Indianapolis Area of the United Methodist Church, has emphasized this reality in a statement which he prepared to be included in this testimony: I am a Christian. I pray for the coming day when my country, the United States of America will be a Christian nation. By that I mean I pray for the coming of a day when the values, ideals, spirit and commitment of this nation will reflect those of the Man from Nazareth. Yet, even as I write this, I realise that these words mean different things to different Christian people. Roman Catholics and members of the Assemblies of God, Syrian Orthodox, Christian Presbyterians, Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists would not agree on what is meant by "the values, ideals, spirit and commitment...of the man from Nazareth. Again even as I write these words, I am mindful of the fact that ours is a pluralistic nation in which Catholic Christians, and Protestant Christians, Muslims, and Jews, Buddhists and Hindus, honest agnostics and convinced non-believers are regarded as equal under the law. I can pray that the United States will become Christian (as I of separation" is a porous wall. Each of these fundamental that achievement. It is because I believe in the Constitution of the United States I am a father and a grandfather. I want the youngsters in our - - family to be brought up in a religious tradition. My home and my I will continue to pray and work for the evangelization of my country. I will, however, stand opposed to those who would write their sectarian metaphysics or religious practices into the laws of the land. The United States is no longer a "Christian nation" was. The National Council of Churches is opposed to the mistaken claim that it is, or ever could be, except in the sense suggested by Bishop Armstrong. In fact, in a 1959 policy statement in opposition to the "Christian Amendment," the Board stated: Previous attempts to maintain "Christian states," in earlier (This policy statement is attached.) Many people have responded favorably to the proposal to "get the government off our backs," and particularly to keep it out of any activities that might interfere in family life and the nuture of children by their parents. It is surprising that some of the same people are now proposing to allow State and local governments, through the state instrumentalities of public schools, to introduce religious forms and practices that will be at odds with those which some parents are trying to inculcate in their children. In this most sensitive area of family life, the clumsy and untutored intrusion of governmental authorities, however well-intended, is especially unwise. It is sometimes claimed that some children would never hear the name of God if they did not have the benefit of public-school prayers, but that is precisely the kind of intrusion that some parents, if they are intentionally bringing up their children in a non-theistic approach to life - as is their right - may wish to avoid. Other parents may feel that their particular devout form of faith will not benefit from perfunctory recitations of someone else's prayers in a non-ecclesiastical setting, and so oppose it because public schools prayers are not religious enough. The National Council of Churches cannot overlook the fact that Christians are admonished by the Lord Jesus Christ in the Sermon on And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father (Matthew 6: 5-6) Christians should be wary of public school prayers for this reason, It is especially unwise to inject prayer into a gathering of particularly when - are brought together by coercion of law. - they They are not without other places to pray, together with others of common belief, if they should wish to do so. And the contention that some of them may wish to pray in a public institution does not make it incumbent on others to accede to that wish. Those who wish to pray in public places contrary to the are not entitled to commandeer public institutions as vehicles for their own free exercise of religion at the expense of others - arena - equally citizens and equally entitled to the use of the public who may not wish to pray at that place or occasion. To tell the latter that they may be excused is to permit the former to preempt the effective ownership of that public place by assertion of religious (as distinguished from civic) claims, a rather arrogant concept of what is necessary for their religious liberty! III Lastly, the proposed Constitutional amendment is unnecessary, since any person can pray to God at any time or place, and the Supreme Court cannot prevent it, nor can the Congress enable it. It is only oral, collective, unison prayer that requires "state action," and since that kind of prayer is not necessarily more efficacious than the silent, inward petition of the heart (as well as being less consonant with Christ's admonition), it is obviously being sought for symbolic reasons, to make some kind of a statement or demonstration about the nature of the public school, the state, the nation. 11 Indeed, that is a recurrent argument of proponents of a prayer amendment: that public schools -- and our whole society have deteriorated since prayer was removed from public schools, and that restoring it will rectify the accumulated ills of the past two decades: vandalism, violence, drug addiction, delinquency, sexual promiscuity, and perversion, etc. Would that restoring prayers in public schools But children's lives are not transformed by magical incantations but by the models set for them in the conduct of And there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to enable adults to set a moral and righteous example for their children. They can do that now. To want to press prayer into service as a device could have such a result! their elders. about using prayer to make a public show for ulterior reasons. The proposed amendment is unnecessary in another respect. If it is desired to make children more fully conscious of the religious roots and nature of this society, that can be done better by instructional, rather than devotional, means. than at playing church. It would be appropriate for the public schools to teach children about the important part religion has played in human life, in history, in art, music and literature. After all, a school is better at teaching The Supreme Court has not forbidden that; in fact, it said that no education is truly complete without it. ...it might well be said that one's education is not complete Yet few public schools are making any effort to fulfill that aspect of a "complete education," and few churches or church people are pressing them to do so. If, after that immense opportunity has been utilized to the fullest, there is still a deficit in the public-school graduate's understanding of the importance of religion, then it may be time to consider amending the Constitution, but until then, it seems more than a little premature. FOOTNOTES 1. Littell, Franklin H., From State Church to Pluralism, Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1962. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Blau, Joseph L., Cornerstones of Religious Freedom in America, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Questions and Answers on the President's Voluntary School Prayer The Administration's Proposed Constitutional Amendment Relating to Commonwealth v. Cooke, 7 Am. L. Reg. 417 (1859), involving Bible- |