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.