51
It is important to note, contrary to what Chairman
Celler said that the "tide has turned," that the flow of
mail even at the end of the hearings was still in favor of
the Becker Amendment, two to one. 27
Another factor, accord-
ing to an article in the Columbia J01Jrnalism Reviel""', in turning public sentiment toward the Supreme Court two years
earlier, was "the sober reaction of many of America's
leading newspapers and magazines."2A
According to a report
at the Becker Hearings, the leading newspapers were evenly
divided on the issue except that some of the more influential
newspe.pers, such as the Nevf York Times favored the Supreme
Court. 29
The end to public reacticn did not subside for long
after the dissolution of the Becker Amendment.
nn March 22,
1966, Everett McKinley Dirksen introduced a constitutional
amendment to permit voluntary prayer in the public school.
According to Senator Dirksen, the "storm of prote3t is gathpring again in all parts of the naticn."30
Dirksen further
claireed that 52,000 original letters had been deposited with
him, which opposed the Supreme Court.
reminded of the
~echnical
Dirk~;en,
however, was
dissection of the Becker Amendment,
which proved through the testimony of many
E~xperts
that there
was no satisfactory alternative to the Supreme Court's ded sion.
But even in the face of cri t.icism by law school deans
and the National Council of Churches, Dirksen said that he
was.
not goine to be dissuaded by highly sophisticated
52
argum!:;nts.
Dirksen contended that the testimony at the Becker
Amendment head ng fai led to hear from the "common man" who
represented milJions of Ame~jcans.3l
He cited figures from
the Harris and Gallup Polls which indicated that
e~ghty
cent of the American people supported his amendment. 32
perDirk-
sen further appealed to the public by aligning the opposition
.
. fl uence ........
? 1
of his amendment to a ,..vommunJst
an d at h·
elf,t, In.
Never-
the-les(), the Di rksen Amendment suffered the same demise as
the Becker Amendment.
The Dirksen Amendment was in many ways a repeat of tl;e
Becker Amendment.
All the proponents for an amendment used
extenfOively the same arguments of public support.
During
Dirksen's campaign to amend the Constitution, Christian
Century said that many Senators were on the verge of capitulating because of Dirksen'S letter writing c:ampaign.
"!"he
Senators are quoted as saying that if they moved for support
of the Dirksen proposal it will only be because politicians
?L.
cannot be against God and prayer in an election year./ .
vlhether or not the public's ihfluencE! is as pervasive
as some claim it to be, is merely a matter of speculation.
Nonetheless the public influence on voting patterns of Congressmen is detectable at times.
As noted before, of the
twenty-eight Senators re-elected in 1966, tvrenty-one voted
in favor of the Dirksen Amendment, which was just a little
over a month away from the November elections. 35
patterns do not seem to fit any regional or
The voting
politic~l
patterns
53
which might have corrE:lated at the same time.
Public reaction after the failure of the Dirksen
Amendment has subsided.
Since Dirksen's death in 1970
no one has taken up the fight for a prayer or Bible-reading
amendment.
Thus .public indignation concerning :::.eparation
of church and state seems to follow the whim of enraged
political figures, such as Becker and Dirksen.
v
RELIGIOUS REACTICIN
The Supreme Court's ban on prayer in the nublic
schoal prompted an immediate uproar from the religious
comrnunity in the United States.
From all sections of the
nation various religious leaders voiced their indignation
at the Court's decision.
The initial response was highly
emoti'::>nal as was indic2ted by an Atlanta clergyman 'tho c3.11ed
the decision "the most
terri~le
thing th2t h8s ever hapnened
to us," but then he admitted that he did not really know what
t h e d eClslon sal°d • 1
o
0
Many of the best kno,"ffi religious leaders vigorously
objected to the Court decisLm, which in many cases revealed
that they did not understand what the Court actually said,
or else they had other motives for their attack on the Court.
The significance of the wave of indignation that greeted the
Supreme Court's ban on state composed school prayer was that
the criticism came from so many resnonsible churchmen.
Francis Cardinal Spellman, one of the vvell knO'l:m. Catholic
spokesmen, did not even wait a day to consider the decision.
In his first criticism of the Court he said:
"I am shocked
and frightened that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutienal a simple a voluntary declaration of belief in God by
55
public school children • • • • Tf2
Billy Grcha''1, America's
best known evangelist, went beyond the official v'lords of the
Court in his criticism:
This is another step toward the secularization of
the Un::.ted States. Followed to its logical conclusion, we will have to take t~e chanlains out
of the armed forces, prayers cannot be said in
Congress, and the President c~nnot nut his hand on
the Bible when he takes the oath of office. The
framers of our Consti tuti'-'n meant we were to ha)e
freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Bishop James a. Pike, Episcopal Bishop of California
was less emotional in his analysis of the dec:'Lsion.
HThe
Supreme Court,Tf he said, Tfhas deconsecrated the nation."
Louie D. Newton, former president of the Southern Baptist
Convention, the largest Protestant group jn America said,
TfWe just weren't ready for six men to tell us that our
fathers and mothers were all wrong about this bus:L:'1ess of
acknowledging God as the supreme ruler
0
f the unj_verse. ,,4
Reinhold Niebuhr, a prominent spokesmen for Neo Orthodoxy,
a religious gro-,p which believes in human progress, cent,ered
his objection around the TfFree Exercise Clause," saying that
the decision practically suppresses religion in the public
schools. u5
Although they seemed to be shouted down, the Engel
decision had several supporters.
Counsel for
of
mO~3t
~he
Leo Pfeffer, General
American Jewish Congress, echoed the approval
of America's Jews.
gratified" by the ruling.
He said that he was "highly
The General Assembly of the United
Presbyterian Church sunported the declsi i jn and recommended
56
only last May that "religious abservances never be held in
a public school."6
Dr. ?ranklin Clark ~ry, President of
the Lutheran Church in America, cornmented:
!I1:Jhen the posi-
tive content of faith has been bleached out of a prayer,
I am not too concerned about what is left.,,7
Many of the
magazines, nublished as official
leadi~g
organs for particular religious grouDs,
to further enunciate their
positi~n,
ni~~ed
up the issue
America, a Jesuit
weekly, criticized the decision bitterly in an editorial:
It is quite li~erally a stupid deCision, a doctrinaire deCision, an unrealistic decision that
spits in the face of our history, our tradition
and our heritage as a religious people. Some
day , it can be hOIled, the Black ~'lTonday Jeci sion
will be reversed.~
Christian CentuIY"
a liberal, Protestant, non-denomina-
tional magazine, took the opoosite point of view and secured
the signatures of thirty-one leaders of America's Protestantism
W:'10
upheld the Supreme Court decision.
However "'1ost of
them were Baptist and Methodist from the East and Midwest. 9
Although some religious leaders suoported the Sunreme
Court, the large majority of Protestant and Roman Catholic
clergymen sharply cri tici zed the decision.
~fo,st
of the con-
troversy arose from confusinn about what the Supreme ruled -and perhaps more importantly what it did not rule.
~{ost
of
the initial reaction indicated that very few religious leaders
under.::::tood the decision, and for many who did read the decision,
their criticism was not confined to the scope of the decision.
5'7
On June 17, 1963 the Supreme Court issued its second
decision proclaiming further the neutrality of the state in
Bible-reading conducted in the Dublic schools.
For those
who understood what the Court decided in the Sngel decision
this latest ruling was a forgone conclusion.
Americans did not become
~nformed,
decision was like anot'1.er bolt of
HOvTever many
and as a consequenc p the
lightni~g
hurled at Ameri-
ca's sacred institution.
As would be expected, many of the church leaders, particularly the Cath..olics, h..ad not even calmed down from the
Engel decision when the Sch..empp decision was announced.
the Engel decision the Catholics called a
~irst
ference in order to clarify their position.
After
Amendment Con-
At the Conference
they attempted to validate their oDPosition historically,
which was in opposition to the Supreme Court's historical
. . t y d eC1Slons.
..
10
. f or th e maJorl
b aS1S
Although the reaction to the Bible-reading decision
was much the saMe as t1.e prayer decision, .; t was to some extent expected by the church leadership.
In
~ay
1963, one
month before the Schempp decision, the 175th General Assembly
of the United Presbyterian Church stated that "Bible-reading
and prayers as devotional acts tend toward indoctrination or
meaningless ritual. nIl
It is easy to understand why the clergy was upset over
the Engel decision.
Due to the narrOh'ness of the decision,
when the press failed to report important portions of the
decision, many religinus leaders thought that the decision
went further than it cl id.
Some of the reI igi1ius community
did however become informed of the scope of the Engel decision.
!lUnlike last year," said the Very Peverend tfoward
S. Kennedy, Dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. James in
Chicago, "when I reacted emotionally, illogic(llly, and noninte1lectually, t his dec isi on doe sn 't bother me. ,,12
concurring opinion of
'T'he
Douglas' in the Engel decision
l
generated much of the misunderstanding. ) Even after the
~illiam
Schempp decision in which the Court "'Tent to great length to
explain the basis for its decision, many of those who opposed
the decisions were still carring Douglas' opinton to the exMr. TiVilliam B. Ball, writing in Catholic f;'Jorld, said
tremE~.
that the Engel decisi::m which nrohibits non-theistic as well
as theistic religion also prevents the teaching of the secular
14
version of human brotherhood.
In essence, the reaction to the Engel and Schemnp decisions by the church leadership was highly emotional.
The
same criticism of the Engel decision continued with the Schemnp
deCision, despite efforts by the Supreme Court to prevent
such misunderstanding.
Many of the Catholic snokesmen con-
tinued to link the decisions with the atheistic Communism of
Russia.
Cardinal Carl McIntyre said t,hat the TJnited States
1"laS rlabandoning the American heritage and freedorl. for Soviet
philosophy. ,,15
The New York Post editorially speculated on
the motives of the Catholic leaders' opposi ti'Jn to the
59
..
decision:
The indignation of the Catholic hierarchy is
understandable. It is prompted, we suspect,
not by the prohibition of a prayer which
many churchmen would agree has little religious value, but bv the potential impact of
the decision on the aid to educ,tion b3ttle. 16
Before any assessment of the reaction can be made, it
is necessary to understand the attitudes of the major religious groups to the controversy over nrayer and Bible-reading
in the public schools.
The controversy has been poing on
since the creation of a board of education in New York City
in 1842.
Prayer and Bible-reading is nrimarily a Protestant
sponsored activity in most nublic schools.
The Catholics
have objected to it, not because of the activity itsnlf,
but because of the version of the Bible that was read and
the nerson
say~ng
the prayer.
The Catholics have
by building parochial schools.
resn~nded
Even though the Catholics
have their own schools, they do not agree that they favor
them over public school.
But that position is difficult to
explain since most of the litigation seeking to prohibit such
exercises as prayer and Bible-reading has been brought by
Catholic and Jewish
1'7
citizens.~1
Even if the Douay VerSion,
the Catholic Bible, was substituted for the King James Version,
the Catholics have indicated that they itmuld nnt discontinue
building parochial schools.
Their objection to the Bible,
even their own version, -if considered from the standpoint of
60
religious instruction, is entirely inadequate when read in
the public schools by unqualified teachers.
IS
The Catholics however did support the non-sectarian
prayer composed by the New York Regents, because the nrayer
itself was a commitment to a religious t
;T"()e
of schooling.
Although it was not a satisfactory nrayer in the Catholic
sense, Catholic leaders welcomed such a theistic
declarati~n
as one tiny step to'.,!ard their own view of religious education. 19
The Jewish, like
~he
Catholics, have opposed Drayer and
Bible-reading in the public schools; but unlike the Catholics,
the Jews supported the latest Supreme Court decisions.
~he
Reformed, Orthodox, and Conservative Jewish groups have
practically been unanimous in their endorsenent of the Engel
and Schempp decisions.
The Synagogue Council of America
which represents all three branches of orgc:mized Judaism
filed a brief in favor of the plaintiffs in the Engel decision. 20
The American Jewish Congress also filed four com-
plaints in Florida asking the Courts to declare baccalaureate
services unconstitutional, ban Bible-reading and stop recitation of the Lord's Prayer. 21
The Jewish have been opposed to
devotional activities in public school for the same reasons
as the Catholics, but they do not favor narochial schools
',v-hich catches the Catholics in contradictory nositions.
Jews have categorically favored the Supreme Court in the
Engel and Schempp decisions.
An article in Commentary, a
The
Jewish magazine, had this to
SHY
of +he Supreme Court:
T!Because it struck down the P.egents prayer as an impermissible
breach in the wall of separation of church and st2te, the Supreme Court has ~rob2bly never stood higher in Jewish esteem. n22
One of the dit'ficnlties in assessing the Protestant
attitude is that there is not eenerally a consensus on any
one topic among Protestants.
The Protestant reaction to the
Engel decision ranged from an emphatic denunciation to an
ecstatic approval.
After the emotionalism had subsided, the
church leadershin among the Protestants began to sunport the
Supreme Court.
Many churchmen, in fact, taok the decision
a challenge to the church.
The renresentqtives of even such
traditi8nally conservative denominations,
began to support the Court.
~s
Reverend
S11Ch
Tho~as
as the Baptist,
Davis, a Presby-
terian minister at Chanel Hill North Carolina, commented that,
"It"is not necessary to legislate in favor of God, He doesn't
need it.,,23
The Protestant t;roups that continued to oppose
the Court were fundamentalist for the most part. 24
It is difficult to assess the extent of any attitude
toward the Supreme Court by the different
Protestant~rolms.
]\1any of the groups did not make nublie tfteir nositi in or feelings simply because they agreed with the Court.
Although they
were to change later, "the Protestant Clergy" accordirg to
Clifford
r:.
Lytle, "were somewhat varied yet nredominately
negative in their responses. n25
---
------_._----------
62
The attitude of the Catholics and Jews towArd the 8upreme Court decisinns
~ns
been diametrically nonosed.
Shortly after the Engel deCision, which
WclS
f'ully snpported
by the Jews, the influential neriodical, America, hinted at
the possibility of a rise in anti-semitism.
l~
An editorial
America stated:
wonder, therefore, w;lether 1. t i s not time for
orovident ]eade~s of American JudaiSM to ask their
;10re milit,ant colleaGues w~ether 1rhat is ,gained
through the courts by such victories is worth the
breakdown of gommunit y rolatin'1s which vrill inevitably
follow them. 2
\Je
n
The news media nicked this up quickly and magazines
featured it extensively.
The Catholic neriodical, Sommonweal,
a liberal publication cautioned its Jesuit Brethern.
editors of America agreed to nrirt a reply to
tions by the American Jewish Committee.
~heir
The
accusa-
'T'he J e1,rish croup re-
minded the Jesujts that it was the Catholics who "throughout
many decades of the
~ineteenth
century and the first Quarter
of the twentieth century fought desnerately against the readlng
o
0
f' +-h
" :1.merlC
. ' " an
v eBObl
l e ln
-oU
bl"1C sc h 00 J.. S. ,,27.
L
'T'h
1
. e ren_y
further questioned whether Catholics have "been deterred from
pressine; their
vie\~'s
in the legislature ond in the courts bv
the worry that victory night nroduce a harvest of fear and
distrust. n28
Although nothing came of this incident, the
Jesuits did not change their nosition.
They continued to
brand the Jewish supporters of the Supreme CQ1.1rt
::1S
extremist
who "have no mandate from the Jewish relirir)us communi t:'. "
63
The reaction from the reli[,;:i--'us community immediately
followin[ the Engel decision is significant in th?t it helped
prompt legislatj ve action.
that Most of
t~e
church
But. ".'hat is more sig:nificant is
leadershj~ WAS
their emotional rer; ct. jon.
caurht in a tran by
'Nhen it beca'11e obvious t 1'11t Con-
gress might be able to reverse the Court, most of
t~e
churches
quickly reversed the:nselves.
Jud~.ciary
At the Senate
Commit.tee he2rings in 1 0 62 the
relicious community which was so vehement in their denunciation of the Supreme Court was conspicuously absent.
mhe
Catholics, in particular, who vigorously onpoE'ed the Supreme
Court did not appear at the
he~rinrs.
one spokesman from the Catholic Church.
In fqct there was not
~he
only Catholic
support for an at'1endment came fro:-n Francis Cardinal Spellman
of t,he Ror:1an Catholic
l~rchdiccese
of Nei>! York who \flaS repre-
sented at the heariflFs by an at;t.orney, Lavvrence Cusack. 29
On the other
~ide
of the controversy, several snokesmen
from the relieious community testified in
proDosed amendments.
~here
oppositi~n
to the
was no onpositi'n of any signifi-
cance from the Jews and Protestants toward the Sunreme Court.
~'!ost
of the testimony from relif,i'->1;s grouDs
~H~
s solidly in
favor of t.he Supreme Court, especially the Protestants.
The
Protestants were represented bv such grours as the Baptist
Joint Committee on Public Affai.rs,
Sout~ern
Baptist Convention,
National Association of Evangelicals, and the National Council
of the Churches of Christ in the TTnited Statps.
The
SenatE~
he,3rings in 1962 brought such a auick re-
versal from the re 1 if' ous comMunity
th~lt
one 1/tond ers 1,vhy
they so vigorously opnosed the Court in the
rir~t
nlace.
Perhaps any chani'e 1-:1 ,=,1:.e First ilmsndment v>T0111:-J l[ave rne:-mt +he
erosion of oth0r privileged positiGns of relivjon in America?
Never-the-less the Senate hearings were dismissed with0ut any
action being taken.
It seemingly would have been difficult
to rec:ommend any act>i"-)D since -t)1e nrO'Donents for amer1ding the
Constitution did not have the reI igi"us support as they appeared to have before t1:.e
hearjn~s.
The Senate heqrinps in 1962 caught the Cathnlics offsuard.
Their leadershio
h~d
hitherto opposed the Supreme
Court, but after the hearirws they began to re-evaluate their
position.
They called for a conference on the
ment
resulted in their aonroval of it but not from the
~hich
,
~irst
AMend-
j
same per~)pE'cti ve that +}"e Supreme Court viewed it. 30
the Ceurt iSS11eo the
Sch('m~p
After
decisj on, t,he Catholics re-
luctantly began to support the SUDreme Court.
In ref'erence
to the Court's view that the decision did not nrohibit a
literary or
hist~rical
study of the Bible, an article apnear-
ing in Catholic )orld supported th;Jt positinn:
religion is no substitute for the teaching of
t'Teaching about
reli~irn
but it
will help t~ fill in the religiouR vacuum in nublie educati~n."3l
In 1964 ,\v'-1en the House Judiciary Committee was nressured
into holdiDg heRrinfs, the Catholics had come full circle in
support of the SUDreme Court.
7his solid
c~lange
was even noted
it
the more conservative Catholics, the Jesuits.
to America, a Jesuit
well
intenti~ned
nublicRti~n,
but ill-advised.
~ccording
"The Becker Amendment is
It is not a ca .lse to v-hich
l
the Church should seri',usly consider committing her nrestire
and her
reput~jti()n
amant': the American peolJle;'
went further to say that although
t~e
Becker
A~end~ent
meeting Catholic opposition as well as sunport,
Catholic
nublic;::ti~ns,
The 2rti cle
W2S
of the
~ost
thirty-five of the rorty-eight sur,32
I
veyed, are acainst the B.eccer
\mena~ent.
The chanr8 in the Catholic nosition is significant in
that none of the three major
opposed the Sunreme Court.
groups categorically
reli~ious
A key to the change in the Catho-
lic attitude may have been exnlained by an
e~rlier
~rticle
criticizing the Becker Amendment:
All that their Amendment would do would be to reverse the Supreme Court's school nrayer decisinns.
It would net solve the basic question of the relationshiD between ~eliricn and educatisn in this
country.3)
.
The change in the religious community is
in that it revealed
dif~erences
~ignificant
within each group.
In the
initial reaction to the EnFel and Schempp decisinns, the reaction came mostly from religi()us leaders who renresented
their
indivi~ual
church and
~ometimes
only
~hemselves.
~he
rRact Lm from inii viduals made it di N'ic1l1 t for anyone to
tell vihether reJ igious
Court.
f~roups
Here opposed to the Sunreme
The spokesmen testifying before the House Judiciary
Committee did not represent
thp~selves;
instead they
66
represented
nat~nnal
religious
org2nizati0~s.
~he
sDokesrnen
reDre:3ented such rro1.l.ns '!s the Nati'nal Conncil of Churches
and the Baptist Joint Committee cn Public
there vJere a fevv indi vLlu21 s a:1d
with
nister;:,
\~T'lJ.O
did nnt agree
am one Baptist they do not renresent,
34
said nne letter to a Congressman.
~~eir
spokesman.
r1.j
Vet
~ffairs.
I
Although natinnal
rel~gi~us
organizatjons supported the
Supreme Court, Many of the denominations were highly dividerl.
The
~ethodist
leadership
pronouncer.1ents.
nolarized and making opnosite
W8S
The Catholic learJer:3hip was also di videa.
Despite a memorandun from the
Catholic
~elfare
lef~al
departnent of the National
Conference, normally the Catholic spokesman
on legislaticn,several Catholic leaders snoke ')nt in favor
of amending the Constitutinn.
Catholic Welfare
Con~erence,
According to the National
"the nresent
Consti tuti ~n. • • had proved to be of
0.
,.35
re 1 19:,-'~In.
'
langua~e
of the
vahle to
incalcula~le
T1tiith the exception of the divided Catholics,
~~ethodists,
and fundamentalist groups, most of the major denominations
36 It is significant
were opposed to amendine the Constitution.
to note the Dositions taken by those who onposed or favored
amending the Constituticm.
YIost:li' tlteir disaF;reer:ent was
centered around their interpretatinn of the
~irst
A~endment.
Those who were cpposed to amending the Constitution said that
the "Establishment Clause" prevented
sanctioning narticular religious
~he
government from
exerc~ses.
~he
spokesmen
favoring an amendnent said that
hibited the
ligion.
gov0rnmen~
First
A~endment
~ro­
from establishing a narticular re-
~ade
Both groups
~~e
extensive efforts to validate
their postti'm.
The opposing views did develop a little
The leadership of the Major established
the Supreme Court
stituents.
we~e
antsponism.
ch~rches
which favored
accused of misrepresenting their con-
Accoy'ding to the Christian Herald, "church lea-
ders • • . church councils • . • and officials of chur.ch related
organizations do not alvlays reflect the true feelings of
their members. n37
The criticism, although a well founded one,
did not send the national church leadershiu back for a refe r
endum from their congregati'")ns.
-
T'Tost of the spokesmen testi-
fying before the qouse Committee admitted that their authorization was resolved in committees that handled other religious
problems.
The Becker Hearinrs revealed again as did the Senate
hearings that the religious leadershin did not favor amending
the Constitution.
tuti~n
Yet those who favored chan!;ing the Consti-
continued their efforts despite strong
the religious
cnmmun~ty.
~bjecti0ns
from
The opposition to the Becker Amend-
ment did however prevent the Becker Amendme!1t frorn'·becomrng
successful.
According to the New York .Times, the opposition
by the church leadership shtfted the response or the
C
tOtto
38
away f..._rom aoen dO.
109 t-h eons
lJUJlon.
v
ruhl~c
The attempt to amend the Constitution did not end with
the demise of the Becker Amendment.
Dirksl3n introduced
~is
On T:1arch 22, 1966 Senator
amendment 'dh.ich wonld perrIi t Drayer in
public school.
Dirksen was well aware of the attitude of the
major reliciJus
gro~lps
toward amendinr, the Constitutirm.
He
dismissed their legal and theological reasoning as "mere sonhistication."
Dirksen's counter to the churches was that the
"common man!! was behind hi11.39
The Dirksen Amendment was
Becker
Amend~ent.
they did in 196,:".
~ore
or less a reoeat of the
The churches held the SRme Dositions as
The
relii"'iou~3
support for Dirksen
VV::3S
the
same J.s for Becker -- mainly the EvangelicalE' and FundJ.mentalists.
But anparently prayer and Bihle-reading is
political issue than a
reli~~ous
one.
mhe
c~urches
m~re
of
?
have not
in! tiated the efforts to amend the Consti ~-,llt inn -- only Congressmen have.
An intere;sting q1Jestion is raised as a reslllt of the reaction to the Engel and Schemnp decisions.
After the Engel de-
cision the immediate reaction of Catholics and Protestants alike was to
den~unce
the Court.
But as it became obvious that
the Constitution might be 8r:".ended, t,he 'TIajor Protestant denominations came out in
oppositi~n
to any change.
~'any
Catholics
also were oopo:3ed to R'nend:Lng the Const it utinn, however their
position was obvious to most
~bservers.
Any
c~an~e
in the
First Arlendnent to permit nra?':'r and 3i b le-·readinF~ TrTo'lld T.ve,')ken
their arguement for state aid to narochial
sc~ools.
The Protestant
do not normally have
nositi~n
paroc~ial
is nat that obvious since they
sc~aols.
Thei~
opposing the Becker A;nendnent ceal:; \vitl:
torical
ment.
with
questiG~s
::any of
w~at
the
as their
SelCh
~nternretati~n
rati~nale
1
in
ecal Flnd his-
of the ?irst Amend-
discussi'ins on the tonic were cnncerned
+.;\;(
~oundin~
sophical questilns.
fnthers had intended or other nhilo-
The
questi~n
as to haw
a~e~dinf
~he
Con-
stitution would affect the Protestants was never answered at
least by the Protestants.
had something tJ lose,
But it seerlS
,~udging
t-)lat
they would have
from their avid sllymort of the
Supreme Court.
The First Amendnent has given religiGn a nrivileged as
well as a restricted Dosition in American society.
The
"Free Exercise Slause" of the First Amendment provides
monetary and moral nositions that are
society.
~fuether
or not these privileges were
opposing the Becker and Dirksen
speculat1on.
answer.
denir:~d +,0
Amend~ents
seveJ~al
the rest of
thei~
basis for
js a matter of
Nonetheless it does nTovide a very nlausable
~II
EDUCATInNAL
The educ3ti0n
c~ntroversy
aver
RE~CTI0N
a pJsitinn in the
com~untty occuD~es
praye~
3nd
Btble-re3d~ng
schools that is unlike the more political
in the public
i~st~tuti~ns
Congress and the judic12.l system, wh-:'ch to a f,:'e'Jt
dicta . .,e "What ':I'i 11 be d'')ne in public eclucati':)n.
of
ex~.ent
'!'hus in 1962,
1tlhen the Suprer:1C Court banned the "establi shment." ):: prayer
in the pub:ic schools, the school, its
admt1l~trators,
and
teachers became invo:ved in the dispute.
cal~
as
co~~~red
to Gthc-
sezment~
of society,
T"le h ~ ~-:;he ~::;t educ at 1.0n
d i :')agreement.
0
ye~
~hnse
ff'ici:ll in the
nn~.,ted
"Religi,)!) is sOrlethin[= tho+', should be pri v!J.te
and prayer is a
Eng e 1 dec i s :iJ)TI :
reli~i8us
He further said of
"1 bellev",; it is no loss to reJ 1. {,..r<;n, but
may be a gain in clarifying matters.
r
c:.
~he
Prayer that is essentially
"'e--I.l""'r"\V'\loal
c'a""srfJ-om f'ln('+-l°'-"n
h~" nr\t
v','·.'11uE".,,2
v
!
'."J
v....
__ " ml'cl.-,
... ,r. ya~
,-:--. l.i_L..,..~.0_n",·_1(":'"
_ .,!
_
~
d
The BO:lrd
t::t;;t
~,
-
0:
.~.
.'
ReGen~.s
•
.J
!
'.
c;..~
~
in Ne':l York vlhich
c0mp'~)sed
c:iused all the controversy, declared
tl-!a~
th~
Drayer
the dec-! si.')n
7he law)f the l'lnd, and it VIill be so rec')t;nized b y
"if'-
nC'A
all
sc~~ol
r
auth~~ities
..
10'1
"-he "'t"te ,,3
v
&
~
J: i .
•
40'tre,Vt'?r on Long Island,
71
Nr::
VJrk, '<'There +,he prayer case bpg::tn, e1r;ht school distrlct
super ~'1t en:J ent s :Etl:1 t.h ey
vm-~lld
-.vi thOl~t a prayrr is net
schn':Jl, sai.d
:l
de fy th e "':)1 lng.
::m~
A school
0: tJ...,,::
su!)eri.r~..'::,en-
.........
,-\,..;J. . en,,;:,.
Si~le-re~ding dec~sinn
The Schempp
lie school for
m~ny
that "a nation
t~at forgets God will pe~is~."5
Due to the
criticize the
years, resiened
in 1963 ~~d re-
reluctan~e
of mnst
Court, it is
Supre~e
a suhstitute,
3S
to openly
educ;'ltr)~~:::;
di~ricult
s~vi.~g
~o
assess the
. . ..
C1.rcJ..es
extent
by one of the le'Jding education pe .... ] :)d~ cals, .f'i fty-tv'.,ro percent
of the nation's school
~dm~nistrators
said they would nnt go
along with the Court's declsinns, however the
e i cht percent, said
~ifty-seven
t,
r~maining
hey wou:':i st.,an:: behind the Suoreme Court.
percent of the
admin~strqtors
also said thev would
support a constituti'nal amendment to reverse the
on
praye~
that ::mly
~orty-
and Bible-readin[o
t '1Jenty-ei(~ht
But m0rA
Co~rt's b~n
s1gnt~tc~nt
is the fact
nercent sal d the rtlli l1r:: ':Tn',1 c-1 e r"ect
their cur~8nt practices. 6
T"~uny
schools
interpret~~g ~he
the District of
wer(~
dectsi~n
Col~nbt3
tr"ing to de.f':T the Supreme Court by
~ccording
to their
a~d
v~ews.
school officials based their
on the fact that the Court banned ,n1y
dra~ted devoti~ns,
ow~
~either
offi~ial
In
decisi~n
eove-nme~~
the Bible or the Lord's
Pr~ycr
72
are in
th~.s
c~ltE:g0ry
stanza of the
•
7
n~ti~nal
anthe~
as a nrayer,
howev~r
the State
be sung but not desienatRd as a prayer.
~o
som~
the people i:1
ex~,pnt,
ed\lC~:l+:i)n
weY'8
uninf)rr:1ed as to Whclt the SuprW'1e Court declJed
teacher in Akron,
~h~0
:~s
just 3S
other
said:
The Supreme Court dec~3i~n ha~ had little effect
::lD 'l1j' cl'issroom procedur.::;.
"'he onl-,f (Ii (.'fArenC€
the S~lpr'~::1'? CC'.:rt h:-.8 :-:1a:ie :: :", th::t I flO'f! t;-;;.ke
time to d~1CUSS i~ ~i~h my c!ass. ! give them
11)r inteY'DY"?t;lt -;",D ,;,:11i ch dops n"t ce'1V ~J~~ the
""'1
... ....... bt'J"ht
...
+-,0.1.
'-'-
r .. -"p'p .~~
_.... ,~.........,.
us the right to
t-l--,r""
,' ..~.
L,""'r,---l'
s r"""~'tTeV"
'-".....
.L
r~rce
'.........
~.,
.;
;...
tu
';1'C~t. r~enl· es
Q '"
1...
any)ne to say the
~ ,__
I
'-..
pray~r./
In som'2
the
de~egre[ati0n decis~on ~f
misunder~::.:.andj
1954, nnst of
~~0 react~0n
ng there can not be attrtbutl',d
such
w~uld £0
~hE
to schJol and re2d
~he
:J.~
~J!::
and
"1'lch t'J
thfO' Governc:
Bible himself.
extent t:) 1,:,h l.-:h +:.he Suprene
8011rt
dE:cis~Ll)ns 1,;-[,),11
d
73
s5xty-sevcn
p0~re~~
and
j~
~hc
So~th
~i~h
~~v8nty-s~x
per-
,.... c.n+"
"''';'' 'J •
have agreed to abide by the decisions.
~he
major education
periodicals, such as the ~ational Education Association
Journal, Nation's Schools, and the American School Board
Journal have endorsed the decisions as a benefit to both
education and religion.
Although most school officials
have agreed to abide by the decision, there have been some
who actively defy the Supreme Court.
In Massachusetts after the Schempn decisinn the State
Supreme Court hHd to order the North Brookfield School to
halt required Bible-reading.
The order was brought in a
12
suit by State Attorney General, Edw8rd Brooke.
Earlier
in 1962, the Deputy Superintendent of Atlanta nublic schools
said, "We will not nay any attentinn to the Supreme Court
ruling. Ill}
However not all attempts to defy the Supreme
Court have been as obvious and forward as others.
In
California where the state had banned relirio'J.s practices
in school under Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, the
school in Long Beach sung a prayer before meals. 14
In
Illinois, Governor Otto Kerner vetoed a bill which w0 1Jld
have permitted teachers to lead recitation of the fourth
stanza of the national anthem.
"~vithout
According to Kerner,
question the sole nurpose of the bill is to use
this stanza as an instrument for indulging a collective
defiance of the United Stotes Suoreme Court.,,15
Not all efforts to defy the Supreme Court are attributable to individual schools and communj"':,ies.
South, several
st~tes
In the
openly defied the Sunreme Court rulings.
The Attorney General of Arkansas told the state's public
schools to continue their daily reading and devotional
exercises. 16
In Alabama, Governor George Wallace said after
the Schempp decision:
"I would like for the people of Ala-
bama to be in defiance of such a rnling.
I want the Suureme
Court to know we are not [,;oing to conform to any such decision. HI ?
In Florida not only did many schools in the state
defy the Supreme Court, but the
hi~hest
Court in the state
upheld prayer and Bible-reading. IS
II'Tuch of the reaction in the South cannot solely be
attributed to the South's traditional defiance of federal
:3uthority, which was more recently aggravated by the scho01
75
desegregation decision of 1954.
tradi~i0n
The South also has a strong
toward a fundamental belief that the Scrintures
are entirely true.
In 1925, a teacher
teaching Darwinist evolution in the
"FS
st~te
nrosecut,ed for
of Tennessee.
Religious observances have influenced the educational system in the South much more than other areas.
Bible-reading
is an integral nart of the daily lives of school children
in the South.
Seventy-six percent of Southern schools read
the Bible daily as compared to eighteen nercent 5n the Midwest and eleven percent in the West. 19
The ratinn81e of officials in the South who have openly defied the Supreme Court, could to some extent reflect ;:]
misunderstanding of what the Court said, but when state
courts and others skilled in understanding the law say that
the Supreme Court's rulings do not supercede state law, it
is difficult to see such rationale as anything but a cloak
for open defiance.
~he
Attorney General of Arkansas said
that the Sunreme Court's decisions did not void the state
law which requires reading of the Bible without comment. 20
The Florida Sunreme C011rt used virtually the same argument
by claiming that the Bible is non-sectarian. 2l
In some st::ctes where narticular schools have onenly
defied the Sunreme Court, the schools have not had the good
graces of the legal offic1als.
Hawthorne School Board ignored
In New Jersey, the Trenton
~.he
reauest from the
St~te
Attorney General to stop reliriolJs observances, but it was
later forced to cOr:lply by the New Jersey Sunreme COllrt.
22
Severc:.I other schools have ignored the Supreme Court, but
in some communities the people \'Tho agreed with +':,he Engel
and Schempp decisions have seized the opportunity to make
the schools comply.
In Pennsylvania, the Lebanon Surburban
School Board, who V>Tere the obj ect of such a suit, finally
agreed to substitute an
objec~ive
course about the Bible
instead of conducting daily Bible-reading under the guidance
of a teacher. 23
There has also been considerable confusi')n among legal
and administr3ti ve officials concerni.ng the latitude of the
Court's deci sions.
~1any
officials were confused as to whether
the decisions prohibited religious holiday activity in the
schools.
Shortly after the Schempp decisicn, an administra-
tor in IVIissouri said that "Schools sholJld be permitted to
have Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving holidays and proerams as in the past.
these programs.,,24
This deci E,ion Nill no doubt eliminate
The School Board in North Kingston
Rhode Island told the School Superir:tendent that he was going
too far when he advised them to omit nativity scenes
the Christmas season. 25
durin~
Most of the reaction by various schools has been quite
divergent when it comes to interpreting the Supreme Court
decisions.
Sou~hern
schools have kept their Christmas nlays
the same while others have virtually eliminated the word
Christmas from "'::.heir vocabulary.
1I![ontgomery County
lI~aryland,
77
after the Schempp decision, substituted "winter" in place
of Christmas for the vacation period. 26
Leo O. Garber, a
leading legal advisor writing in the Nations Schools, told
school district:) and their lawvers thRt tl,ey "'Jere on their
own when it
COM(JS
to determining ho\'\ much c·f t:h.e Christ,]'l1;":Js
season they can bring into the classroom. 27
Unlike the other segments of society, the education
community has generally failed to take a public nosition
on religion in the public schools.
But in view of the fact
that the highest education official, the Commissioner of
Education, had endorsed the Sunreme Court rulinr,s in Engel
and Schempp, most of the
c~iticism
had been deprived of its sting.
of the Court by educators
In 1962, during the Senate
Judiciary Cormni ttee hearings, only one art -ic Ie was submitted.
The Article adopted by the Public Education Associatinn
supported the Supreme Court.
2$
To further clarify the nosition of educatinn in the
United States, a Snecial
Co~mission
of the American Associa-
tien of School Administr:'1tors was ca] led to evaluate the
ensuing controversy over prayer and Bible-reading.
~he
Commission supported t,he Supreme Court c:md concluded that
although the decisions may appear to be a regressive measure,
they are really a thrust for",rard by education in the
"championship of freedom, including reljgious freedom. n29
Most of the educational reaction to the Supreme Court
has not been of a collective nature.
In 1964, when the
78
he~rings
on the Becker Amendment began, most of the people
testifying in behalf of education and the Engel and Schempp
deci~;ions,
have generally represented their
view or that of a particular community.
da had more people at the hearings
t~an
OV'ln
point of
The state of Floriany other interested
party; however, their interest is explainable by the fact
that the state was actively defying the Engel and Schempp
decisions.
It is important to note that some gro'1.ps, who have
supported the Supreme Court such as the American Association
of School Administrators, have been
nati~nal
in SCODe.
During
the Becker Hearings over 200 professors from the University
of Chicago signed a petition endorsing the Sunreme Court. 30
The opposition to the Engel and Schempp decisions has at
least in the field of Education been more or less a parochial
dissention from less influential Deople.
The major educat,ional journals unanimously endorsed
the Supreme Court and opposed any attempt to amend the Constitution.
The Peabody Journal of Education commented that
many teachers in public schools believe that all reli,rrious
teach~ng
is the responsibility of the church and the home.
The main task as teachers see it is to teaeh their subiect
v
or subjects as effectively as possible. 31
At the Becker Hearings the testimony of
senting education was to the noint.
t~ose
repre-
It did not contain the
invecti ve v.,rhich was characteristic of the nubIic, religious,
70
and congressional reaction.
Educators who opposed the
Supreme Court did not try to link the Engel and Schemnp
decisions to a Communist act of subversion.
many educators representing a
v~riety
In the end,
of school systel"1s,
colleges, and universities appeared before the House
Judiciary Committee.
In general the testi"l1ony of the various
individuals and organizations was overwhelmingly in favor
of the Supreme Court.
After the failure of the Becker Amendment there was
very little effort on the part of education officials to
oppose the Supreme Court publically.
During the hearings
before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in 1966, there was
no one there representing the education community.
After the Becker Amendment failed, a number of substitute practices were started in lieu of the activities
banned by the Engel and Schempp decisions.
Many of the
practices were an obvious means to defy the Supreme Court.
In Haltlthorne Ne 1."i Jersey, where the school board had been
forced to compl? vvi th the Supreme Court, book covers inscribed with a nondenominational nrayer were to he distributed
t o t-h 12 communl. t y sc h 00 1
v
1 d ren
C.h'L_
b y t.h e 1 oca l 'Il.merJ.can
.
L
'
32
eglon.
Not all changes in school policies have been in defiance
of the Supreme Court.
There have been several proposals in
response to the Court th8t have indicated new ways of implimenting ethical and moral values in the children.
In Pitts-
burg Pennsylvania a guide was distributed to teachers in
order to bring the
sch~ol's
morning devotionals in line with
~o
the Suoreme Court decisions.
The morninv devotionals now
consist of recognizing events of
cal dates and anniversaries)3
~reat
men and other histori-
i'~any schools have since the
Engel and Schempp decisions started courses in the objective
study of religiGns.
Since the failure of
~he
Dirksen Amendment
~here
have
been little or no publicized efforts to resist the Sunrene
Court's ruling on prayer and Bible-reading.
But an analysis
of the extent of compliance reveals that there is widespread
defiance of the rulings.
In lG66 a survey of school suner-
intendents conducted by Nations Schools revealed that in
thirteen percent of the school districts -in the United States
Bible-reading or reci t~,tion of the Lord's Prayer 1-ras still
used for devotional exercises. 34
Most of the resistance to the Supreme Court has been
in the South.
Five years after the Engel decision the states
of Alabama, Georgia,
~ississippi,
North Carolina,
and 'I"9xas, continued to defy the Supreme Court.
~ennessee,
In North
Carolina the State Sunerintendent of Schools said "We've had
these oractices from the beginning.
I don't know of any
school that has ruled out orayers and Bible-reading. n35
In
A.labama each teacher must read Scriptures from the Bible to
pupils regularly or risk the loss of state funds to the
school. 36
A consistent factor in these Southern st8tes is their
rationale for violating the Sunreme Court rulings.
JUdfting
from the comments, it seems thc,t !TI;:my officials actually believe that a Supreme Court
~llinf
does not hDve nrecedent
over state law, or else it is a sophisticated form of subterfuge.
In Tennessee, a superintendent explained why his
school had not changed their
prac~ice:
"In that
~he
state
law has not been voided, I as Superintendent instructed the
teachers to proceed as before."3?
An extensive survey in
the state also revealed that in 121 districts seventy were
~8
still following the requireoents set by strite law.""
Not all the resistance to the Court has been in the
South.
In Kentucky, 121 of t:he school superintendents said
that their schools had unwritten nolicies t,hnt nerm'; tted
Bible-reading and classroom nrayers. 39
A survey conducted
by the Indiana School Board Association revealed thAt less
than six percent have
c~anged
with the Supreme Court.
their policies in compliance
40
Although there is much evidence that many states in the
South have not complied with the Engel and Schemon decisions,
it is misleading to assume that non-compliance has been the
general reaction.
Professor R. B. Dierenfield
w~o
conducted
a study before End after the Engel and Schempp decisions revealed that there has been a regional pattern of compliance.
In 1960, the survey revealed that thirty-three percent of
the nation's schools held regular devotional services, whereas, in 1966 they had decreased to eight percent.~l
regional pattern of compliance,
~awever ~as
~he
been quite diverse.
In 1960, devotional exercises were held in sixty nercent
of the schnols in the South, but in 1966 the activity had
declined to twenty-six percent.
the sharpest decline.
The East, however, showed
In lQ60 the region
~ad
sixty-eight
percent participation in devotional exerci!3es, which declined to under five percent in 1966. 42
In general, despite all the furor raised in various
communi tie s over the Engel and Schemno dec j_s irms, most of
the schools have attempted to compbr with t;he Supreme
Court.
Most of the resistance has been in the East and
South where
devotio~al
have been concentrated.
to speak out.
activities in the nublic schools
Educators have been reluctant
Most of the criticism of the Supreme Court
has come from school bOHrds and
administr~tors,
to a great extent exemplified the same
the decisions as everyone else.
who have
mis~nderstanding
of
VIII
CONCLTTSION
The national
renctio~
~a
the Engel and Schempp de-
cisions has been characterized by a general misunderQtanding of what the Court decided.
Both the Enr;el and Schempp
decisions were very specific and narrow.
~hey
did not ban
prayer and Bible-reading per se; the decisions banned only
prayer and Bible-reading that was required by the school or
other governing bodies.
The decisions did not ban voluntary
prayer and Bible-reading which the student still has the
right to exercise.
Yet the majority of society, both lay
and professional, believed that the Court had completely
prohibited one's right to freedom of religi0n.
The emotional nature of the controversy prevented most
everyone who initially, though mistakenly, onDosed the decisions to ever come to accept t!1e truth about them.
Four
years after the Engel decision many people, such as Dirksen,
continued to align the decisions with some sort of Communist
plot.
The emotional nature of the controversy
~3upplied
those
who were opposed to the Warren Court i,-lith an excellent weapon for castigating the Court and
al~ost
overruling it.
a result of the charges made by Congressmen and other
As
influential people, most everyone believ2d that the Court
had actually banned all references to God in public life.
The widespread misunderstanding of the decision made
it feasihle for Congressmen to hold hearings on the nossibility of a Constituti8nal amendment three dirferent times
with the same resul-ss each time.
During en.ch of Lhe hear-
ings the arguement s remained the same, vJit,h
t, l-tose
who fa v0red
an amendment usually going beyond the scope of the decisions.
Much of the reaction came from politi_cal conservatives,
especially from the South who were very
~uch
opposed to the
Court because of its imnact upon their way of life.
~here
was more reaction and misunderstanding coming from Southern
Congressmen than from any other section in the Country.
They
constantly accused the Court of instigating a Communist plot.
Politically, the decisions seemed to offend mostly
Republicans.
The Republicans were predominate in all the
attempts to circumvent the Court.
They proposed most of the
legislation to amend the Constitution.
In fact, it was a
Republican who kept the issue alive after the demise of the
Becker Amendment.
But most significant is the fact th8t none of the Congressmen made any
ef~ort
to correct the misunderstandings
that existed among their constituents.
Instead many of
the~
used the public outrage as a lever for their own vindificati0n against the Court.
REFERENCES
I.
Introduction
1 Theodore L. Becker, ed., The Impact of ' Supreme Court
Decisions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 36.
2G• Theodore Mitau~ Decade of Decisi~n (New York:
Chas. Seribnerfs Sons, 19b7), p. 5-.-
3Ibid., p. 7.
ll-William Orville Douglas, The Bible and the Schools
(Boston: Little, Brown, 1966), p. 35.
r
)Donald Edward Boles, The Two Swords; CommentRries and
Cases in 3.eligion, and Education (Ames, Iowa: State Pni ver;si ty
Press, 1967), p. 81.
6Donald Edward Boles, The Bible, Religion, and the
Public ~lchools (3rd ed. Arrtes, Iowa: State tTni versi ty Press,
1965), ~). 43.
7Ibid., p. 53.
E~Ibid., pp. 109-110.
9En6e l v. Vitale, 370 u.S. 421, 81 Supreme Court ~enorter
u.S. 468, (1961).
10Ibid •
IlSchool District of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.s. 203,
82 Suprecne Court Reporter ~T.S. 142, (1962).
REFEREI\JCES
II.
Congressional Reaction
IPaul Blanshard, Religion and the Schools; The Great
Contruversy (Boston: Seacon Press, 1963), p. 52.
2Cli:ford H. Lytle, The T:Jarren' Court ~nd Its Critics
(Tucson: University of AriWna Press, 196i3)-;-})p:-L;:'7-=48."'-
1962),
3"Engel v. Vitale," The New ReDublic, Vol. 147 (July 9,
';J •
2.
I
'+Blanshard, Religion and the Schools, p. 54.
5"Congress Fails To Act On School Prayer"AmendMents,"
Congresi8nal Quarteili Almanac, Vol. XX (1964), pp. 4JO-hOl.
6"Engel v. Vitale," p. 2
7"Congress Fails To Act," p. 400.
~3Mitau, Decade of Decision, p. 134.
9Hearings before the House Judiciary Committee'on School
Prayers, aath. Congress, 2nd. Session, at 22a9 (1964), hereafter
knovm a~3 House Hec:~ri.nF.':s 1964.
10New York Times, February 19, 1964, p. 21.
11 Hearings before the Sena~e Judiciary Committee"on School
Prayers and other matters, 87th Congress, 2nd. Sessi~n, at 46
(1962), hereafter knovm as Senate Hearings 1962.
12Ibid ., p. 9a.
13Ibid., p. 129.
14John H. Laubach, School Prayers; Cong~; the Courts,
and the Public (WasIlington: Pub} ic Affairs Press, 1969}, p. 49.
15Ibid •
16 House Hearings ,1964, p. 213.
17New York Times, April 30, 1964, p. 1.
leBoles, Religion, p. 299.
10
/New York Times, ~'~arch 20, 1964, p. 17.
20House Hearings,1964, pp. 1319-1323.
21NevJ' York Times, Hay 1, 1964, p. 12.
22New 'York Times, r'~arch 16, 1964, p. 63 ..
23House Hearings,1964, p. 356.
24Richard B. Dierenfield, Religion in A.merican Public
Schools ('da3hington: Public Affairs Pres s, 1962), p. 51.
25New York Times, April 24, 1964, p. l~~.
26 rr ~;\ Religious Concern," America, Vol. 110 (May 30, 1°64),
p. 757.
27 New York 'rimes, May 29, 1964, p. 29.
2i3 New York '1'.
- - - - - ~lmes,
29 New.ork
y
Times,
----30H
.
_earlngs
be:ore
Prayers~ 89th Congress,
fJIay 21, 1964, p •
,.....
June 4, 1964, p. 41.
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on School
2nd. Session, at 64'") (1966) •
31 New York ~imes, June 20, 1966, p. J6.
32William A. Hatchen, "Journalism and the prayer decision,"
Journalic:m Revie1tJ', Vol. 1 (Fall, 1962), p. 4.
Columbic~
3)Kenneth Crawford, TI~rVho' s Against Prayer," Newsweek,
Vol. LXVIII (August 8, 1966), p. 29.
34rbid.
35Congressicna1 Quarterlv Almanac, Vol. XXII (1966),
p. 1394.
f DeClsl_on,
. .
ltau, Deca d e 2p. 141 •
16.J T·
-'
37House Hearings, 1964, p. 1531.
3 8 Laubach, School Prayers, p. 150.
III.
Political Reaction
INew York ~imes, June 26, 1962, p. 17.
2 Ibid •
3New York Times, June 27, 1962, p. 34.
41aubach, School Prayers, p. 2.
5Ibid •
6 ,)(' t rom '1'h
d If P rayers u:
. tLh e u
P b 1 lC
. .::JCDOO,1t
,. ,.
1
Vlta
.
1
"'- ,urmon,
Speeches, Vol. XXVII (August 15, 1962), p. 6~5.
1
'7
IBlanshard, Religio.!l and the Schools, p. 54.
E~Ibid., p. 116.
)lIbid., pp. 116-117.
lOnChurch Gnd State, 'I News"lrleek, Vol. LXII (July 1, 1963),
p. 48.
llltGovernors' Holiday," Newsweek, Vol. LX (July 16, 1962),
p. 20.
12House Hearings, 1964, pp. a45, 2090.
13 n Congress Fails To Act," p. 400.
14"Senate Rejects Constitutional Amend~ent To Peroit
Prayer In School," CongrcEsional Quarterly Almanac, Vol. XXII
(1966), p. 97$.
15nCongress Fails To Act,1t p. 400.
16Congressional QuarterlY Almanac, Vol. XIX (1963), p. 24.
17New York Times, February 19, 1964, p. 21.
18nrrhe Court Decision -- and The School Prayer' 'Furor, If
Newsweek, Vol.LX (July 9, 1962), p. 44.
19Laubach, School Prayers, pp. 92-93.
20Blanshard, Eeligion and the Schools, pp. 50-51 and
New York Times, July 6, 19'6'2, p. 23.
21Laubach, School Prayers, p. 03.
22"Congress Fails To Act, If p. 398.
2)uGold1trater Endorses School Prayer," The Christian
Century, Vol. LXXXI (October 21, 1964), p. 1294.
REFERENCES
IV.
Legal Reaction
l"Tte School Prayer Furor,1t p. 44.
2Laubach, School Prayer~, p. 61.
:IHouse Hearings, 1964, p. 166.
•
4New
York
-----
'P"
~lmes,
June 8, 1964, p. 21.
£"
JHouse He[3 rings, 1964, p. 2483.
6York
New
- - - - Times, rTay 28, 1964, p. 21.
'",
(David L. Grey, The Supreme Court and the News
(Evanston Illinois: Northwestern Press, 19b"8), D.--sJ:"
r~edia
SHouse Hearings, 1964, p. 2762.
o
-'Grey, News Hedia,
10I,od
Ol . , p.
P.
S7.
d-:<
0/.
IINew York Times, JI~ay 21, 1964, p. 36.
12Laubach, School Prayers, p. 137.
13New York Times, August 14, 1963, p. 31+-.
14pau 1 R• L.angoon,
.
UN ew Laws or DeCl Slons ~"Oh"
h
I s,
~ , . lO S C".OO
Vol. XLII (Dece~ber, 1964), p. 15.
0
0
REFEHENCES
V.
1
Public Reaction
Becker, ed., ImEact cf Court, p. 36.
2S1anshard, Religion and the Schools, p. 53.
3nThe School Prayer Furor," p. 44.
4Senate Hearin~s, 1962, p. 16.
5nSchoo1 Prayer Controversy," Newsweek, Vol. LX (July 23,
1962), p. 2.
p. 8.
6~To Stand as a Guarantee," Time, Vol. LXXX (July 6, 1962),
7Hatchen, "Journalism," p. 4.
SHouse Hearings, 1964, p. 2163.
q
/IIPrayer and H¥steria," The Nation, Vol. 195 (Julv 14,
1962), p. 2 •
•
lO"The School Prayer Furor,!f pp. 44-45.
llRobert LiE;ton, "Mrs. MUIT3.Y'S 'I/ar on 8od,!f Saturday
Evening l)ost, Vol. 237 (July 11-18, 1964), p.S5.
r)
l ,,:,uIvIoY'al
Heritage and the La\v," Life, Vol. 54 (June 23,
1963), p. 3.
l::Donald R. Reich, "The Supreme Court and Public J'olicy:
the school prayer case,tf Phi Delta I~appan, (September, 1966),
pp. 30-31.
14Ibid.
lSDr. Van Bogard Dunn, "A Fundamental Ri8ht,n Ohio
Schools, Vol. XLII (December, 1964), p. 20.
16 E'nee 1 v. V'~'
-~O·,
l0a~e 5(
S
u..
TT
421
..
1 r,
-InTo Stand as a Guarantee," p. 8.
lanPositions of Major Church Groups," Congressional
Quarterly Almanac, Vol. XX (1964), p. 3q9.and New York mimes,
~Ir
h 23, I 064
.
--1'1arc
... ,p. 33.
19Boles, Religion p. 299.
20N
Y k T'lmes, ./J.,prl'1 1').), 19/'04, p. 19
~ ~
. •
21"Congress Fails To Act," p. 398.
22 Ib , ,
-2.£., p. 401.
23Laubach, School Prayers, p. 87.
24Lytle, The I:Jarren Court, p.
4e.
25House Hearings, 1964, p. 149 7 •
26Laubach, School Prayers, pp. 48-49.
27Ibid ., p. 86.
28Hatchen, "Journalism,tf p. 74.
20
/House Hearings, 1964, p. 2761.
•
30.Nevl York Times, ~,1arch 17, 1966, p. 17 •
91
.
31New York;:'imes, August 2, 1966, p. 24.
~)
3 ~"Senate Fails To Amend School-Prayer Ruling," Congressj,onal Quarterlz Alman&c, Vol. XXII (1966), p. 516.
33Ibid.
34"An Overdcse of Dirksen, rr The Chr~'.;:.;tian Century, Vol.
LXXXIII (August 17, 1966), p. 999.
3 -t·) 1'S'enate R'
.
.
1",tmencrr!en,
'i
t If p •.q7~
eJects Constltutlona
, c.
REFEP.ENCES
VI.
Religious Reaction
InTo Stand as a Guarantee," p. 8.
2New York Times, June 26, 1962,
D.
1.
3New York Times, July 1, 1962, P. 16.
4nThe School Frayer Furor," p. 45.
5UEngel v. Vitale," p. 4.
6"The School Prayer Furor," p. 45.
71'
. ,
2l.£.
S"Black Monday Decjsion," America, Vol. 107 (July 7,
1962), p. 456.
r,
'/"Churchmen support Supreme -Cour't," The Christian
Century, Vol. LXXIX (July 18, 1962), p. 8S2.
10"1963 First Amendnent Conference," ThE: Catholic irJOrlS,!,
Vol. 197 (August, 1963), pp. 280-317.
11Nevv York Tirles, f.1ay 22, 1963,
D.
1.
1211Church and State," p. 48.
13Hatchen, "Journalism," pp. 4-7.
14William B. Ball, "Implications of Supreme Court Decisions
for Contemporary Church-State Problems, If The Catl-,olic ~'Iorld,
Vol. 197 (August, 1963), pp. )04-305.
q?
15nSupreme Court Decision on Bible Reading and Prayer
Recit.ation, If NEA Journal, Vol. 52 (Septep1ber, 1963), p. 56 •
.
16Blanshard, Religion and the Schools, p. 59.
17Boles, Religion, pp. 220-221.
1(-\
(~Ibid., pp. 223, 228.
19B1anshard, Reljgi,~)n and the Schools, p. 34.
20_
'd
/.-\
Ib_J.._",
p. 00.
21James H. Smylie, "The First A.mendment and BishoD
Pike," T12£ Christi~n Century, Vol. LXXIX (October 31, 1962)
p. 1313.
22Milton Hiomelfarb, "Festivals and Judges," Commentarv,
Vol. 35 (January, 1963), p. 67.
23nChurch and State," p. 48.
24Laubach, School Prayers, p.
aa.
2:5 Lyt l e , The ,-'Jarren Court, p. 65.
26 "To our
1962), p. 665.
<.T
eVJish friends, n America, Vol. 107 (SeDtember 1,
27nTo our Jewish friends; discussion," America Vol. 107
(September 8, 1962), p. 679.
'. .
2 (jIbid.
29Senate Hearings, 1962, p. 140.
3 0 llFirst Amendment Conference,TI pp. 2S0-317.
':>1
.-I. "Discussion on the
Lord's Prayer and Bible 'Reading, n
The Catholic VJorld, Vol. 197 (August, 1963), p. 279.
3.2"fJIr. BeckE':'r and the Bisho9S," America"
(July 25, 1964), p. 79.
p. 535.
3:3"Prayer Anendment, " America, Vol. 110 (April 18, 1964),
?I
",,'+Ne1.tr York ::'imes, T'~arch 20, 1964, ;>. 17.
•
Vol. III
3:5New York '1"J.J..mes, June 23, 1964, p. 20.
03
3 6 11Positions of T.~ajor Church Groups," p. 399.
...
3711Conducts Loaded Poll, ,! The Christian Century, Vol •
LXXXI (August 17, 1966), p. 1549.
.
.
3(~New York Times, ~r:ay 23, 1964, p. 22.
39 11An Overdose of Dirksen," The Christian Century, Vol.
LXXXIII (August 17, 1966), p. 999.
RE?E?E\JCES
VII.
,
~"The
Educational Reaction
School Prayer Furor," p. 45.
2New York Times, July 1, 1962, p. 16.
3 PlTo Stand as a Guarantee, 'f p. 8.
4"The School Prayer Furor," p. ~5.
r:.
. . 'New York Times, Septerr:ber 13, 1963, p. 31.
6113ible Reading Decision Splits Administrators Into
Two Camp;::," The Nations Schools, Vol. 72 (September, 1963),
p. 43.
7!fBack to School," Newsweek, Vol. LX (Septerr.ber 10,
1962 ), p • 67.
8Senate He·:rings, 1962, p. 87.
9N• S. Elderkin, "Teachers Voice,Tf Ohio Schools, Vol. XLI1
(December, 1964), p. 17.
lONew York Times, June 18, 1963,
D.
28.
IlDierf!nfield., Religion in Public Schools, p. 51.
12New York Times, December 13, 1963, p. 23.
13rr'l'he School Prayer Furor," p. 45.
14New York Times, April 13, 1964, p. 19.
•
15 New York Times, August 30, 2963, p. 30 •
16 New York Times, August
--17New York
----18 New York
-----
14, 1963, p. 8.
llmes, August 6, 1963, p. 1'7'.
en "
Times, June 2, 1964,
D.
1.
19Dierenfield, Religion in Public Schools, p. 51.
20 New York m"
llmes, August 17, 1963, n. 8.
21 New York ","lmes, January 30, 1963, p. 23.
-----
----22New York
-----
J
Times, :'1ay 19, 1964, p. 48.
23 New York Times, February 19, 1964, p. 21.
24"Decision Splits Administrators," p. 43.
25 New York Times, August 14, 1963, p. 28.
26Glendy Culligan, "Bah, Humbug, Virginia' -- 1.ie Don't
Know," Anerican Education, Vol. 3 (December 1966, January 1967),
p. 15.
heat on
po 44.
27 Lee O. Garber, "Crits creches and carols out hnliday
~)chools, If The Nat ions Schools, Vol. '78 (December, 1966),
28Senate He~rings, 1962, p. 161.
29Re ligion in the Public Schools, A Report by the Comnission
on Religion in' the Public Schools (American }\ssociation of School
hdministrators, June 30, 1964). p. IV.
30House He~rings, 1964, pp. 2527-2529.
3 1 C• L. Hall, "Some Thoughts Concerning a Current Problem,"
Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 43 (January, 1966), n. 196.
.
32 New York Ti!Ees, January 16, 1965, p. 17.
,
y~.
-' "The Morning Devotion Period in Schools, 1f School and
Society, Vol. 194 (~arch 19, 1966), p. 145.
34"Schoolmen still agonize nver Bible reading Decision,"
The Nat ions Schools, Vol. 80 (Jul:r , 1967), p. 22.
35"How do :rou prohibit prayer?," Time, Vol. 90 (Au~,;ust 25,
1967 ), p • 5S •
36Ibid.
media's reporting of the Engel and Schempp decisions caused
2'l~ch
a mis1;nderstanding, especially arlong the '.Jublic.
''li11iam
A. Hatchen also provides an analysis of the Press' reporting
of the Engel decision in "Journalism and the prayer decision,"
Col~mbia
Journalism Review (Fall, 1962).
A view of
sity of the public's reaction to the Engel and
~he
Scht~mnp
intendecisi_on
is given by Donald R. Reich, "The SuprrornE Court and Public
Policy:
the school prayer case,Tt Phi Delta Kanpan (September,
1966) •
Religious Reaction
The best sources on relifious reaction have been periodicals published by different relifious groups, such as America
Catholic i#orld and Commonweal by the Catholics.
'T'he J esui ts,
publishers of America have been most opposed to the Engel and
Schempp decisions, yet when Congress started to
stitution, they became tnp
0--
~mo-~
16 New York Times, August 14, 1963, D.
b.
17New York Times, J\ugust 6, 1963, p. 17.
18 New York Times, June 2, 1964, D. 1.
19Dierenfield, P.elip;ion in Public Schools, D. 51.
20 New York Times, August l7, 1963, 1,) • E~ •
21 New York '1'"
. lmes, January 30, 1963, D • ~(J •
-- - -- - 22New York
-- - 23 New York
-- -
Times,
r'~ay
10
./
,
1964, p • 48.
.,,"
llmes, February 19, 1964, p. 21.
24"Deci sion Splits Admini str;::"tors,
'I
p. 43.
25 M!-,ew• v,_or_k T"lmes, HUgUS
fJ
t 14 , .106")
/ ' ; , p.
r)c}
1'..0.
26Glendy Culligan, "Bah, Humbue, Virginia' -- ',)'e Don't
renow, II AJlerican Education, Vol. 3 (Decerlber lC166, January 1967),
p. 15.
271ee O. Garber, "Grits creches and carols DUt h"liday
heat on schools, If The TI:ations Schools, Vol. 7E~ (December, 1966),
p. 44.
..
28Senate
He~rings, 1962,
p. 161 •
29Religion in the Public Schools, j, Report by the Comr1ission
on Religion in -the Public Schools (American A~jsociation of School
Administrators, June 30, 1964). p. IV.
30House HeGrings, 1964, pp. 2527-2529.
31C• 1. Hall, "Some Thoughts Concerning-a Current Problem,"
Peabody JOlJ.rnal of Education, Vol. 43 (January, 1966), p. 196.
.
2
r
3 New York 7i r:es, January 16, 1965, p. 17.
33"The Morning Devotion Period in SChools~1I School and
Society, Vol. 194 U:arch 19, 1966), p. 145.
3 /"""Schoolrnen still agonize over Bible reading Dec:i sion,
The l':at ions Schools, Vol. -30 (July, 1967), p. 22.
')
-
';)lI
'I
nOW do :rou prohibit prayer?,n Time, Vol. 90 (AUf;ust 25,
1967), p • 5b •
36 Ibid •
...
7
;, Robert H. Birkby, "The Suprene Court and the :3ible
Belt: Tennessee Reaction to the fScheMpP' Decisinn t U i',~id'JlTest
Journal of Political Science, Vol. 10 {Augu~t, 1966}, P. 307 •
38Ibid •
39r:Iitau, Decade of Decision, p. 14.5.
40 I bid., p. 146.
41 Robert B. Dierenfie1d, "The Impact of SUDreme Court .
Decisions on Relicion in Public Schools," Religious Education,
Vol. 62 (September - OctobE'r, 67), p. 447.
4 2"b·
,
.1 lG.
...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General Works
An invaluable source has been Lawrence C. Little,
Religion and Public Educati"n:
Pittsburg:
A Bibliography (8th. ed.:
The University of Pittsburg Book Centsr, 196e).
This volume cont,3.ins extensive references to books and nerj nr1icals pertinent to the
schools.
con~roversy
over
religi~n
in
nubIle
t~e
For the best undprp.tandirg of t.he controversy and
reaction cre?ted by the Engel and Schempp decjsions, consult
the Hearings before the Senate Judiciary
Co~rnittee
on
Sc~ool
Prayers and Other !latters (1962), t.he Hearinp:s before the Honse
Judiciary Committee on School Prayers (lQ64), and the Hearing
before
t~e
Senate Subcommittee 0f the Senate Judiciary Committee
on Schoo: Prayers (1966).
on all the reactions
society.
th;~t
These
hEarjn~s
contain
i~for~ation
have taken place in every s.ep;ment Gf
John H. Laubach's book on School Prayers, Congress,
the Courts, and the Public (V/ashingt:-ln D. C.:
Publi c Affair:-
Press, 1969) provides an exceJJent understanding of the congressi0nal, legal, and
decisions.
For
~he
Dub~ic
~eactinns
to
~he
Engel and Schemnp
best ullder:-:;tanding of' th.e immediat.e reaction
following t.he Engel and ScheMPP decisions conslllt. Paul
~lanshardfs
Religion and the Schools; The Great Con+,roversy (30ston:
Press, 1963).
Beacon
Donald E. Boles' The Bible, Religion, and the
Public Schools (Ames Iowa:
TJniv(;Y'sity Press, 1965) provides a
q7
history of
~he
influencE of rEli_ri 'n in +-,he ymblie schools as
well as a background on the
ci F'ferent
re 1 ~ pio·.ls p-ronp attitudes
and the wa\r st2tes have interpreted the
liCi8n in
~he
schools.
Newspapers
R~d
con~rovers:r
0ver re-
news magazines, such as
the New 'Cork Times, Nev-is1dEck ;:md Tine have been very ltelpful
for specific
inforna~jon
sources as well as
fillin~
in the
~aps
left by other sources.
Cong::-e s~>ional, Political, Fublic, and Legal React ion
For an analvs1s of how the '1arren Court has met
c~nfression-
see ":'hEodc)re L. Becker, ed., 'T'''1e Imnact of Supremc
a1
(lxf~)rd Pniver~-:;ity Presf'"
Court Decisions (Ne1'! York:
1969).
Cited in Becker'S book is the study by Stewart S. hlagel, "Court
Curbing Periods in
~arren
His~ory,"
'!vh~ch
C. Theodore r~itau, Decade of Decision OJew
Chas. Scribner's Sons,
1967), provides
of the reaction to the Engel and Schempp
~eaction
scientific evaluaticn of the
~arren
reveals th':t the
Court was the most unpopular Court in the history of the
Supreme Court.
York:
.~\.meY'ican
Court, see
Critics (Tucson:
Cll.OP-C'r'rd'~
. .. 1 u . ~t
J.
•
J~rt'e''''
.J J
..J.L
U
decisi~ns.
and
,
a c"1apter on
'1'1he
---
criticis~
1"far''''e'~
",
.L.~ 11
University of Arizona Press,
?or a more
0f the
Co"rt
Lt
1965).
~nd
--d
Its
Lytle
concludef: that politicians cannot be against a reli.[:ir)us issuE,
especially in an electi,m ,rear.
David L. Grey, mhe Sunreme
Court and the Nei'fS '~edia (Evanston Illinois:
University Press,
196$), gives an analysis
~f
HorthweE3tern
how the news
media's reporting of
~~E
~chempp
Engel and
decisions causej
"Jilliam
3Gch a misunderstanding, esneciallv ar1'J.onr: the :Jublic.
L
..
'- __
A. Hatchen also provides an analvsis of the Press'
~eporting
of the Engel decision in !'J ournalism and t1-}e prayer decision,!f
Colwnbia Journalism Review (Fall, 1962).
A view of
~he
inten-
sity of the publ"-c' s reac+,inn to t,h.e Engel and SchemnD decislnn
is given by Donald P.. Reich, "The Supr r'rne Court and Pub lie
Policy:
the school prayer case," Phi Delta Kanpan (September,
1966) •
Religious Reaction
T~e
best sources on relifious reaci.ion have been periodi-
cals published by different relipious grouDs, such as America
Catholic World and Commonweal by t1-}e Catholics.
publishe~s
~he
Jesuits,
of America have been most opposed to the Engel and
Schempp decisions, yet when Congress started to amend the Constitution, they became the Supreme Court's most loyal supporter.
The
Chrif=-"t.i~12~enturz,
a Frote2tant nondenominati"Jnal
has supported the Suprsrne Court all along.
pe~iodical,
Commentar~,
by a Jewish group, was exceedingly silent on the issue.
published
Various
Jewish Tganizatior.s hove SHPI)Orted the litigat:.i'in in both t'-e
Engel
an~
Schempp decisions.
Educational Reaction
Ric!1ard
Schools
:a.
Dierenfield, Religion in Ame::.i£c.:!.! Public
(;{as~lington
D. C.:
Public
l\. ffairs
Press, 1962), pro-
vides an excellent analysis of the influence
~hRt
reli~inn
had
i:1
~~e
prayer
t~on
public
a~d
educ<.l~il)n
~yste"l
Bible-readine.
Public 5c:w01s, a rep::.\rt by
,June 30, 1964).
Court banned
decisicns, see
~-he
Reli[~'n
in the
Comrli;,sioTl on c'eligi"n in :he
of School
~dministrators,
The Nation's Schools and NEA Journal nrovide
liThe Suc:rer:1e Court and
'-,re
the 'Schempp' JeciEi-"n,"
have cOl:lplied
~he
(Ane~ican Assocja~ion
Schools
SuprE~me
For an understanding of how educa-
has officially viewed
ru0li~
before the
VI-it}'
the
:3ib1e 3elt:
~Tidwest
decL~,ilns
Tennessee ?eactions to
Jourr~?l
of
Politt~al
Science
is provided O'T Robert 3.
Dierenfield, liThe Impact of the Suprene Court DecisinDS on
Reli§;ion in Public Schools,!I
October, 1967).
the Engel and
(Sentember -
Dierenfield's latest study is a repeat or the
Sche~pp
decisi0ns have h<.ld
system in the Unitad States •
•
Helip;iou~ 2ducct!~Jog
~n
~he
-:ublic
sc~ool