Supreme Court Hotly Debates Religious Exercises in Public Schools

With the attorneys-general of 19 states lined up on one side, and 66 Jewish organizations represented by the Synagogue Council of America and the National Community Relations Advisory Council in opposition, the United States Supreme Court opened a lengthy hearing here today in what the principal litigant called an appeal to maintain “the wall of separation” between Church and State. The appeal requested the Court to declare unconstitutional the recital of the Lord’s Prayer and Bible reading in the public schools of Maryland.

The state legal officials and the Jewish groups had filed “amicus curiae” briefs, as “friends of the court, ” with the Jewish groups supporting the appeal from a Maryland court filed by Mrs. M. E. Murray, of Baltimore. That case concerns daily reading of the Bible in public schools. A companion case, arising in Pennsylvania, deals with the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in the schools supported by the state.

The members of the Supreme Court displayed unusual interest in the case, eight of the nine justices entering into active questioning and debate on the constitutional issues. Justice Potter Stewart, the lone dissenter in last summer’s High Court decision outlawing official prayers in the public schools, clashed in open court with Justice Hugo L, Black, author of that majority ruling.

Most Baltimore parents, said Justice Stewart, “would like to have this prayer for the exercise of their religion. ” Justice Black responded: “They want to use the taxpayers’ money to carry out their religious exercises. ” Chief Justice Earl Warren commented that, if Christian prayer were legal in Maryland schools–then Buddhist rites would presumably be acceptable by public schools in Hawaii.

Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General of Maryland, said to Justice Warren “this is a case of theism against non-theism. ” The Chief Justice interrupted to say “Hold on. There are millions of theists who oppose these prayers and I am sure they would deny your contention. For example, we have a brief here from the Synagogue Council of America and the National Community Relations Advisory Council. They represent a number of important religious organizations.”

BLACK, STEWART, CONTINUE CLASH; GOLDBERG HINTS AT POSSIBLE COMPROMISE

Mrs. Murray, calling herself an atheist, declared through her attorney, Leonard Kerpelman, of Baltimore, that the school opening prayer was a religious ceremony. Her son had suffered injury because he did not choose to participate, she claimed, and the boy was spat upon, assaulted, and ostracized.

Justice Stewart took exception to the phrase “wall of separation,” He said, “I have read the First Amendment and I never saw that language in it. ” He insisted that “if we strike down the school board’s language requirements, we are interfering with the right of the majority to their free exercise of religion. ” Mr. Kerpelman replied that his objection was to the establishment of religion by use of the public school ceremony.

Justice Arthur J. Goldberg inquired whether a period of silent prayer would be constitutionally acceptable, Mr. Kerpelman answered that it seemed to him such a practice would not impinge on the First Amendment to the Constitution, but that it was not involved in the Maryland case before the Court.

Mr. Kerpelman charged that the Lord’s Prayer had been “tolerated and blinked at for so long that it is now a tradition. A matter that one generation does not have the courage to question must be questioned by another. ” Justice Black noted that, if the prayer were approved, it would open the door to greater use of classrooms for religious rites.

Mr. Kerpelman maintained that practices could not be “somewhat” religious. He said an observance was either religious or it was not. He said, however, he would agree to compulsory study of religion. He saw nothing wrong in objectively teaching the history of religions. What he objected to, he told the Court, was “a religious ceremony with the approval of the school.”

Legal counsel representing Baltimore school authorities said they agreed that the New York Regents Prayer, outlawed last summer, was unconstitutional because it was composed by state officials But they contended that the Lord’s Prayer or Bible passages were constitutional because these were not composed by local officials but came from “ancient documents, ” They contended the Baltimore school observances were not primarily religious.

The hearing will go into a second day, continuing tomorrow. A ruling by the Court, however, is not expected for several weeks.