-
Commentator's View on tSepaira Lion' Controversy
(Continued from Page 21
light on whether the writers of that great document
shared the views of the Michigan framers, as report-
ed by Dr. Drachler.
Story. in Commentaries on the Constitution,
ti (1888), section 1874, discussing the "no establish-
ment" clause of the first amendment. says. "Any
•
attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter
•
of State policy to hold all in utter indifference,
—
would have created universal disapprobation. if not
universal indignation."
Likewise. Cooley, in Principles of Constitutional
Law. 224-225, 3d edition (1896). said of the same
4 clause; "It was never intended by the Constitution
that the Government should be prohibited from
recognizing religion where it might be done without
drawing any invidious distinctions between different
religious beliefs, organizatons, or sects."
Your artcle sets out some of the language of
Mr. Justice Jackson in the so-called McCollum Case
(333 U.S. 203 (1948)), in which the Supreme Court
applied the principles of the case of Everton v.
Board of Education (330 U.S.1) to a "released time"
pro ,, rain of religious instruction in Illinois public
schools.
In a dissenting opinion in that case, Mr. Justice
Reed took exception to the extended meaning of the
no establishment" clause as pronounced in the
Everton case. and applied in the McCollum case.
He pointed out, at pages 253-254, that the Congress
of the United States has a Chaplain for each House
who daily invokes divine blessing and guidance for
the proceedings. The Armed Forces have commis-
sioned chaplains from early days. They conduct
public services in accordance with the liturgical
requirements of their respective faiths. ashore and
afloat. employing for the purpose property belonging
to the United States and dedicated to the services
of religion. Under the Servicemen's Readjustment
Act eligible veterans may receive training at Gov-
ernment expense for the ministry in denominational
schools. The schools in the District of Columbia
have opening exercises which _include a reading
from the Bible without note or comment, and the
Lord's Prayer."
The facts set out in Justice Reed's dissent would
indicate that, even at the moment the majority of
the Court were accepting and applying such broad
implications of the "no establishment" clause. actual
conditions belied their secularistic import.
:4)
THE DE TROIT JEWISH
•
-
A more recent Supreme Court case. Zorach v.
Clawson (343 U.S. 306 (1952)). would seem to more
accurately reflect the true meaning of the first
amendment and the intention of its writers. Speak-
ing for the majority of the Court, Mr. Justice Doug-
las said: "We are a religious people whose institu-
tions pre-suppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee
the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make
room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds
as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We
sponsor an attitude on the part of Government that
shows no partiality to any one group and that lets
each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents
and the appeal of its dogma. When the State
encourages religious instruction or cooperates with
religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of
public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best
of our traditions. For it then respects the religious
nature of our people and accommodates the public
service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may
not would be to find in the Constitution a require-
ment that the Government show a callous indif-
ference to religious groups. That would be preferring
those wh6 believe in no religion over those who do
believe. Government may not finance religious
groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend
secular and sectarian education nor use secular
institutions to force one or some religion on any-
person. But we find no constitutional requirement
which makes it necessary for Government to be
hostile to religion and to throw its weight against
efforts to widen the effective scope of religious
influence."
This language is, I think, explicit with regard to
the relation of the proposed addition to the pledge
of allegiance to the first amendment. To deem this
addition barred by the first amendment would be
to find the Federal Government "hostile of religion"
and throwing "its weight against efforts to widen
the effective scope of religious influence."
"We are a religious people whose institutions
presuppose a Supreme Being," as Justice Douglas
has said, and the only effect of the proposed addi-
tion is to give expressions to that fact in the words
we use to salute the symbol of our Republic. There
are no questions of church-state relations involved
in this proposal and only a strained secularistic
interpretation of the first amendment can raise any
question as to its constitutional propriety.
•
If the two viewpoints evaluated here assist the
reader in gaining additional understanding of the
great issue involved, an enormous purpose will have
been attained.
It is important that the facts be known and that
an informed community should appreciate the sig-
nificance of a decision that does not necessarily set
new standards: it reaffirms an old standard. But
there are too many who are panicky over the latest
ruling, and they should be set at ease and should
know that what our Supreme Court justices did was
to uphold a basic' American idea.
So much has been said, and so much more un-
doubtedly will be said about the entire matter that
there should at least be a definite awareness of an
additional fact: that while some are now charging
that a minority has imposed a code of ethics relating
to religion upon a majority, it is sometimes much
more dangerous for a majority to impose its will,
especially in theological matters, upon a minority.
It is to protect the minority, and to retain the
majority within the orbit of the high idealism of
true Americanism, that the Supreme Court decision
is so vital for Americans, and through them for
humanity.
,In the decades that preceded our Declaration of
Independence, people who sought religious freedom
—and they were in the main Christians—came to
this country, and out of their experiences there de-
veloped the high motive of separation of state affairs
from religious dogmas. Now. for the benefit of the
generations to come. this idea is reaffirmed.
•
What a pity that so much anger should have been
generated by the Supreme Court's decision! Those
who instituted the court case against the Hyde Park
school prayer have received threats from anti-
Semites, and Jews have been singled out for criticism
by those who hold that the Supreme Court was wrong
in this latest ruling.
For example, the former editor of the Michigan
Catholic, Msgr. Hubert A. Maino, in an article on the
subject, stated: "The Jews were for centuries de-
pendent for their existence on the goodwill, often
not forthcoming, of a Christian community. Now their
distrust leads them to align themselves with secu-
larizing forces whose dominance may perhaps afford
them a security they have never known. But this
seems a shortsighted policy. For once the religious
character of the American nation has been eroded by
secularism, who knows what further suppressions
of liberty of conscience might not follow?"
We are puzzled and amazed! It was from the
intolerance of certain religious groups in certain
church-dominated countries that the founders of this
Republic had fled to establish a nation wherein
it was decreed that church and state must be sep-
arated—in order that the persecutions they suffered
in their former homelands should not be repeated
in the countries of their adoption. Yet we are told
that the Jewish group, which pursues a great tradi-
tion established by religiously-minded people, for the
protection of all faiths against the instrusions of
ancient non-tolerant sentiments, had acted against
prayers in the schools because they had joined
secularists!
Such views ought not to be entertained by any
group, least of all the Catholic, in order that freedom
of expression on all matters relating to our nation's
best interests should not be suppressed.
It is unfair to say that this is a secularist matter,
because that would at once subject the entire Su-
preme Court to a secularist charge.
And it is equally unfair to link Jews with secu-
larists in this embittered issue, because nearly all
Alliance Israelite Universelle to Build
•
e
Schools for Algerian
Algrian
Jewsh
i Refugees
PARIS, (JTA) — The Alliance , and two boys, all ranging in ages to - summer camp counselors here.
Israelite liniverselle announced , from 18 to 20, started service in
The French Jewish summer
a
in
f th today
d to
f camp program has been reorgan-
plans to build several secondary France th and
e craerne who a roeu sraenf gs e o e s ized on an emergency basis to
Jewish day schools in France this , Jewish child
care for the influx of thousands
year to provide schooling for chit. , from Algeria.
of Jewish refugees from North
dren of Algerian Jewish refugees
All of the American young- Africa. One thousand of the refu-
now arriving in France.
sters were recruited by the Joint gee children have been assigned
Distribution Committee in the to 18 Jewish summer camps in
'Me plans were revealed by united States, have previous this country.
Alliance vice - president Jules camp counseling experience, and
Three new shelters and two
Bi unschwig following the annual will work in summer camps estab- new day camps have been estab-
conference here of the organiza- lished for the yoOng Jewish refu- lished in Paris, Marseilles and
tion. He said that the first sec- . gees by the central Jewish wel- other French cities. Two thou-
ondary school, with a capacity of fare fund. the Fonds Social Juif sand of the Algerian Jewish chil-
several hundred students, would Unifie.
dren will be cared for in these
be opened in Paris, the second in
The counselors paid their own new facilities. Other camp facili-
Marseilles and others in the prow- : expenses to come here for their ties for the Algerian Jewish
inces. volunteer duties. While on duty, child refugees have been made
Ten American college students, ithe boys and girls will receive available for this summer by Bel-
all Jewish, eight of them girls the modest salaries usually paid gian Jewry.
the Jewish defenders of the Supreme Court decision
stem from religious ranks. It is the combined force
of our rabbinic and congregational groups that has
spoken in support of the stand taken by a six-to-one
majority of the Supreme Court.
Having said these things—which we believe to
be true—there is need to add that in a land like
ours, where religion does predominate, even the
secularist must be protected. Even the non-believer
has a right to his opinions; and if it is only for the
sake of not denying rights of a minority of secular-
ists, the Supreme Court decision was wise and just.
•
(How tragic that the Governors of all our
States should have refused to support. civil rights
legislation, at their annual meeting this week, but
were hasty to act in favor of prayers in our
public schools, contrary to established American
traditions!)
•
What has been stated thus far is part of the
unending debate and the discussions that have now
acquired a large measure of bitterness.
Hurling the charge that "the legal maneuverings
of a small group of secularists have been heard,
but the feelings of most citizens, which are con-
sistent with the intentions of our founding fathers
who reserved a place in our Constitution for God,
are ignored," the Michigan Catholic, in a front
page editorial maintains: "Shock is the last word
to describe the reaction of the vast majority of
Americans to this action of the court."
This is an unfortunate interpretation. There is
a measure of unfairness in speaking of "a small
group of secularists," and there is the impending
danger in the emphasis that has been placed in
news reports that "Jews, Unitarians and non-
believers" were the ones who initiated the appeal to
the United States Supreme Court. The justices in
the highest court of the land can not be classed
as "a small group" that labors against a "vast
majority."
Indeed, the latest Supreme Court ruling was not
the first such decision by our high court. A similar
ruling, also written by Mr. Justice Hugo L. Black,
was made in 1948, and then, too, there were protests
and resentments. But this year there are threats of
Congressional action, and hearings on proposed
Constitutional Amendments to nullify the First
Amendment are to be held before the complete
Senate Judiciary Committee under the chanrmanship
of Senator James 0. Eastland of Mississippi. It is
doubtful, however, whether the country at large—
contrary to the claims of the Michigan Catholic
about the reactions from the "vast majority" of
Americans—is ready and willing to amend the
principle of "no law respecting an establishment
of religion" by Congress.
Because Jews have played a leading role in
launching an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court
against the reading of prayers in our public schools,
it is important that it should be known that in our
ranks, too, there are people who object to the
Supreme Court ruling—people who favor the re-
citing of prayers by our school children. One such
spokesman, Rabbi Jacob Handler of Manchester,
N.H., taking issue with Mr. Justice Black and his
associates, thinks that school prayers do not violate
the Constitution and that they "encourage young
people to think in the way of godliness." But this
is the opinion of the minority. The general belief
is that it is more important that godliness should
be centered in the home and in the houses of
worship.
Our inclination is that there is greater realism
and more impressive truth than that contained in
the anger-inspired protesters against the Supreme
Court decision in the following editorial assertion
by the Christian Science Monitor:
"The very intensity of feeling aroused by what
the Supreme Court degision has been taken to be
shows that religion is very much alive in America.
As the situation is understood, we believe Americans
will be slow to weaken or undercut the time-tried
rule of separation of church and state. Meanwhile,
the moral strength of the nation derives more from
personal performance than from public profession."
WSU Near Eastern Department
Will Offer Grad Program in Fall
The Department of Near I An experimental course corn-
Eastern Languages and Liters- bining biblical and modern He-
- will also be introduced
tures will offer gr a d
, ibrew
.
in the Fall. "This course will
courses leading to . a masters enable students to become con-
degree in either Hebrew or versant with the various forms
Arabic in the Fall, according of the Hebrew language," Spiro
to Prof. Abram Spiro, chairman said. The first year will cover
of the department at Wayne modern Hebrew and the sec-
State University.
ond, biblical Hebrew, now that
This is one of the develop- the language requirement .com-
ments that has arisen because prises two years of a foreign
of the school's changeover to language.
the quarter system. In the past
A former Israeli language
this department operated on instructor, Dr. Aaron Bar-Adon
the undergraduate level only. will teach both modern Hebrew
It is hoped that the expansion and Arabic. Dr. Bar-Adon is an
of this program will lead to assistant professor.
the introduction of a graduate
The Borman Lecture Series
sequence leading towards a sscheduled to resume in the
Ph.D. degree.
Fall.