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
185805015
label
Prayer in Schools (6 of 11)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
185805015
contentType
document
title
Prayer in Schools (6 of 11)
citationUrl
collections
Records of the White House Office of Public Liaison (Reagan Administration)
Morton Blackwell's Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
185805015
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9407f0404cd8be57
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Blackwell, Morton: Files
Folder Title: Prayer in Schools (6 of 11)
Box: 19
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
Md. Interfaith Com. for School Prayer
Perblished in
4601 North Park Ave.
Chevy Chase, Md. 20815
the Washington Times Dac,13,82
986-0115 (301)
Court stripping or Constitution stripping ?
by HERMINE HERTA MEYER, Attorney-at-Law.
Toward the end of the 97th Congress, the Nation was treated
to a spectacle in the U.S.Senate, where Senators, who call them-
selves "liberal" (I call them pseudo-liberal), filibustered to
death a bill which had been drafted in the hope that it might give
the people in the States, who wished to have their children say a
little prayer in their public schools, some protection from inter-
ference by the federal courts.
The bill provided that the Supreme Court shall not have
appellate jurisdiction, and the district courts shall not have juris-
diction, in State cases relating to voluntary prayers in public
schools and public buildings, and it contained a definition that
"voluntary prayer" shall not include any prayer composed by a
State official.
The bill was obviously a political concession for the purpose
of facilitating its passage. It would have permitted the federal
courts an excuse for taking jurisdiction whenever a plaintiff
alleged that a school prayer was not voluntary, usually because of
"peer pressure", meaning that plaintiff's children did not want to
be separated from their class mates. The school prayers which the
Supreme Court had declared "unconstitutional" had all been voluntary
prayers.
Nevertheless, the filibustering Senators said they objected to
"stripping" the federal courts of their jurisdiction over "consti-
tutional" issues. But what these Senators were really doing, was
supporting the Supreme Court's stripping the Constitution of its
mostvimportant features of self-government, namely of the power
of the people to make their own laws.
2.
Even if the bill had not contained the word "voluntary" and
the definition, but had simply prohibited the federal courts from
taking jurisdiction over cases relating to prayers in State public
schools, it would have "strippend" the federal courts of nothing to
which the U.S.Constitution has entitled them. It would merely have
prevented them from taking jurisdiction over cases over which the
U.S.Constitution has not granted any federal judicial power. No con-
stitutional issue was involved, because the power to legislate re-
specting religion has been retained by the States. That means that
it did not become part of the Constitution.
As a special protection of these powers retained by the States,
the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution which declares:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States re-
spectively, or to the people," meaning, of course, to the people of
the several States. A power retained by the States can legally be
made a part of the U.S.Constitution, and thereby subject to federal
control, only by a constitutional amendment in accordance with
Art.V of the Constitution, that is with the consent of two-thirds
of Congress and of the legislatures or conventions of three-fourths
of the States.
Therefore, when the Supreme Court decided to take jurisdiction
over religion in order to force its ideas of separation of State
and church on the entire Nation, it could not legally change the
Constitution. But armed with contempt of court powers and helped
by federal marshals and an inactive Congress, the Supreme Court
could prevent the people in the States from making their own laws
respecting religion and strip them of the protection of the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution.
3.
The school prayer situation offers a good example how the Sup-
reme Court managed to do this in the guise of "constitutional inter-
pretation."
In 1962 and 1963 the Supreme Court decreed for the first time
that prayers and bible reading in State public schools violated the
"establishment clause" of the First Amendment's religion clause,
and that it had been made applicable to the States by the due pro-
cess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
First: the Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment's
religion clause required a complete separation of State and church,
although there is no such requirement.
That clause reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
We know from the debates of the First Congress, which drafted
the first ten amendments, that the religion clause had been re-
quested by several State conventions because they feared that the
new Congress might misuse a provision of the new Constitution to
a
establish/nationwide church or,religion to which everyone would be
compelled to conform. "Establishment of religion" was the expression
of the time for an official church. The States wanted to make sure
that they would remain free from federal interference in matters
of religion. The religion clause was intended to be a special re-
striction on the federal government only, not to apply to the States.
Second: There were six attempts in Congress to initiate a con-
stitutional amendment to make the First Amendment's religion clause
applicable to the States. They all failed. But the Supreme Court,
obviously determined to force the First Amendment on the States,
decreed that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
had made it applicable to the States.
4.
That clause provides that no State shall deprive any person of
life (sentence him to death), or of his liberty (sentence him to ime
prisonment), or of his property (sentence him to forfeiture of pro-
perty) without due process of law, that is without first having
given him access to a proof procedure, today called trial, where he
could
/defend himself against the charges. It cannot possibly have
made the provisions of the First Amendment applicable to the States,
and for almostt 100 years the Supreme Court so held. These decisions
are absolutely incompatible with the decisions of the Supreme Court
that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause did make the
First Amendment applicable to the States, and in Ferguson V. Skrupa
the Supreme Court itself has practically admitted that in such
cases it did not really interpret the due process clause but used
it as a constitutional cover-up, so to speak, to transfer a power
retained by the States into the Fourteenth Amendment whenever the
Court disagreed with a state law and decided to replace it with
its own beliefs. In this way, the Supreme Court fabricated a con-
stitutional issue to serve the Court as a justification for taking
jurisdiction and strip the people in the States of their protection
of the Tenth Amendment.
It soon became apparent that the Supreme Court's Constitution
stripping did not reach only into school prayers, but into the
Judeo-Christian foundation of the Constitution. This was pointed
out by District Judge : Hand in the Alabama school prayer case. He
said:
"The background of this country and its laws is one based
upon the Judeo-Christian ethic. It is apparant from a
reading of the decisions that the courts acknowledge that
Christianity is the religion to be proscribed. The re-
ligions of atheism, materialism, agnosticism, communism and
5.
socialism have escaped the scrutiny of the courts throughout
the years. =
They can be freely taught in American public schools.
The forces which have attacked the school prayers were in
reality attacking the foundation of American culture, and the highest
court of the land was helping them.
This became painfully clear when, in 1981, the Supreme Court,
without briefs on the merits and without oral arguments, declared
unconstitutional a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy
of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on
the wall of each public class room in the State. The statute had
stressed the secular application of the Ten Commandments in its
adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western civilization. But
the Supreme Court found that the Ten Commandments were religious
in nature and that their posted copies will have the effect "to
induce the school children to read, meditate upon, perhaps venerate
and obey, the Commandments."
It is a historical fact that after the suppression of prayers
in public schools practically all values disappeared from them;
schoolect discipline deteriorated, often to a point that teaching
became impossible; vandalism and violence developped as well as the
use of drugs and sexual promiscuity among teen agers with preg-
nancies as young as twelve years old.
Why should anybody be surprised that many people attribute this
to the disappearance of prayers in the public schools? These people
cannot believe that a Constitution under whose protection school
children had prayed in their class rooms for 174 years could sud-
denly have made this practice unconstitutional, and they have begun
6.
to ask: "Why can these judges make the laws for us? We have not
elected them."
The people complained to Congress because they had learned
that the Constitution had given Congress the authority to protect
them from the usurpations of the federal courts by using its power
over their jurisdiction. It was in response to such complaints that
bills were introduced in the 97th Congress to protect school
prayers from interference of the federal courts.
There is no controversy that Congress has complete control
of the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, because the Con-
stitution has given Congress full discretion to create and abolish
them.
The Supreme Court, however, has been created by Art.III of
the Constitution which also has prescribed in what cases the Sup-
reme Court shall have original jurisdiction. The same article pro-
vides that in all other cases to which federal power extends, the
Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction "with such Excep-
tions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
The opponents to the proposed legislation seized on the word
"exceptions" in order to "prove" that the Constitution did not in-
tend to give Congress full power over the appellate jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court.
We have the best possible evidence that this was indeed the
intent of the framers, namely by one of the framers himself,
Oliver Ellsworth, who, as Chief Justice of the United States, said
in the first Supreme Court case in which the power of Congress over
the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction was in issue, namely in
Wiscart V. Dauchy:
7.
"Here then, is the ground, and the only ground on
which we can sustain an appeal. If Congress has
provided no rule to regulate our proceedings, we
cannot exercise an appellate jurisdiction; and if
the rule is provided, we cannot depart from it."
This is the rule which prevails in all democracies operating under
the separation of powers principle: the jurisdiction of the courts
is determined by legislation, and legislation belongs to the
legislative department.
The power of Congress over the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court is the most. important check which the Constitution
has provided for the control of the usurpations of the Supreme
Court. Alexander Hamilton, also one of the framers of the Consti-
tution, mentioned it three times in Nos.80 and 81 of the Federalist
Papers. When fears were expressed that "the errors and usurpations
of the Supreme Court will be uncontrollable and remediless," Hamil-
ton tried to assuage those fears by pointing out that the Supreme
Court would have original jurisdiction only in classes of cases
rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance Congress
had ample authority to userits power over the Supreme Court's
appellate jurisdiction to obviate or remove any "partial incon-
veniences" which may occur.
What has been caused by the Supreme Court's usurpations and
congressional inaction, are not just "inconveniences," but a
gradual replacement of a Constitution based on the democratic prin-
ciples of sovereignty and self-government of the people by an un-
democratic, unconstitutional government of unelected life-tenured
judges who, in the guise of "constitutional interpretation," have
arrogated to themselves the power to dictate to the people what
laws they may or may not have. The Constitution has given Congress
8.
Congrass the power to check this anti-constitutional development.
Every member of Congress is solemny committed by oath taken pur-
suant to Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution, "to support this
Constitution," that is the Constitution as written and intended by
the framers and as legally amended. This imposes EN a duty on
Congress to re-establish constitutional conditions which the Supreme
Court has disturbed
It is ardently to be desired that the 98th Congress will in-
troduce and pass a simple bill to prevent the U.S.district courts
from taking jurisdiction, and the U.S. Supreme Court from taking
appellate jurisdiction, in State cases relating to school prayers
in order to free the people in the States from the Constitution
stripping by the Supreme Court, so that the people will again be
able to make their own laws in matters of school prayers. One such
law might go far in encouraging the people in the States to again
exercise their retained rights to legislate with respect to schools,
family and religion, and might even discourage the federal courts
from further Constitution stripping.
Hermine Herta Meyer
Attorney at Law
4701 Willard Ave.
Chevy Chase, Md. 20815
Tel. (301) 654-1438
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 27, 1982
Mr. William J. Murray
Faith Foundation, Inc.
17625 El Camino Real, Suite 405
Houston, Texas 77058
Dear Mr. Murray:
You are correct that the 1963 Murray vs. Curlett ruling
was one of the major blows which the Supreme Court dealt
to the concept of prayer in schools.
The President's proposed Voluntary School Prayer Amend-
ment would once more make it legal for public school
jurisdictions to permit students to organize themselves
for voluntary prayer in schools.
The aim of the amendment is to restore the status quo
before the 1962 and 1963 decisions. Thus jurisdictions
would be permitted great freedom to set their own
standards regarding prayer in schools. Some might
opt for a period of silent prayer; others might prefer
consciously non-denominational prayers; others may wish
to allow students of different faiths to lead prayers
for those willing to participate, and so on.
It was a great pleasure to meet you both on the
occasion of your visit with Cecil Todd and later at
the Rose Garden on the National Day of Prayer. I
greatly appreciate your support of voluntary school
prayer and know that your intention to play an active
role in the consideration of the amendment will
produce noteworthy results.
Cordially,
Morton C. Bleshell
Morton C. Blackwell
Special Assistant to the President
for Public Liaison
William J. Murray
Faith Foundation, Inc.
MFF
17625 El Camino Real, Suite 405
Houston, Texas 77058 (713) 480-2519
May 7, 1982
Mr. Morton Blackwell
Assistant to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Blackwell:
It may well take me years to repair the damage done
to my image and that of this organization at the hands
of the Administration yesterday.
Perhaps the most creditable tool to restore prayers
to the schools was that the individual responsible for
their removal wanted them back in. Both voluntary
prayers and Bible use in the schools was found
unconstitutional June 17, 1963 by the Supreme Court
in ruling on Murray vs. Curlett and Abington School
District vs. Schempp. Both simultaneously.
In the Engel vs. Vitale decision, a state authored
mandatory prayer, cited by the Administration, was at
issue. In that case only the mandatory use of a state
authored prayers was found un-constitutional.
Somehow, I believe that the size and scope of what this
organization is involved in has been grossly underestimated
by the establishment. The 1982 budget of the William
J. Murray Faith Foundation, Inc. surpasses that of the
Religious Roundtable and is second only to the Moral
Majority for its type of organization. We now use a
computer with a 128 megabyte storage to contain our
mailing list and financial records.
So far this calendar year I have spoken to 65 gatherings
with a total attendance of 82,200 in support of a return
of prayers in our schools.
Page 2 BLACKWELL
Morton, I point this out as a means of showing you the
damage done by citing the wrong case. The Administration
has destroyed my credibility on a national basis.
Sincerely,
William
President
FAITH FOUNDATION, INC.
WJM:cc
Enclosure
P. S. As to the President's comment that those persons
behind the school ban had good intentions, please see
the enclosed.
Phone (713) 480-2519
Ex-atheist
describes
Housing help
sparks political
UPD
William J. Murray
conversion
President
squabbles
Community, Page A3
Nation, Page A2
5
MFF
William J. Murray, Faith Foundation, Inc.
17625 EI Camine Beal. Suite $05. Houston, TX 77058
THE
EVENING
Herald Review
COPYRIGHT 1982
DECATUR HERALD . REVIEW
CENTRAL ILLINOIS, THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1982
25 CENTS
Photos by Doug Gaumon
William Murray told s packed house at # Clinton church Wednesday of his part in the lawsuit that eventually brought a Supreme Court decision banning school prayer.
'Born-again' Murray hopes to undo prayer ban
By NORM LEWIS
a new life.
Herald Review Bureau Chief
like what she believed Americans to be.
During those years, he said he learned
my responsibility.'
CLINTON - William Murray never
They stopped in Paris and she presen-
"Mom always said that America was a
new lessons, "that you could vote for a
At 2 a.m. in his hotel room, the answer
really wanted to go to school anyway. He
ted immigration papers to the Soviet Em.
slave labor camp operated By a handful of
man and he could win. My mom had never
came.
tended to get into fights, and his grades
bassy for citizenship into the Soviet Union.
Jews in New York. If we can leave this
voted for a man who d won before. or
"I awoke with a sudden awareness of
weren't the best.
She could hold jobs for only a few months
country, we'll have to change it, she
course, she always went in there and
where the truth was. I knew it was in a
So when his mother pulled him from
before she would get fired "because of her
said.
wrote in her own name."
book I had never had in my home.'
the Woodburne Junior High School in Bal-
superior intellect," as Murray recalled her
It was then that young Murray became
Meanwhile, his mother's atheist organi-
He went to the wharf to in all-night de-
timore, Md., he didn't mind the two-week
saying.
the focal point of a national debate that
zation was in trouble and he agreed to her
partment store and found a Bible. He al-
She had been active in Socialist and
vacation. Besides, he preferred not to say
still rages. He described how he and tel-
plea to come to Austin, Texas, to help.
most wrecked his car reading Luke and
prayers in school.
Communist parties in the United States
evision evangelist Cecil Todd, who ap-
He took a shabby office with a "secre-
the description of Jesus' life.
Now, William Murray says be prays
but was thwarted in her attempts to gain
peared with him Wednesday night, depos-
tary who couldn't type, and in 18 months
By the time I got to the hotel, 1 had
daily that his mother, Madalyn Murray
leadership she craved for, Murray said.
ited the signatures of I million people who
put the organization in a $500,000 office
found the truth. that Jesus Christ can set
O'Hair, will find salvation in God.
That made Russia look attractive,
want school prayers reinstated at the
building with 12 full-time workers, a video
men free that he came to Earth and
Murray packed the Clinton Assembly of
But the Murrays were denied entry into
White House during a rally over Easter
studio and a printing press.
died on a cross so the sins of Bill Murray
God church Wednesday night to tell 600
the country. After a delay of several days,
weekend.
A heavy user by then of tranquilizers
could be washed away.
people the story of his life. He will speak
an embassy official explained that in a
In 1960, the opposition to Mrs. Murray's
and alcohol, Murray said he "came to love
He fell to his knees and repented, Mur-
at p.m. today in Decatur's Maranatha
work-or-starve atmosphere, Mrs. Murray's
efforts were just as strong. But what sur-
my country" and realized that "no matter
ray recalled. and was cured of nix three-
Assembly of God, 945 S. Jasper St.
record indicated she would have a hard,
prised them, Murray said, was the number
what I did for my family it destroyed the
pack-a-day smoking habit and of his desire
It was Murray, then 14. who was the
time keeping a Job.
"My mom was heartbroken and so was
of people who sent letters of support with
country.
to drink.
plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Balti-
donations of $5,000 or more.
It was while he was in San Francisco,
he said. "I was looking forward to
"The miracle that change lives is avail-
more school board that led to the 1963 U.S.
being a commissar.
"Mom looked at all these letters," rec-
working again for an airline, that his per-
able tonight, he added.
Supreme Court decision banning compul-
Murray though, believes that the ap-
ailing her inability to get leadership roles
sonal problems prompted him to search
sorv prayer in public schools.
plication went to Nikita Khrushchey's
in local Socialist and Communist organiza-
for answers, Murray said. knew now
Murray said after his speech that since
The suit was brought by his mother,
tions. 'And now the people have come to
there was a God but did not know his na-
his conversion he unnounced two years
desk. He probably said, We need these
ago, he has spoken across the country in
whom he portrayed Wednesday night as a
me, she declared.
ture."
people (In the United States). Send them
churches and football field meetings.
frustrated social revolutionary who hap-
back.
He studied Buddhism and other Eastern
He has formed the William J. Murray
pened upon the school prayer issue as an
Together they opened the first official
religions. "I even went to a Unitarian
Faith Foundation, and during the last year
avenue for her energies.
When they returned to Baltimore, he
Communist Party of America bookstore
Church and shared my problems with him.
has taken to the road full-time to tell his
Wearing a light three-piece suit and
had already missed five weeks of school.
outside of New York. Murray became in-
but the minister told me not worry about
story, sometimes with Cecil Todd A book.
spit-shined boots characteristic of Hous-
Mrs. Murray took him to be registered,
volved in Students for a Democratic So-
it. There probably wasn't a God anyway,
"My Life Without God," is scheduled to be
ton, where he now makes his home, Mor-,
and he recalled walking down the hallway
ciety and the Young Communists League
he told me."
released in June.
ray described his family's life in 1960
at 7:50 a.m. seeing some classes praying
while his mother chaired the Free Play
"I'll never forget getting off the plane
He said he has not returned to the
shortly before they gained national atten-
and others reading from the Old Testa-
for Cuba Committee.
in San Francisco and hearing that the City
origins of his story. where his former jun-
tion.
ment.
Murray married when he was 17, but
Council had just voted to require that 10
lor high school is now something like a vo-
In September, his mother, who was
"My mother turned purple," he said.
the relationship didn't last long: Soon he
percent of the recruits for the police force
cational school. Now, he said, he Is work-
divorced, gathered William Jr. and his
She told the school counselor they eb-
was involved in the airline industry and
be homosexuals.
ing and praying that prayers can again be
brother, Garth, on a ship from New York
jected to saying prayers in school and
became a manager for Braniff and other
"And then I said to myself, 'What have
said in those schools.
to France "to what Mom thought would be
wanted her children to be freethinkers, un-
airlines.
we done in the name of freedom? It was
And his mother won't speak to him.
ATES POSTA
<WM J*MURRAY FAITH FOUNDATION INC
®
17625 EL CAMINO REAL SUITE 405
western union
Mailgram
UNITED S>
SERVICE ®
HOUSTON TX 77058
U.S.MAIL
1-0670448126 05/06/82 ICS IPMBNGZ CSP WHSA
7139961981 MGM TDBN HOUSTON TX 146 05-06 1124P EST
MR M BLACKWELL, ASST TO THE PRESIDENT
you correct? are
WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON DC 20500
DEAR MR BLACKWELLI
IT WAS A PLEASURE MEETING WITH YOU AGAIN TODAY.
I REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CITED THE WRONG
SUPREME CT DECISION WITH REGARD TO SCHOOL PRAYER.
THE 1962 NY CASE INVOLVED A STATE AUTHORED MANDATORY PRAYER. AS A
RESULT NON-STATE AUTHORED PRAYERS AND BIBLE READING CONTINUED UNTIL
1963,
ON JUNE 17, 1963 THE CT IN MURRAY VS CURLETT RULED VOLUNTARY PRAYER
AND BIBLE READING ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULTING IN THE NATIONWIDE
BAN ON PRAYER IN SCHOOLS.
I AM AWARE OF HOW MUCH THE MEDIA AND TO A DEGREE THE ADMINISTRATION
WOULD PREFER TO WRITE ME OUT OF HISTORY AND THEREFORE OUT OF PUBLIC
VIEW.
WHAT I CANNOT FIGURE OUT IS THE REASON WHY I WAS INVITED TO THE WHITE
HOUSE TODAY. GOD BLESS OUR PRESIDENT.
SINCERELY,
WM J MURRAY
23:33 EST
MGMCOMP
(0//19) 1470
TO DEDIV DV MAILGRAM SEE REVERSE SINE EDEC
School
dictathone
Prayer
64
TO:
Morton C. Blackwell
FROM: Professor Grover Rees, University of Texas Law School
SUBJECT: Changes in Prayer Amendment Proposed by Christian Voice
1. "Non-sectarian"
This keeps the federal courts in the business of judging which
prayers are permissible and which are not. Ultimately,
somebody has got to chose any prayers that will be set in
schools. The decision can be left to state and local govern-
ments, as it was for roughly 175 years after the adoption
of the Constitution and prior to the Supreme Court's decision
abolishing school prayer; or it can be given to the federal
courts. I agree truly seçtarian prayers should not be said
in public schools, and I will so advise my school board if
the amendment passes. If the power is given to the federal
courts instead, they will find traces of "sectarian" influence
in every prayer.
2. "Nor shall the Executive or Legislative branch of any
state have the authority to draft or influence the
content of prayer in public schools."
There are three problems with this proposal.
First, it would give the federal courts the power to decide
whether the state legislature or the executive had somehow
"influence" decisions by local governmental bodies. Since
local govenment has always been regarded as a mere creature
of the state whose actions are state actions, the tendency to
find such influence would probably be quite strong.
Second, the proposal does not really answer the objection it
is designed to answer. As I understand the objection to
"governments writing prayer, " it goes not to the level of
government, but to the prospect of any government involvement
in the drafting ( and, in some versions of the complaint,
even in the selection) of prayers. Frankly, I don't think
that the people who make this argument understand the nature
of the problem. If government does not select prayers, the
only alternative is to allow all individual students the
power to select whatever prayers they like. This effectively
makes group prayer unconstitutional, and would also require
"equal time" in the public schools for anyone who wishes
to inflict on his classmates a prayer to Reason, to Haile
Selassie, or to Satan. Whoever drafted this proposal obviously
understands this problem, but he has not dealt with it.
The proposal not only allows local governments to select
prayers; it also contemplates that they will write them.
Incidentally, the only thing that makes it at all likely that
a government body would want to commission a new prayer is the
desire for "non-sectarianism."
Finally, the sentence would probably harm the chances of the
amendment by giving opponents something new to make fun of.
It would be an unprecedented establishment of "local government
sovereignty" in the constitution. Opponents of school prayer
would argue that this contravenes the principle of federalism,
under which state governments can decide how to allocate
authority among political subdivisions and other state agencies.
Those of us who worked on the drafting of the Reagan language
were aware of the political problems that might result from
the omission of the word "non-sectarian" and also from the
objection that government at some level might be involveđ in
the drafting of prayers. I emphasize that these two obejctions
are contradictory. The only existing "non-sectarian" prayer
I know is "Now I lay me down to sleep, " and I am not sure
Justice Brennan couldn't find some impermissible Judeo-Christian
dogmatism lurking even there. The best of a number of
politically unattractive solutions is to emphasize that the
Reagan amendment is that someone might have to listen to a
prayer with which he disagrees. Nobody can be forced to
participate.
3. The last sentence.
I have no objection to this, although I think its result is
already implicit in the Reagan amendment. If school prayer
could no longer be regarded as an establishment of religion,
then school boards would not have "compelling interest"
necessary to justify an abridgement of free exercise, or a
content-based discrimination against some kinds of speech.
THE WHITE HOUSE
MAIL NGTO:
September 17, 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR ELIZABETH H. DOLE
THRU:
DIANA LOZANO
FROM:
MORTON C. BLACKWELL
2113
SUBJECT:
Draft Presidential Radio Speech on Prayer
This is a fine statement except for the second full para-
graph on page 3. Here there are two problems.
The second sentence should be changed to read: "In one case
a court ruled against the right of children to say grace in
their own school cafeteria before they ate." This is a
better statement of the facts. In this case the principal
had ruled against the right of children to say grace.
Parents contested the principal's decision. The court
refused to uphold the children's right to voluntary prayer.
The last sentence of this same parragraph should be changed
to read: "Some people are now in federal court objecting to
prayers being said in the Congress." It is stronger to
point out that there is a pending court case. As a matter
of fact, it is a Madelyn Murray O'Hair court case, and she
won an initial round and was given by the courts standing to
sue against prayer in the House of Representatives.
This statement will have a good political impact.
EHD
Red
Document No.
Morton
B
1002
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
10:00 a.m. Friday
DATE: Sept. 16, 1982 ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY September 17, 1982
SUBJECT: Draft Presidential Radio Speech on Prayer
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
FULLER
MEESE
GERGEN
BAKER
HARPER
DEAVER
JENKINS
STOCKMAN
MURPHY
CLARK
ROLLINS
DARMAN
P
ISS
WILLIAMSON
DOLE
VON DAMM
DUBERSTEIN
BRADY/SPEAKES
FELDSTEIN
ROGERS
FIELDING
Bakshian
Remarks:
Please forward your comments directly to Aram Bakshian, with
a copy to my office, by 10:00 tomorrow morning.
Thank you.
Richard G. Darman
Assistant to the President
(x2702)
Response:
(Bakshian)
September 16, 1982
5:40 p.m.
PRESIDENTIAL RADIO SPEECH ON PRAYER
SEPTEMBER 18, 1982
My fellow Americans:
Today is a special day for our citizens of Jewish faith. It
is Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, marking the beginning of
the year 5743 on the Hebrew Calendar. So, to all of our friends
and neighbors observing this holiday -- and speaking for all
Americans -- I want to wish a happy, peaceful and prosperous New
Year.
Rosh Hashanah also reminds us of the rich and varied
religious heritage we Americans are blessed with. More than any
other nation, ours draws inspiration from the creeds of many
peoples from many parts of the world. They came to our shores
from different ports of origin at different times in our history,
but all of them -- from the men and women who celebrated the
first Thanksgiving more than 3½ centuries ago to the boat people
of Southeast Asia -- came here with prayers on their lips and
faith in their hearts. It is because of this shared faith that
we have become, in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, "one
nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all."
At every crucial turning point in our history, Americans
have faced and overcome great odds, strengthened by spiritual
faith. The Plymouth settlers triumphed over hunger, disease and
a cruel northern wilderness because, in the words of William
Bradford, "They knew they were pilgrims
so they committed
themselves to the will of God and resolved to proceed."
Page 2
George Washington knelt in prayer at Valley Forge and, in
the darkest days of our struggle for independence, wrote that,
"The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the
courage and conduct of this army. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the
wisest of our Founding Fathers, had no doubt about the source
from which our cause was derived. "The God who gave us life," he
declared, "gave us liberty."
And nearly a century later, in the midst of a tragic and at
times seemingly hopeless Civil War, Abraham Lincoln vowed that,
"This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."
They say that prayer can move mountains. It has certainly
moved the hearts and minds of Americans in their times of trial,
and helped them to achieve a society that, for all its
imperfections, is still the envy of the world and the last, best
hope of mankind.
And just as prayer has helped us as a nation, it helps us as
individuals. In nearly all our lives, there are moments when our
prayers, and the prayers of our friends and loved ones, help to
see us through and keep us on the right path. In fact, prayer is
one of the few things in this world that hurt no one and sustain
the spirits of millions.
I have always believed that this blessed land of ours was
set apart in a special way -- that some divine plan placed this
great continent here between the oceáns to be found by people
from every corner of the earth who had a special love for freedom
and the courage to uproot themselves, leave homeland and friends
to come to a strange land and create something that is new in all
Page 3
the history of mankind -- a land where man is not beholden to
government, government is beholden to man. A land where people
are free to worship as they choose, seek the truth and live in
peace with their neighbors and their God.
The Founding Fathers felt this so strongly that they
enshrined the principle of freedom of religion in the First
Amendment of the Constitution. The purpose of that amendment was
to protect religion from the interference of government, and to
guarantee, in its own words, "the free exercise" of religion.
Yet today we are told that to protect the First Amendment,
we must suppress prayer and expel God from our children's
classrooms. In one case, a court ruled 1 that children cannot even
say grace in their own school cafeteria before they eat. A group
of children who sought, on their own initiative and with their
parents' approval, to begin the school day with a 1-minute prayer
meditation have been forbidden to do SO. And some students who
wanted to join in prayer or religious study on school property
even outside of regular class hours have been banned from doing
SO. A few people, have even objected to prayers being said in the
Congress.
That is just plain wrong. The Constitution was never meant
to prevent people from praying. Its declared purpose was to
protect: their freedom to pray.
The time has come for this Congress to give a majority of
American families what they want for their children, a
constitutional amendment that will make it unequivocally clear
that children can hold voluntary prayers in their schools, just
Roge 4
as the Congress itself begins each of its daily sessions with an
opening prayer. With this in mind, last May I proposed to the
Congress a constitutional amendment that declares, for once and
all, that nothing in the Constitution prohibits prayer in public
schools or institutions. It also states that no person shall be
required by government to participate in prayer who does not want
to. So everyone's rights -- believers and non-believers alike --
are protected by our voluntary prayer amendment.
I'm sorry to say that, SO far, the Congress has failed to
vote on it.
Today, on one of the holiest days of one of our great
religious faiths, I urge the Members of the Congress to set aside
their differences and act on this simple, fair and long-overdue
measure to help make us "one nation, under God," again.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM
9/22/82
TO:
ELIZABETH DOLE
****
FROM: WILLIAM KH SADLEIR
SUBJ: APPROVED PRESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY
PLEASE IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING AND NOTIFY AND CLEAR ALL
PARTICIPANTS. THE BRIEFING PAPER AND REMARKS SHOULD BE
SUBMITTED TO RICHARD DARMAN BY 3 P.M. OF THE PRECEDING DAY.
NOTE: AS PROJECT OFFICER FOR THIS ACTIVITY, YOU ARE
RESPONSIBLE TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE, CONFIRMED LIST
OF STAFF AND ATTENDEES, IDENTIFIED BY TITLE, TO
THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS AND
SCHEDULING WITHIN 5 DAYS AFTER THE EVENT.
SCHOOL
MEETING:
Candlelight Ceremony for National Prayer Day
DATE:
September 25, 1982
TIME:
12:30 pm
DURATION:
15 minutes
LOCATION:
State Dining Room
REMARKS REQUIRED: Yes
MEDIA COVERAGE:
Coordinate with Press Office
FIRST LADY
PARTICIPATION:
Yes
**** Coordinate with James Rosebush
CC: A. Bakshian
E. Rollins
M. Brandon
C. Romero
R. Darman
J. Rosebush
R. DeProspero
B. Shaddix
K. Duberstein
W. Sittmann
D. Fischer
L. Speakes
C. Fuller
WHCA Audio/Visual
R. Gubitosi
WHCA Operations
W. Henkel
R. Williamson
E. Hickey
A. Wrobleski
M. McManus
This letter was also sent to:
Charles McC. Mathias
Orrin G. Hatch
Robert Dole
Alan K. Simpson
LAXALT
SEX
John East
ROBERT
ALAN
Charles E. Grassley
Jeremiah Denton
Arlen Specter
Joseph R. Biden
August 2, 1982
Edward M. Kennedy
Robert C. Byrd
H.W. Metzenbaum
The Hon. Paul Laxalt
Dennis DeConcini
United States Senate
Patrick J. Leahy
Max Baucus
Washington, D.C. 20510
Howell Heflin w/coer
Dear Senator Laxalt:
of testimony
We would like to bring to your attention a development with respect to the
President's Voluntary School Prayer Amendment which you, as a member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, may find significant.
Proponents of the proposed amendment were asked at the July 29 hearing if they
objected to state-composed prayer, which would be permitted under the President's
proposal. Only Gary Jarmin of Christian Voice expressed no objection. Ed McAteer of
the Religious Roundtable, Rabbi Seymour Siegel of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, John Murphy of the Knights of Columbus, and Robert P. Dugan, Jr. of the
National Association of Evangelicals were all opposed to any such state-mandated
prayer. Moreover, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Strom Thurmond, in his
opening statement, seemed to take a similar position in stating that the prayer per-
mitted under the proposed amendment "could be accomplished without the involvement
of the faculty, [or] school administrators, ****
Under these circumstances, we urge your consideration of the change we sug-
gested in the language of the proposed amendment. as presently drafted (page 4 of our
testimony, copy attached). Our suggested change would prohibit the states from influ-
encing the form or content of any prayer or other religious activity. A second change
we suggest would expand the amendment to encompass "other religious activity," a
change sorely needed if meaningful religious expression is to be permitted in the public
schools. Qur testimony discusses the reasons underpinning these. suggested changes.
We think it noteworthy that of all the witnesses testifying in opposition to the
proposed amendment, only Senator Hatfield acknowledged the deplorable situation re-
sulting from the Brandon and Lubbock cases. We welcome the remarks of Senator
Hatfield in calling for legislative relief to redress court decisions which unduly restrict
rights of free speech and free exercise of religion.
Don't hesitate to call us If you or your staff have any questions about our pro-
posal. We are ready to help.
Sincerely,
Forest D. Montgomery
FDM:jdk
Counsel
I
had Pm. best to the apil" is
Issue
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
The
have and Mrs. to John by Cowell all Fosgate pules the September pet knowfit, my 15 982 the such suchat freending to. woundhut serious and
106 S. Interlachen, Apt. 619
Winter Park, Florida 32789
is
Dear Mrs. Fosgate:
glissure
Thank you for your letter of August 27 relating to the
President's proposed voluntary prayer amendment.
The they
dor and is
Will
There is much in your letter that I agree with, but I think
there are excellent reasons to support the President's proposed
amendment.
You say that "we may pray in secret every hour of the day
wherever we are. = One tragic result of the series of anti-
prayer decisions by the Federal courts is that prayer in
step that who Hismin. His will and
school has been reduced to the status of pornography, liquor,
and other drugs. That is, prayer is so "dangerous" that school
authorities must prevent any public expression of prayer.
Did you know that one Federal court upheld a principal's ruling
vis
that kindergarten children could not say grace before a meal?
A Federal court has also ruled that public school children may
not assemble voluntarily to pray on school premises before or
after class.
other Will do
Last June I delivered a commencement address at a public high
Him
school in Manassas, Virginia, and the principal apologized to
me for "breaking the law" by having a Baptist minister offer an
invocation. This is not neutrality; this is not freedom of
religion; this is surely not what the founders of our country
ask willfus you
intended by the First Amendment.
This is a difficult problem, and honorable people can disagree
A 3 2
as to what should be done about it. Enclosed is a copy of a
White House Issue Update which discusses the matter in more
detail.
I hope this information is of interest to you.
what tell to He you Thinks
Marton . Sincerely, Blowell Don't listen
Morton C. Blackwell
to me or
Special for Assistant Public Liaison to the President Reagan
PRESIDENT THE OF THE UNITED
White House Office of Policy Information
of
SEAL
ISSUE UPDATE
Washington, D.C.
July 22, 1982
On May 17, 1982 the President sent to Congress a
proposed amendment to the Constitution which would restore
the freedom of our citizens to pray in public schools.
This paper, prepared by the White House Office of Policy
Information, explains the fundamental policy considerations
behind the proposal.
Constitutional Amendment to Restore School Prayer
The President's goal
The President wants to restore Americans' right to
participate in voluntary school prayer, a right which is now
prohibited by Supreme Court interpretations of the U.S.
Constitution. He believes that individuals should be
allowed to decide for themselves whether to join in such
prayers.
who will police 'each classroom to be
As the President has stated, "The First Amendment was sure
written not to protect the people and their laws from
a
child
religious values but to protect those values from government
tyranny."
was not
made to
Judicial rulings restricting prayer,
join in.
The Supreme Court did not see it this way. Its 1962 and
2
Know
1963 rulings have prohibited prayer in our nation's public
schools for nearly two decades on the premise that
the
allowing such prayer violates the Constitutional separation
de-
between Church and State.
of termination some
In writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were teacher
anxious to ensure that freedom of religion would be
guaranteed, thus avoiding the religious persecution that had
led a large number of American colonists to leave their
European homelands. At the same time they sought to prevent
the establishment of a "State religion" -- as existed in
many European countries during the 1700s -- which could
compel non-adherents to worship or contribute to a religion
not of their own choosing.
For a century and three-quarters, the American judicial
system maintained this careful balance between "freedom to
worship" and "freedom from (compulsory) worship." However,
into
-2-
the 1962 and 1963 Supreme Court rulings tilted sharply
toward concerns about "freedom from," going well beyond the
think of proger
andible words. no
seen
Founding Fathers' intent to protect citizens from
establishment of a State religion.
way praising can a Mod in child be their Kept hearts from pod thanking
In the process, the Supreme Court severely restricted
Americans' freedom to worship by denying public school
students the right to join in prayer. The Court reasoned
that even voluntary prayer in the public schools subjected
students who did not wish to pray to intolerable peer
pressure, and thus constituted government compulsion to
pray.
Subsequently, judicial rulings based on these
principles removed virtually all forms of voluntary worship
from our nation's public schools. In one case, for example,
the courts went so far as to uphold a school principal's
order forbidding kindergarten students from saying grace --
on their own initiative before meals. The Supreme Court
also approved a lower court decision which barred students
from participating upon their own request and with
their parents' consent, in a one-minute prayer meditation at
the start of the school day.
The courts further forbade the accommodation of
and
instance, one court held that permitting students to conduct
it
voluntary meetings for "educational, religious, moral or
ethical purposes" under these conditions violated the
that They are not forced into worshiping guarantee that They
should
students' desire to join in prayer or religious study on
school property even outside regular class hours. For
Constitution. Likewise, a State court prohibited the reading
of prayers from the Congressional Record in a high school
gymnasium before the beginning of school.
Despite these and other decisions, some vestiges of the
right to pray do survive in scattered public school systems
important
throughout the nation, but these remnants of voluntary
prayer continue to be under systematic and successful attack
in the courts.
The trend thus established by these decisions directly
mou
contradicts the intent of the framers of the First
Amendment, and places a discriminatory restriction on
do not wish.
students in the exercise of their religious beliefs. For as
long as the government requires its citizens to attend
But
school, then schools should not be prohibited from
accommodating those citizens' freedom to worship as they
-
please The President's proposed amendment would affirm and
guarantee State and local authorities' ability to honor the
place of prayer in people's lives.
Our nation's history
Freedom of expression is a cherished American
The you'll
tradition, and religious expression has especially deep
roots in America's heritage. Since the birth of the United
6
States, public prayer and the acknowledgement of a Supreme
Being have been an important part of American life.
around
The
school
True, but we did not have the cults hanging
they
-3-
Numerous examples demonstrate the religious nature of
the American people. Our Declaration of Independence states
that
"all
men
are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights Our national pledge of allegiance
proclaims us as "one nation, under God. Our coins are
inscribed with the words "In God We Trust." In fact, even
the Supreme Court, in an earlier day, observed that "We are
a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme
Being.
Prayer also remains an integral part of many government
functions and institutions. Sessions of Congress and many
of the State legislatures open with prayer. Each of the
branches of the U.S. military retains chaplains, and
maintains chapels and hymnbooks for use by servicemen and
women. The President, as well as governors and mayors of
many of our States and cities, preside over annual prayer
breakfasts. The President-elect takes the oath of office
with his hand upon the Bible. The standard form for oaths
for sworn testimony in U.S. courts contains the phrase "so
help me God." And each new session of the Supreme Court
opens with the declaration "God save the United States and
this honorable Court.
who 0.1C. could There see are through groun prople
only inconsistent with American religious heritage and
By banning school prayer, the government is thus not any
practices, but is actually promoting a new orthodoxy
wrong
contrary to the nation's history by tilting in favor of an
use
of
"official line" that voluntary expression of religious
belief is somehow unacceptable and illegal. The government
prayer
Little
thereby places school prayer on the same level as drinking,
smoking or using illicit drugs on public school grounds
Children
--
all forbidden activities.
cannot.
In the end, however, the historical case for the school
prayer amendment transcends even these religious issues, for
prayer is but one of many forms of public expression. In
singling out public school prayer for prohibition, the Court
rulings of 1962 and 1963 departed from America's tradition
of making no distinctions on the basis of the content of its
citizens' speech. Moreover, the ban on school prayer is a
glaring contradiction in a society which allows freedom of
expression in political and philosophical discussion in
public schools, but not in its religious forms.
Why we need an amendment
Under these circumstances, a constitutional amendment
is needed to reaffirm America's heritage of allowing those
who wish to worship to be able to do so, while
simultaneously preserving the freedom of those who do not
wish to pray. In contrast to the current ban on voluntary
school prayer, which relegates the right to pray to the
status of a "second-class freedom," not to be countenanced
-4-
in public institutions, the proposed constitutional
amendment would afford voluntary school prayer the highest
antilope Oregon cult -Rajnerst
solution. But since legislation intended to re-establish the
Glovester mass
Sarasota 1st Pite scientologists mooniio
constitutional legitimacy.
As in any case where constitutional changes are
contemplated, legislative remedies would be the preferred
right to pray in public schools has been consistently struck
down by the courts as unconstitutional, it is now apparent
that only a clearly-worded constitutional amendment will
unquestionably restore the right to pray.
A second requirement for protecting this right is to
return decision-making on school prayer issues, as the
amendment would do, to the States and localities. For more
than 170 years the public decisions regarding school prayer
reflected, as they should have, the desires and beliefs of
the parents and children who were directly affected. This is
far more appropriate than having rules imposed on a
many
there evidence
nationwide basis with little regard for differing local
desires.
Analysis of the proposed amendment
this in a new
The President's proposed constitutional amendment
day, my dear.
states that:
in grew no
"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to
prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools
or other public institutions. No person shall be
required by the United States or by any State to
territory! aut
participate in prayer.'
Bad
This language makes clear that the First Amendment
cannot be construed to permit the courts to ban individual
or group prayer in public schools. Thus, school authorities
would be allowed to accommodate individual or group prayer
at appropriate times, such as prior to class or before
meals.
What about
Furthermore, while the amendment does not require
school authorities to conduct or lead prayer, it permits
them to choose. Moreover, the selection of the particular
the
circumstances for prayer would be left to the judgment of
local communities based on a consideration of such factors
as the preferences of parents, students, teachers, as well
as other community interests.
will
sats
The amendment does not limit the types of prayers that
all
are constitutionally permissible. In particular, the
amendment is not limited to "non-denominational prayer.'
have
Such a limitation might be construed by the Federal courts
to rule out virtually any prayer except one practically
devoid of religious content. Given current court decisions,
group prages?
any reference to God or a Supreme Being could be viewed as
"denominational." " The President wants to avoid that
Dividing possibility. children d parent t teachers, - who is
+ mahe the "final Choice of words jn
-5-
The amendment would also prevent the establishment of a
uniform national rule on the conduct of voluntary prayer. It
would instead allow State and local authorities to decide
the appropriate manner in which school prayer should be
conducted.
The second sentence of the proposed amendment assures
that no one need make any expression of religious beliefs
which he or she does not hold, and that no person would be
required, by any State or the Federal government, to
participate in prayer. The right not to pray is thus
protected as well.
At the same time, the presence of one or more students
who do not wish to participate in prayer would no longer
deny the remainder of the students the right to pray. The
freedom to pray -- even in public places -- is one of
America's most essential and revered liberties. Where there
is no constitutionally overriding harm from the exercise of
this particular freedom -- as there clearly is not in this
case -- the freedom to pray must not be categorically
forbidden.
Concerns about the amendment
Opponents to a constitutional amendment allowing
voluntary school prayer often claim that voluntary prayer is
available to students at any time during the school day. But
these critics fail to recognize that many of the world's
great religions consider prayer at times a communal
activity. To exercise their religion fully, many persons
believe they should join in prayer. Opposing this right is
itself a form of intolerance, relegating children to
surreptitious private expressions of faith instead of
accomodating their legitimate religious interest in joining
together in prayer.
What these critics are really saying is that voluntary
school prayer must be hidden and in silence. But this right
to prayer, which American school children now have, is
similar to the freedom Soviet school children have: They can
pray as long as they are not caught at it. Surely public
expressions of prayer should have more legitimacy in the
United States than that which exists in an officially
atheistic and totalitarian country.
Opponents also claim that the amendment will impose
"government-sponsored prayers," but past experience has
shown that this claim is unwarranted. Local school
authorities are far more likely to allow one or more of the
following expressions of prayer: Permitting a brief period
of silent prayer at the start of the school day; permitting
students to say their prayers before lunch; or allowing
students to organize prayer groups which could meet at
school before or after classes or during recess.
-6-
All of these activities are voluntary, and in no way
infringe upon the rights of those who do not wish to
participate; yet each of these activities has been forbidden
as a result of the Supreme Court decisions.
Although it is true that some local authorities might
draft prayers, as some did before the 1962 Supreme Court
decision, such action would not violate the rights of
others, because the proposed amendment protects all persons
from being required to participate in prayer.
The status of the amendment
In order to become part of the Constitution, the
amendment must first go to the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees, and then be approved by two thirds of the
members of both houses.
The two Senate sponsors of the amendment (S.J. Res.
199) are Strom Thurmond, chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and Orrin Hatch, a member of that committee.
Hearings before the committee are scheduled for the last
week in July, with mark-up and a final vote tentatively
planned for August. If that schedule is adhered to, it is
possible that the amendment could come to a vote in the full
Senate by this fall.
In the House, the prime sponsor of the amendment (H.J.
Res. 493) is Rep. Tom Kindness, who has secured 35
co-sponsors for the ameniment. The chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee -- Rep. Peter Rodino -- has failed to
schedule any hearings or mark-ups, and apparently intends to
block the amendment from even coming to a vote in the
Committee.
The only way to circumvent the House Judiciary
Committee is to secure 218 signatures of House members on
what is called a "discharge petition" which Rep. Kindness
plans to file. If successful, the petition would bring the
amendment to the House floor, where a vote could then be
taken.
The final stage in the ratification process is for
three-quarters of the State legislatures to approve the
amendment, at which time it would become part of the
Constitution.
Unlike other legislation, constitutional amendments,
once passed by Congress, do not come to the President for
his signature. However, President Reagan wants the Congress
to approve the amendment expeditiously.
-7-
Conclusion
In the President's May 17 letter to Congress
introducing the school prayer amendment, the President said:
"The amendment will allow individuals to decide for
themselves whether they wish to participate in prayer.
"
Thus, the fundamental issue is whether or not a free
people, under their Constitution, will be entitled to
exercise the freedom to express their religious faith in the
form of prayer. This long cherished liberty. -- so deeply
imbedded in the history and traditions of the United States
-- is one which the President is committed to restoring.
#
ALABAMA
School
STATE OF Alabama
GECZOIA
Prayer
MISSISSIPPI
WASHINGTON OFFICE
FLORIDA
GREAT SEAL
FOB JAMES
GOVERNOR
July 28, 1982
Mr. Norman Blackwell
THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, D. C. 20000
Dear Norman:
The enclosed is self-explanatory and for your review.
Please call at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Marley Snider
Director
CSS/apw
Enclosure
400 1ST STREET, N.W., SUITE 712, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 202/347-3411
LYONS, PIPES & COOK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2 NORTH ROYAL STREET
SAM W. PIPES
P. O. BOX 2727
WALTER M. COOK
G. SAGE LYONS
ARTHUR J. KEARLEY
AUGUSTINE MEAHER, II
MOBILE, ALABAMA
OF COUNSEL
WESLEY PIPES
NORTON W. BROOKER, JR
36652
JOSEPH H. LYONS (1900-1957)
COOPER C. THURSER
MACK B. BINION
TELEPHONE 432-4481
MARION A QUINA, JR.
AREA CODE 205
THOMAS F. GARTH
VICTOR H. LOTT, JR.
WALTER M. COOK, JR.
July 23, 1982
J.P. COURTNEY, III
THOMAS o. BEAR
DANIEL E.DRENNEN, IV
FOB JAMES,
Honorable William French Smith
Attorney General
United States of America
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Smith:
Please find enclosed a draft of Alabama's brief in support of
its motion to dismiss a complaint challenging the constition-
ality of its new prayer law, which allows teachers and students
to pray to God as they wish. The bottom line of this brief is
that the First Amendment requires the Federal government to
stay out of state religious matters. Therefore, the basis of
our motion to dismiss is jurisdictional.
In our opinion, the only proper involvment in state religious
matters by the Federal Judiciary is to insure that each indiv-
idual's right not to participate in public prayer or other
religious matters shall remain inviolate. In this lawsuit, the
plaintiff has explicitly alleged his right to be free from the
religion of prayers of others in public.
We think that the historical meaning of the First Amendment
conclusively supports our position. The Federal government
simply does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the prayers
of the American people to God. To construe the Constitution to
silence such prayer nullifies the First Amendment and does a
great injustice to the people of this country, as well as to the
people of Alabama.
Our prayer law is totally consistent with President Reagan's
proposed Constitutional Amendment relating to prayer in public
places. Our law makes available a prayer which affirms Alabama's
dependence on God, but does not limit the content of prayers
by teachers and students.
Intervention by the Justice Department in this case in order to
vindicate the historical meaning of the Constitution would be
proper. Even if John Marshall was right that the Supreme Court
ought to have the final say on what is constitutional, it does
not follow that the other branches of the Federal government
should not strongly express their own opinions on important
matters.
LYONS, PIPES & COOK
July 23, 1982
Page Two
We believe very strongly that the Supreme Court's extension of
a secularíst mandate to public institutions and laws across
this country is extremely dangerous. On the face of it, what
business does the Federal government have in silencing the
teachers and students who want to pray to God while in the
schools.
On behalf of the Governor of Alabama, I appreciate your con-
sideration of our request.
Very truly yours,
LYONS, PIPES & COOK
Fob James, III
FJ, III/mes
enclosure
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Capies
som Walker J
to pmw J jj
Dana 52114 Read Rohro baker S.
of
other
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1982
F.Y.I.
From: Morton C. Blackwell
I clipped this Sunday from the New Orleans "Times-Picayune."
Reagan expresses
support of prayer
by lighting candles
WASHINGTON (AP) President Reagan on Sat
urday decried the "drive to eliminate God from the
classroom and then lit three candles in support of
voluntary prayer in public schools.
"No one is suggesting that others should be forced
into any religious activity," said Reagan, urging the
Senate to act on a constitutional amendment to
allow prayer in schools.
"But to prevent those who believe in God from
expressing their belief is an outrage And the relent
less drive to eliminate God from our schools can
and should be stopped," he told about 50 people
gathered in the State Dining Room.
If the president of the United States can pray
with others in the Oval Office and 1 have on a
humber of occasions - then let's make certain that
are children have the same right as they go about
preparing for their futures and the future of this
country, he said.
Asked when Reagan prays in the Oval Office, dep-
why White House press secretary Larry Speakes said
be thought the president once prayed with an anti-
abortion group that visited him Reagan rarely
sttends Sunday church services.
The candles that Reagan lit were to be used Satur-
day during A rally hear the Capitol for School Prayer
Day
After be finished speaking, the president and his
wife, Nancy, spent several minutes shaking hands
and chatting with the audience, which included
singer. Pat Boone, former football player Rosie
Crier of Jesse Helms, R-N.C., Sen. Strom Thur-
mone 4 180 and the Rev. Jerry Falwall, head
my Moral Majority
Holms led a long but unsuccessful Senate fight
school prayer legislation.
Reagan, who pledged Friday to stick with the
Right in its crusade for anti abortion and
legislation, said the school prayer issue is
as vital to the future of this country as any we
face.
The premdent turned aside ar guments that allow-
ing prayer in public schools would violate the rights
of those who do not wish to pray
Instead, he said, it "infringes on the freedom of
those who choose to pray, a freedom taken for
granted stace the time of our founding fathers.
file
Vo luntary
Bellevue
Player
BAPTIST CHURCH
70 NORTH BELLEVUE BOULEVARD
ADRIAN ROGERS
memphis, TENNESSEE 38104
PASTOR
January 12, 1983
Mr. Morton Blackwell
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear friend Morton:
Thank you for sending me a copy of the resolution
from the Tennessee Baptist Convention.
Reading the resolution, you can see that it is
carefully worded and aimed so as to appear to be
against the President's proposed amendment, but
it is so skillfully written that what it literally
says is that we are against government scheduled
and government directed prayers in public schools.
Of course, we are, but that is not the point. The
President's amendment deals with voluntary prayer
as we all know.
This was an attempt by a certain man to muddy the
water. It was passed late in our program when no
one was there to speak against or to clarify it.
This is for your information and it needs no response.
Thank you for your friendship.
In Jesus' Name
Cetrean Adrian Rogers Rogers
1g-
dictated but not read
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 9, 1982
FOR:
MORTON BLACKWELL
FROM:
STEPHEN H. GALEBACH so
SUBJECT: School Prayer Amendment
The American Studies Program of the Christian College
Coalition would like to have someone from the Administra-
tion talk to 41 college students/interns and 3 faculty
members, concerning the President's school prayer amendment,
on September 20 or a later date.
They would like to bring the students in to the Indian
Treaty Room if possible (they did it once before); other-
wise, they would have the meeting at their place on Capitol
Hill. They asked me to speak, but you might want to handle
this, and I'm not sure whether I could do it.
The contact person for the group is Jerry Herbert, at
546-3086, who called me yesterday. Do you think we should
provide them a speaker?
Hubert
] And
Brung College students
/ semester Interns
LeGAL Services
235
WAS
4200
LWTC 9/20 Jenny
4-5:30
Room
258
nae
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
EVANGELICALS
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS/1430 K STREET NW/WASHINGTON DC 20005/[202] 628-7911
July 29, 1982 Testimony Presented by
ROBERT P. DUGAN, JR.
Director, Office of Public Affairs
to the
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
re:
S.J. Res. 199
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The National Association of Evangelicals appreciates this opportunity to testify
in support of S.J. Res. 199. NAE is an association of some 36,000 churches in-
cluded within forty member denominations and an additional thirty-five nonmember
denominations. We serve a constituency of 10-15 million people through our com-
missions and affiliates, such as World Relief and National Religious Broadcasters.
On behalf of the National Association of Evangelicals, I want to applaud the
President for initiating the effort to restore religious freedoms which have been
eroded by the courts. My testimony will (1) focus on the need for a constitutional
amendment to return to the original meaning of the First Amendment by restoring
a balance between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, (2) support the
basic concept of S.J. Res. 199, and (3) offer for the consideration of this Commit-
tee a suggested change in language to strengthen the proposed amendment. Before
proceeding to the body of my testimony, I would like to associate my remarks with
the excellent legal analysis of the amendment prepared by the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Policy dated May 14, 1982.
NAE
COMMISSIONS
Commission on Chaplains
Evangelical
Churchmen Commission
Evangelical Social Action Commission
Evangelism and Home
Missions Association
Higher Education Commission
Stewardship Commission
Women's Fellowship
World Relief Commission
AFFILIATES
American Association of
Evengelical Students
Evangelical
Foreign Missions
Association National Association of Christian Schools National Religious Broadcesters National Sunday
School Association SERVICE AGENCIES Evangelical Family Service, Syracuse Evangelical hild and
Family Agency, Chicago
Family Ministries, Serrites, Calif.
Evangelical Purchasing Service
National Office: 350 Main Place / Box 28 / Wheaton, Illinois 60187 / (312) 665-0500
-2-
I
Americans are generally united on the subject of school prayer. By majorities
of 75% and more, they endorse the concept of voluntary group prayer in the na-
tion's public schools. Why?
In Engel V. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp,
374 U.S. 203 (1963), the Supreme Court banned from public schools as unconstitu-
tional both government-sponsored prayers and the devotional reading of the Bible.
If interpreted narrowly, those decisions would not necessarily have proven harmful,
but in practice the lower courts and school administrators have carried the spirit of
those decisions further than was warranted. Those who categorically oppose prayer
in schools have been successful in virtually eradicating any kind of religious refer-
ence in many public schools.
Let me cite just a few examples. In Lubbock Civil Liberties Union V.
Lubbock Independent School District, 669 F. 2d 1038 (5th Cir. 1982), the court held
that a school system's permission for students to conduct voluntary meetings for
educational, religious, moral, or ethical purposes on school property before or after
regular class hours violated the Establishment Clause. See also Brandon v. Board
of Education, 635 F.2d 971 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 102 S. Ct. 970 (1981). In
another case, a school district's decision to allow student initiated prayer at vol-
untary school assemblies unsupervised by teachers was struck down on Establishment
Clause grounds. Collins V. Chandler Unified School District, 644 F.2d 759 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 102 S. Ct. 322 (1981). And in Stein V. Oshinsky, 348 F.2d 999
(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 957 (1965), a school principal's order forbidding
kindergarten students from saying grace before meals on their own initiative was
upheld.
These cases, as well as a host of others, reveal a propensity of the courts to
view every form of religious activity solely in Establishment Clause terms. The
President's proposed amendment recognizes the urgent need to return to the orig-
inal meaning of the First Amendment by restoring more of a balance between the
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.
-3-
Opponents of the President's initiative have been quick to observe that the
responsibility for religious training rests with the home and the church. We
couldn't agree more. But their truncated analysis fails to address the problem of
millions of school-age young people who, for lack of any meaningful acknowledgment
of God in the public schools, are left to conclude that the state recognizes no
power higher than its own. Creation of such an impression is not in keeping with
the religious heritage bequeathed us by our Founding Fathers, with longstanding
national tradition, and with the desire of the great majority of our citizens today.
This Committee faces a grave responsibility to respond to the wishes of the
American people, who in their inherent wisdom realize the need for change.
II
S.J. Res. 199 would constructively amend the Constitution by adding an Article
reading as follows:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group
prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be
required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer.
This amendment steers a wise course by not conferring an affirmative right to
prayer in the public schools. It would simply remove any constitutional obstacle to
voluntary prayer. In doing so it would meet the problem we have indicated - the
need to shift the focus from the Establishment Clause to the Free Exercise Clause
in order that the public schools be permitted to accommodate the free exercise of
religion.
In an effort to live up to the severe constraints of court-imposed "neutrality,"
our public schools have avoided even acknowledging the existence of God. This
public school environment, which in effect makes God irrelevant, is weighted with
unspoken values. It subtly makes man the measure of all things - the very defini-
tion of secular humanism. The distressing irony is that the Supreme Court has
-4-
recognized Secular Humanism as one of the nontheistic religions. Torcaso v. Watkins,
367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961). If we are to avoid establishing humanism in the public
schools, there has to be some opportunity for opposing views to be heard. Today
government "neutrality" is a myth.
Justice Stewart has proven to be a prophet. As he said in his powerful
dissent in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. at 313:
[A] compulsory state educational system so structures a 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 neu-
trality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, ***.
Opponents of the proposed amendment, in asserting that religion belongs only in the
home and church, overlook this reality. The proposed amendment would redress the
present lack of neutrality by permitting voluntary prayer in our public schools.
III
While endorsing the proposed amendment, we would like to submit for the
Committee's consideration some language we believe would strengthen it. The
substance of the changes we suggest is indicated by underscoring in the following
version of the amendment:
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit prayer or other
religious activity in public schools or other public institutions. Neither the
United States nor any State shall require any person to participate in prayer
or other religious activity, or influence the form or content of any prayer or
other religious activity.
-5-
This version of the proposed amendment would expand its scope by permitting
a variety of voluntary religious activity - prayer, Bible reading, religious clubs,
religious instruction, and so forth. But it would restrict the potential operation of
the President's amendment by prohibiting government influence on the form or
content of any prayer or other religious activity.
Let me elaborate on our reasons for these changes.
The 22 word prayer struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause in
Engle V. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 422 (1962), reads as follows: "Almighty God, we
acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our
parents, our teachers and our Country."
That kind of prayer, routinely repeated every school day, is far removed from
the kind of meaningful religious expression that should be permitted in the public
schools. Hence our expansion in the proposed amendment to include "other religious
activity."
Our version of the amendment would (1) treat persons of every belief or
unbelief equally by prohibiting the government from influencing the form or content
of the religious activity, and (2) overrule McCollum v. Board of Education, 333
U.S. 203 (1948), to the extent that case was based on the physical location of the
program of released time religious instruction in the public schools.
I would like to expand on these two points in terms of Zorach V. Clauson,
343 U.S. 306 (1952) and the McCollum case, supra.
In Zorach, released time programs of religious instruction off the school
premises were held constitutional. The only factual difference of any consequence
between Zorach and McCollum, which struck down a released time program of
religious instruction in the public schools, is the physical location of the religious
instruction. The location of such activity should not be the conclusive determi-
nant of constitutionality. Yet, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that is the
law of the land. It needs to be changed.
-6-
The mere physical use of a public school building is not the functional equiv-
alent of state sponsorship or entanglement. (Many public schools are presently
being used as meeting places for churches or synagogues on weekends.) Physical
proximity does not automatically make church and state one. The use of public
school buildings for religious activity should be permitted as an accommodation to
the free exercise of religion.
The First Amendment does not bar cooperation between church and state.
Of course the state must do no more than cooperate in making its physical facili-
ties available for the religious activity on the same basis as it would for any
other activity, including any arrangement for financial reimbursement. Such a
lack of entanglement would be constitutionally guaranteed by the language that we
suggest be added to the proposed amendment, for it would prohibit the states
from influencing the form or content of any prayer or other religious activity.
We have used the word "influence," rather than "prescribe," in order to make
it clear that the state cannot, directly or indirectly, have anything to do with the
form or content of the religious activity. This would not preclude school authorities
from scheduling the school day as they see fit and from assuring that such matters
as fire regulations are observed. However, it would permit our public schools, at
the discretion of the school authorities, to cooperate with the people of the com-
munity in making the school building available for religious activity.
What we propose here today is nothing less than a new birth of freedom in
this religiously pluralistic society. Our proposal would assure persons of every
faith - as well as those who do not believe - the opportunity to participate in a
variety of activity using the facilities of the public schools. There could be Bible
study, prayer, religious instruction, panel presentations, or debates, according to
the wishes of the local community.
Students would be free to attend whatever activity they wished. They could
go to meetings of their own faith, or attend with friends at sessions of another
faith. The appeal of the program, not the influence of the state, would dictate
-7-
attendance. This is what religious freedom - in truth, academic freedom - is all
about. Our approach, to a great extent, reflects the free speech rational of the
Supreme Court in Widmar V. Vincent, 102 S. Ct. 269 (1981), which held that religious
speech is entitled to the same constitutional protection as any other form of
speech on a state university campus.
Far from being divisive, such a free and diverse program would promote
understanding and tolerance of others' beliefs. That to us would be a far health-
ier situation than the present state of affairs in the public schools where there is
often intolerance of religious belief.
We are encouraged by the potential of a constitutional amendment which
would restore a balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise
Clause. We see no good reason why the states, if they choose, should not be
permitted to cooperate with the people in allowing religious expression - unin-
fluenced by the state - in our public schools. It is time that our public schools
cease to be the only public institution where a meaningful acknowledgment of God
is forbidden.