Oral arguments in the case involving the constitutionality of a prayer that is now being read daily in some New York public schools were heard here today by the United States Supreme Court.
The case involves a 22-word prayer–which proponents argue is non-sectarian–and which was adopted by the New York State board of Regents and recommended for use by local boards of education throughout the state. The high court is expected to hand down its decision before the expiration of the present term in June.
The presentation today concluded the oral arguments. Written briefs had been entered previously by both sides. At a two-hour session this morning, New York attorney William J. Butler, representing five New Hyde Park, Long Island, N. Y., parents who are challenging the constitutionality of the prayer-reading, contended that the basic objective of the prayer was “an attempt by the state to impose religious education in the public school system.”
The attorney conceded that the prayer itself did not violate any constitutional law, but that the question involved was the context in which it was recited. He argued that the prayer was being read in a public school where attendance was compulsory, and that in addition to being in what he described as “this teaching environment,” it was” “being participated in by state officials–teachers.” He referred to the same two objections when asked how the prayer reading in school differed from invocations and other such practices which take place in the U.S. Congress and similar public and official functions.
Mr. Butler who was sharply questioned by several justices, argued that the machinery provided for excusing children from prayer-reading tended to single them out as different and “could leave an indelible mark on them.” He told the high tribunal that because “the law of imitation is strong in children” the prayer-reading sessions–even though voluntary–had “a coercive effect on children.”
JEWISH PARENTS DIVIDED ON ISSUE; EACH SIDE REPRESENTED BY LAWYER
Mr. Butler argued that the five parents–two Jews, one ethical culturist, one unitarian and one agnostic–were not attacking religion or prayer, but were concerned only with the preservation of religious freedom. “Prayer is good,” he said, “but prayer recitation in the public schools is the beginning of the end of religious freedom.”
Questioned in detail about the nature of the Jewish parents’ objections, he told the court that the Jewish parents were motivated first by the feeling that “religious education is not the proper function of the state.” He described this as their basic objection, asserting that the other objections were “projected reasons.”
Among these he cited the belief among some Jews that no prayer may be recited without the wearing of a head covering, the fact that prayers must be recited in Hebrew, that praying Jews must face east and that prayers are to be recited only in synagogues. Among the justices challenging some of Mr. Butler’s contentions was Felix Frankfurter, the court’s lone Jew, who pointed out that prayers are often recited outside of the synagogue, in English and without the benefit of head covering.
Bertram B. Dailer of Port Washington, N. Y., representing the New Hyde Park school board, contended in his argument that the fact that children are not under compulsion to participate in the prayer recitation keeps it clear of constitutional controversy.
The basic purpose for the adoption of the prayer-reading, Mr. Dailer told the court, was “to promote the belief in tradition and spiritual values.” Mr. Dailer called the practice “a reaffirmation of what we take for granted,” asserting that it was “a religious practice in the same sense as the ceremonies which precede the start of any public occasion.”
New York attorney Porter Chandler, appearing for 16 New Hyde Park parents–three Jews among them–who want to keep the prayer, said his clients are concerned over what he called “an attempt by a minority to drive out from the public schools long-established practices.” He argued that elimination of the prayer, and “removal of all reference to a deity” would deny “the free exercise of religious practice.”
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
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.
