Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525814
label
Supreme Court Prayer Issue, October 26, 1964
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525814
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Supreme Court Prayer Issue, October 26, 1964
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Supreme Court of the United States. 2/2/1790-
Constitutions
Prayer in the public schools
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525814
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1964-10-31
month
10
year
1964
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1964-10-01
month
10
year
1964
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
87fd4d706b905020
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D16, folder "Supreme Court Prayer Issue,
October 26, 1964" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at
the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Jerry
Ford
Will speak on the neec
for an
38
Amendment
to permit voluntary
Bible Reading and Prayer
in public schools
monday, Oct 26th 7:45 P.M
Ottawa Hills High School
Auditorium
You are Welcome!
Digitized from Box D16 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
\ssociation.
dacy to the electorate in
the endor-
the 5th District."
Ford, Ad-
Congressman Ford is
tated: "Our
now serving his 8th term
tees endor-
and is a member
nan Gerald
important Appro
make men
ighly quali-
Committee. For r
member of
lative work he was
who has
the Distinguished
usly to pre-
Award in May,
nstitutional
the Board of Tru
nent and the
ACA.
nomic sys-
es and pro-
alysis of
Ford's
reveals that
ently voted
ey; a. Priv-
emo
them whether they
nocratic or Repub-
conference follow-
HOLY
eon, Rep. Ford said
a "momentum" to
ntial nominee Sen.
ater "and he has a
in." He said Sen.
as behind in most
onths ago but that
st 30 days the unde-
as "moved to the
GOP Issues
listed the four ma-
f the presidential
Ottowa Hills High School Auditorium
"integrity versus
October 26, 1964
leficit spending by
7:45 p.m.
Administration, the
au..
arm policy of the
n and its weak for-
here has not been
n against the in
cter and honesty of
atom 22.
AS no UICU siscies
.OGRAM
frce, While God is marching on.
Jan Bruce Hayes
gan Prelude
Jim Faber
The Lord's Prayer"
pening Comments & Prayer
Paul deVries,
cripture reading
Margie Whaley
Chairman of W.M.C.Y.
& Robert Miller
ledge of Allegiance
This is My Country"
Bruce Hayes
ong
The Star-Spangled Banner"
(Song Leader: Robert Parks)
Kymn.
"Faith of Our Fathers"
"Faith of our fathers, living still In spitc of dungcon
"0 say, can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so
firc, and sword! Oh, how our hearts beat high with joy
proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose
Whon-c're we hear that glorious word!
broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous flight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
REFRAIN: Faith of our fathers! holy faith! We will be
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
truc to thee till death!
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
"Our fathers, chained in prisons dark, Were still in
0 say, does that Star-Spangled Banner still wave
heart and conscience free. How sweet would bc their
O're the land of the free, and the home of the brave?
children's fate If they, like them, could die for thee!
"On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep, Where
"Faith of our fathers! we will love Both friend and for
the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes, What is
in all our strifc; And proach thec, too, as love knows
that which the breeze, O'er the towering steep, As it
how, By kindly words and virtuous lifc."
fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? Now it
catches the gleam of the morning's first beam, In full
/mn.
"The Church's One Foundation"
glory reflected now shines on the stream:
"The Church's one foundation Is Josus Christ, her Lord.
'Tis the Star-spangled Banner, 0 long may it wave
She is H is new croation By water and the word.
O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
From heav'n Hc came and sought her To be His holy bride
"O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand Between
With His own blood He bought her, and for her life He
their loved homes and the war's desolation! Blest with
died.
"Elect from every nation, Yet one o'er all the earth;
vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise
Her charter of salvation, One Lord, one faith, one bir
the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
One holy name she blesses; Partakes one holy food; And
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
t.o one hope she prosses, With every grace enducd.
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust!'
And the Star-spanglod Banner in triumph shall wave
"Yct she on earth hath union With God, the Three in One
O'cr the land of the free, and the home of the brave."
And mystic, sweet communion With those whose rest is W
Oh, happy ones and holy! Lord, give us grace that we,
ymn
"Battle Hymn of the Republic"
them, the meck and lowly, On high may dwell with Thee.
"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
elephone Broadcast
Dr. Carl McIntire,
Hc is trampling out the vintago where the grapos of wrath
are stored: He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His
Dr. Bob Jones, & Rep. Frank Becker
terrible swift sword, His truth is marching on.
anouncements & Offering
(Offertory: Robert Welch
REFRAIN: "Glory! Glory! Hallolujah! Glory! Glory! Hallclujah!
troduction of Speaker,
.C. H. Sonneveld
Glory! Glory! Hallolujah! His truth is marching on.
beaker
Congressman Gerald Ford
"In
mebcauty of the lilies Christ was born across the
Closing Comments & Prayer
Maurice Bauhahn
SO
lowi a glory in His bosom that transfiguros you and me:
r
the past and will in future
Suprement Court October 26², 1964
Mr. Chairman and Friends,
During the past year I received more mail on the issue of the use
of prayer and Bible reading in the public schools that on any other issue.
This 1s good because we are dealing here with an essential element in our
personal lives as well as in our social and political lives. Our religion
is a very personal matter because it involves primarily the relationship
of the individual to God.
Many of the Europeans who came to our shores at the very beginning
of our colonial and mational history came for regigious reasons. They came
because they wanted to worship God according to the dictates of their
conscience. They opposed the established church in the old country and
could not conscienticusly worship in the manner prescribed by the
government. So we find the Pilgrims coming to Plymouth and the Puritans
to Massachusetts Bay Colony.
But consistent with current thought these folks who came to find
religious freedom for themselves were reluctant to extend that privilege
to others. We find Roger Williams being driven out of the Colony in the
dead of winter, and we find him establishing a new colony in Rhode Island ERALS
BRARY
where there was freddom of religion for all folks. Likewise the Catholics
&
who settled the State of Maryland primarily for religious reasons soon
enacted a religious toleration law which would permit all Christians of
any denomination or belief to live peacefully in that colony.
So it is not strange that when the first 10 amendments to our
Constitution were adopted, our American Bill of Rights, that the First
Amendment had to do with the issue of registions freedom.
As you know the First Amendment states that "Congress shall
make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof."
Now the proposal which brought ell the letters to my office
during the past year and a half related to the Becker Amendment, because
it was proposed by Congressman Becker, which would add another amendment
to the Constitution clarifying the "entablishment" and "free exercise"
clauses of the First Amendment.
The proposed amendment contained in House Joint Resolution 693
has 3 pertinent sections. In order to know precisely what we are talking
aoubt let no read these 3 sections contained in the Becker Ameniment:
ANNUSI GERALD R-FORD
-3-
"SECTION 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to
prohibit the offering, reading from, or listening to prayers or biblical
scriptures, if participation therein is on a voluntary basis, in any
governmental 02" public school, institution, or place.
"SEC. 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohibit
making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or Invoking the aid of God or
a Supreme Being in any governmental 03" public document, proceeding, activity,
ceremony, school, institution, or place, or upon any coinage, currency, or
obligation of the United States.
"SHO. 3. Nothing in this article shall constitute an
establishment of religion."
Let me re-emphasize that any actionppermissible under this
amendment must be voluntary in nature. But it does give those who wish to
authority
carry on the activity to do so voluntarily without being in violation of the
United States Constitution.
Mr. Becker was joined by over a hundred other members of the
Congress in introducing various proposed amendments, but the one which
GERALD
I just read 10 the one which received most attention.
-4-
All of these anendments were referred to the House Committee on
the Judiciary which handles proposed constitutional emendments. For a long
time no action was taken by the Committee and there vas no indication that
the Committee would consider any of these emendments. It vas at that time
that & discharge petition vas presented to the House of Representatives.
Under discharge petition procedure & measure referred to a Committee can
be brought directly to the Hos se of Representatives if the Committee takes
no action on it and if & majority of the members of the House of
Representatives signed that petition. Consequently it would have taken
218 names to take the Becker Amendment from the Committee on the Judiciary
and have it considered directly by the House of Representatives.
Because the Committee had given no indication that its was going
to consider this very important issue and because of the fact that over
100 members of the House of Representatives had introduced resolutions
calling for a constitutional amendment, I thought that the matter ought
to be considered; if the Committee would not take action then the full
House of Representatives should have an opportunity to debate the issue
and vote on it. Consequently I signed the discharge petition.
GERALD R
-5-
However, in March of the year Chairman Emanuel Celler finally stated that
his committee would hold exhaustive hearings on the legislation. By that
time about 160 members of the House had signed the discharge petition-
not a sufficient number to take the matter from the Committee's jurisdiction.
The Committee opened its public hearings on April 22nd, 1964.
We must acknowledge that it carried on a thorough and complete investign-
tion. It heard all members of the Congress who wishes to testify and it
listened to testimony of church lenders-both clergymen and laymen; those
who represented denominations, organizations, individual churches, or those
who represented only themselves. Thehearing of the Committee fill three
volumes. You can see from the size of them that hundreds of thousands
of words in support of the amendment and in opposition to it were
presented to the Committee.
The last testimony was received on June 3 of this year. The
testimony was published in these volumes and made available to members
of the Committee, all members of the Congress, and to any interested
citizens. Copies of these hearings may be obtained by addressing a
dyvia GERALD
request to the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, in
Washington.
-6-
Since the publication of the hearings the Committee on the Judiciary
has taken no further action on the proposed amendment. Additional members
of the House of Representatives have not signed the discharge petition.
Consequently during the 88th Congress, which adjourned earlier this month.
took no action on the Becker Auendment. If the proposal is to be carried
forward in the 89th Congress the legislation will have to be reintroduced
in January.
Rep. Becker, who incidentally is & Catholic in religion and not
a candidate for re-election to Congrom this year, introduced his
amendment primarily because of the decision of the Supreme Court in &
New York case and in Permaylvania and Maryland cases.
In the New York case the State Board of Regents had prescribed
a prayer to be used at the beginning of each school day. The words
vere these: "Almighty God we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee,
and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country."
Now any of us here could pray that prayer. But the Court said "to encourage
recitation of the Regent's prayer, the State of New York had adopted a
GERALD
i
practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause." Inother words,
the Court said that the First Amendment stating there shall be no establish-
ment of religion vas violated here.
I an certain that any reasonable man would agree that there 18
great room for disagrement on this point. Did the authors of the First
Amendment and those who approved and ratified th believe in any way that
the recitation of B. prayer in school constituted an "establishment"of
religion."
In light of our historic heritage I persunally doubt that this
was the case. Yet, in that name opinion the Court quoted James Mgdison,
who had a great deal to do with writing the First Amendment, as saying,
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity,
in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any
particular sect of Christian, in exclusion of all other sects?"
While all of us can agree that the New York state prayer was
one we could pray, what would be our reaction if the state prayer had
ended "in the name of Allah" or some other designation? You see, the
Supreme Court was not considering this prayer in and of itself but the
GERALD R.
-8-
principle involved if the State could prescribe this pray er it can
prescribe any prayer.
Of course, the best answer to that argument is that this prayer
did not and in "in the name of Alah" or some other designation. Had
the prayer been such, nono of un would have disagreed with the Supreme
Court's decision. But in this case Justice Potter Stewart dieagreed
with his brethren and said that he could not see how the use of such a
prayer constituted the establishment of "an official religion in violation
of the Constitution. As you know, I find myself in agreement with
Justice Stewart in this instance.
You may be interested to know, however, that many conservative,
orthodox Cyristians agree with the Court's decision but for a different
reason. They feel that this prayer established by a state authority
intoo superficial and 1s in fact an insult to God when it in prayed by
everyone in the classroom, voluntarily of course, but in a manner which
makes it a form of activity rather than a true expression of love and
respect and adoration for God.
18988 GERALD
- 90
In the Maryland and Pennsylvania cases the Court had been asked
to decide whether the use of the Lord's Prayer and Bible reading in the
public schools was consistent with the "establishment" and "free excercise#
clauses of the First Amendment. As you know the Court overruled long-
established traditions practiced in our country by saying that these
exercises were unconstitutional. In doing so that Court quoted from one
of its previous decisions in which it said that the First Amendment
"requires the state to be a neutral in its relations
with groups of religious believers and non-believers;
10 does not require the state to be their adversary. State
power is no note to beused so as to handicap religions that
it 10 to favor them."
There had been no disagreement that the use of the Bible and
the Lord's Prayer in the school were exercises of a religious character.
Both sides had agreed to this point and consequently the Court said that
violated the Establishment clause. To those who contended that this was
a "relatively minor encroachment on the First Ameniment" the Court said,
n breach
FORD
the busidge of neutraldly that is today a trickling stream may all too BERALE soon
BRARY
become a raging torrent."
-10->
Anticipating the criticism that to rule out religion imthe
schools to to in fact establish a "religion of socularism" the Court said,
"wo agree feaurse that the State say not ectiblish a 'religion of socularism' in the
sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, time
'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."
The Court decision concluded by saying,
"The place of religion in our society is an exalted one,
achieved through a long traditiono@f reliance on the home,
the church and the inviolable citidel of the individual
heart and mind. We have como to recognize through better
experience that 1t 10 not within the power of government to
invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid
or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between
man and religion, the State 10 fimily committed to a position
of noutrality."
With all due respect to this learned opinion of the Court I
again find myself in closer agreement with Justice Potter Stewart who
also dissented in this decision.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-11-
Before considering Justice Stewart's discent, however, I voild
like to point out that Justices Goldberg and Harlan had some misgivings
about the neutrality rule of the Court. Writing in B. concurring opinion
Justice Arthur Coldberg stated,
"It is said, and I agree, that the attitude of the state toward
religion must be one of neutrallity. But untetered devotion to
the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of
results which partake not simply of that noninterference and
nonimolvenent with the religious which the Constitution
commands, but of a brooding endpervasive devotion to the
secular and a passive, our even active, hostility to the
religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the
Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it.
"Neither the state nor this Court cancer should ignore
the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people
believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political
and personal values derive historically from religio us teachings.
Government met inevitably take cognizance of the existence of
GERALD
-12-
religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment
may require that 1t do 00."
This statement of Justice Goldberg 1s significant and should be
carefully examined by those who BD forcefully endorse the majority opinion.
Justice Potter Stevart ray vary clearly, I believe, the implications of
the Court's decision. He was particularly concerned that in its emphasis
on the Establishment Clause that the Court overlooked the equally important
guarantee of the First Amendment, that of freedom of religion. Unfortunately
the decision of the Court leaves the impression,and it can be effectively
argued, that it 18 true that 8 small dinority of American citizens are
through the Court inflicting their viare upon the great majority. While
we recognise that minorities have privileges and rights in our country,
likewine themmajority has the name rights and privileges. If, therefore,
a siscable majority in a given community want a certain type of activity
carried out in the chhool, should a minority by able to veto those activities.
If this in to be a principle it can be carried forward and have
disactrous effects on our entire educational system. For instance, could
those who find it against their religions convictions to attend public GERA dances
xyvyni
-13-
stop moh dances in R public school because to keep their children home
orharrasses them? Justice Securt, therefore, concluded his dispenting
opinion by saying that he thought the various local boards of education
had sufficient wisdom and ability to handle the problem of prayer and
Bible reading in school on a local basis. This seems to ne to be good
constitutional law and good public practice. Let me quote the last
---
paragraph of Justice Secuart's dissenting opinion:
"What our Constitution indispensably protects is the freedom
of each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian 02 Atheist, Buddhist or
Freethinker, to believe or disbelieve, to worship or not worship, to pray
or keep silent, according to his own conscience, uncomrced and
unrestrained by government. It is conceivable that these
school boards, or evon all school boards, might eventually
find it impossible toadminister a eystem of religious exercises
during school hours in such a way as to met this constitutional
standard--in such a way as completely to free from any kind of
official coercion those who do not affirmatively want to
participate. But I think we must not assume that cohool. boards GREATO
LIBRARY
-14-
no lack the qualities of inventiveness and good will as to make
impossible the ach&evement of that goal."
Mr. Stewart also wrote that,
"In the absence of coercion upon those who do not wish to
participate--becaues they hold 1000 trong beliefs, other beliefs,
or no beliefs at all- such provisions cannot, in my vieR, be
held to represent the type of support of religion barred by the
Patablishment Clause.
There are those who aggue that if parents want their children
to be exposed to religious influence in school they can sent their children
to & perochial or private school. Justice Stemet also answered this point
by saying,
"the consideration which renders this contention too facile
to be determinative has already been recognized by the Court:
"Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freeden of religion
are available to all, not nerely to those who can pay their
am way."
GERALD
-25-
Justice Stewart also had an answer, and I think a basic one, for
those who say that the home and the church are the only places where any
religious activity or influence is felt. Justice Stewart said,
"For a compulsory state educational system so structures 8 child's
life that if religious exercises are held to be an impermissible
activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and
state-created disadvantage. Viewed in this light, permission
of such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the
schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And
a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the
realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment
of a religion of secularism, or at the as government
support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises
should be conducted only inpprivate."
This is the area which conserns me most deeply. If we are to rule
out of crus' schools the voluntary use of religious exercises through the
Supreme Court edict ve as a nati on stand to lose much that has made our
country the great force for good in the world that it now it, I feel
BEAMLO ALLD that R.° FORD
-16-
we have already gone too far in establishing a religion of secularism in
the United States. While nany may still profess a belief in God they act
as if He did not exist. We need to use all the forees at or command in
the family, school, the church and our society to strengthen retur than
weaken our spiritual and noral heritage.
We who are concerned there a right to ank why the Congress refused
to take action on Mr. Becker's Amondment. I think these 3 volumes
(hold up hearings copies) give us the answer. While many members of the
Congreen and many individuals testified in support of the amendment, you
will be anazed to find that outstanding clarch leaders and great religious
denominations and organizations обровед the Becker Amendment. I think
we onn safely say that the Committee took no attion not because atheists
and agnostics objected to the Becker Amondment but because the church
leaders of our country objected.
We all know the devotion of the Baptiets to orthodox
Christienity. Tot both the American (or "orthern) Baptist Convention
and the Southern Baptist Convention declared their opposition to the
Booker Ameniment. The National Council of Churches mãsoin opposition
GERALD LIBRARY
-17-
as was the Commoil for Christian Social Action of the United Church of
Christ. The preddent of the American Authoran Church testified in
opposition to the Becker Amondment and stated that the handbooks of the
church counsels our members not to "prectice the forms of religion without
conferming th as matter of principle the Triume God ene Joms Christ as the
Son of God come in the flosh and our Sevior from sin." Theprosident of
the American 4,thman Church continued and said, "It follows that religion
in general would be no more acceptable just because it might happen to be
found in the public school."
It vas this kind of tectimony by many orthodox, conservative,
Bible-beadizing londern which turned the tide against the Becker Amendment.
Many conscientions Christians believe that these church londers did not
represent the views of the mark and file church members. Yet they spoke
from their position of responsibility and in many instances as B recilt
of official action taken by official boards or conventions of the various
churches.
Ittenut that this mumbery of the matter including the problems
ERALD
LIBRARY
involved helps us to understand that we are not dealing here with a simple
-10-
matter of black and white, right or wrong. Reasonable men, devoutly
religious men, can and do disagree with the Superane Court's decisions
and with the proposed enendment to overrule that decision. Personally,
as I have said, I believe that the views of Justice Potter Securt are
& better interpretation of the First Amendment and a more appropriate
statement of public Policy. But if we are to have S constitutional
amendment, whichide 8 legal netter, ve must obtain greater public support
not only from individuals but from the organized church groups including
those who believe firmly in the Bible as the revealed will of God.
Until we have this support to a much greater extent than was exhibited
in the past year, it in quite apparent that the decision of the Supreme
Court will stand.
& LIBRARY QERALD