OCR Text |
Show THE DAILY HJtialfo CluFoinicle ; State Vs. Religion I : Since the controversial school prayer decision ! of Engle vs. Vitale was handed down by the Supreme ' 1 Court in 1960, the venerable American republic has reberverated with the fierce cacophony of charges i and countercharges from religionists and anti-re- i . ligionists. i 1 The antagonists level charges varying in intens- ' ity. Some over the forced exile of God from the affl- ! uent and self-sufficient American citizenry; others . charge intentional calculated brainwashing and forc-; forc-; ed religious ideology in violation of the First Am-j Am-j mendment to the Constitution. As the Congressional committee on Constitut-jj Constitut-jj ional Ammendments carefully weights the merits of i the proposed prayer ammendment, the divergent and ;; j articulate opposition is brought into sharp, spectral I focus. r j Proponents of the proposed ammendment cite ' j recent litigation festering across the country aimed at removing even the taste of God from American public life. One suit asks that "one nation under God" ' j be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance. Another I ' suit petitions the government to remove any mention J of diety from public buildings, oaths, anthems and j monies. Another suit petitions the government to cease appropriating funds for the payment of chaplains chap-lains and for the end of tax exemption for religious j institutions. The unprayerful opposition reads into the prayer ammendment the attempt to prescribe what shall be orthodox in public religious observance or non-ob-i servance. The proposed ammendment is, therefore, I a dangerous aberration and supersession of the First Ammendment which originally guaranteed the "wall ; of seperation" between church and state. Such an ! ammendment, they contend, is an "unconstitutional" challange to "the essential, natural freedoms granted ' all Americans by the founding fathers. Many Americans, among them a great percentage of religionists like the august World Council of Churches, oppose the proposed prayer ammendment because they see the traditionally independent spirit and virility or organized, traditional religion in America Amer-ica actually strengthened by not having to rely upon the institutions and mechanics of the state for survival sur-vival and propagation. j Lest we become too enamored with the broad and equalitarian spirit of the Supreme Court, we j have only to view the growing fringe of extremism; ! those who would carry the spirit of the prayer decisions decis-ions into the abyss of a totalitarian state stripped of its spiritual heritage. , One hardly needs to cite the copious threads of ; ' American's rich spiritual heritage which have bound , the fabric of constitutional government together longer long-er in this natio nthan in any nation in the world. To remove every memtion of religion from our nation by law, or to prescribe either by law or in the Constitutioneach Con-stitutioneach instance wherein religion may operate, oper-ate, would be a travesty of the American spirit of tolerance and compromise. ' As the zealots furiously immerse themselves in the polemics of this struggle; as some litigants froth with the hateur of Supreme Court victory in predatory search of new and more sweeping conquest; as others rush into frenzied Constitutional conventionsthe conven-tionsthe words o fthe Christian Apostle ring true: . . . The l.eter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. II Cor 3:6 There is no finer tradition in the spirit of American Amer-ican constitutional history. |