunting season. For tips on how you can be a better hunter by opening day, see story on p. It. October 7. 1962 board of Editors Family Weakly LEONARD S DAVIDOW 'r, .,,(. ,( rMMrr WAITER C. DREYFUS IV, I'r. i.f. nl PATRICK E. OROURKE . I,ir, rl,na lhr, , lr MORTON FRANK firrrfir ruhhrl,, r I,'. ,,,.. Send all odvertiiing communication! to Family Weekly, 133 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago 1. Ill Addrit all communication oboul editorial features to Family Weekly. 60 E. loth SI.. New Tori 22. N T. f lJ, FAMIIY WEEKIY MAGAZINE. INC., 133 N. Michigan Ave ERNEST V. HEYN Krfifrir-iti.rilW BEN KARTMAN Etrcmlirr KMor ROBERT FITZOIBBON Munnililtcf f.'ctilor PHILLIP DYKSTRA Art Oirrrlor MEIANIE DE PROFT Food f.'dilor Rotolyn Abrevaya, Ardn Eidll, Hal London. Jock Ryan; Peer J. Oppenheimer, Hollywood. Chicago 1, III. All right reserved.
