Testimony was resumed today in the lawsuit here testing the constitutionality of a variety of sectarian religious practices in Dade county schools, after Circuit Judge A. Fritz Gordon ruled that the United States Constitution did not protect persons from “embarrassment caused by non-conformity.”
The issue which led to Judge Gordon’s ruling developed from efforts by the plaintiffs to show that the voluntary religious programs in the public schools were really not such, because children who sought to use their right to be absent were put under social pressure. The practices include Bible reading, recitation of the Christian “Lord’s Prayer,” and observance of Christian religious holidays.
At issue are two cases involving five plaintiffs who contend that the religious programs violate both the Florida State and Federal Constitutions. Three Jews and a Unitarian are plaintiffs in one suit; a professed agnostic is the plaintiff in the other. The two suits are being tried simultaneously, with the American Jewish Congress and the Florida Civil Liberties Union providing legal assistance.
Dr. Michael Gilbert, a Miami psychiatrist, gave typical testimony on the issue, asserting that a pupil who asked to be excused during a religious program faced social pressures “which are more inimical to his welfare than if he did attend.”
The psychiatrist’s line of testimony was challenged by E, F. Brigham, attorney for nine churchmen intervening on behalf of the Dade County School Board. He contended that the Constitution “does not protect one from the embarrassment that always attends non-conformity whether in religion, politics, behavior or dress.” Judge Gordon upheld that argument, but allowed plaintiffs to submit the testimony for the record in the event of a reversal of his ruling.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
