Testimony Of Reverend John R. Green
Regarding The Becker Amendment.
Presented before the members
of the Judiciary Committee
of the House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
May 10, 1964.
New Jersey Committee in
Defense of the First Amendment
32 Central Avenue,
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Shown with John Green's blessing
I am the Rev. John R. Green, Associate Director of the Episcopal Community Services, Episcopal Diocese of Newark. My headquarters: 24 Rector Street, Newark 2, N. J. I reside at 266 Fourth Avenue, East Orange, N. J. I am appreciative for the opportunity to express my personal views regarding the proposed Becker Amendment.
I am opposed to the proposed Becker Amendment to the Constitution for two reasons:
1 . I do not believe that the process of reciting prayer and devotional reading from the Bible in our public school constitutes sound religious practice.
2 . I regard it unwise to modify, qualify or compromise the Bill of Rights, which I believe would result if the Becker Amendment was adopted.
The practice of praying in the public schools is generally predicated upon the assumption that a prayer can be devised or selected, which will be accepted by, and valid for, all of the religious persuasions represented by the pupils in our public schools. This predication likewise assumes that those pupils not desiring to participate in praying will be excused from the class-room during the devotional period. This assumption, it seems to me, is not a valid one. Who would decide what constitutes a prayer which will find favor with all religious bodies in our country? Would the State formulate such a prayer? If so, would such a procedure be wise for the freedom of religion and the best interests of a democratic society? Where would the State's intrusion into the religious sphere reach an end? Isn't it truly the function of religious bodies to develop their own prayers? But how would the various religious faiths create a satisfactory prayer to be used in the public school system? Who would call the representatives of the religious faiths together for the purpose of deciding upon such a prayer? Would the State assume this function? If so, would this be a wise procedure? If not so, how otherwise could they be assembled? Furthermore, how could a prayer be devised which would truly express the convictions of all the religions represented by the pupils in our public schools? In addition to the major Christian persuasions and exponents of Judaism, there are the Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Father Divine, Unity, Unitarians, Moslems, Black Muslims and Buddhists, to name but a few of the religions in our national life. Would we have special prayers for Black Muslim children? Exponents of this religion are insisting upon having their own service in prisons. I hear that Buddhists desire to have a Buddhist prayer in the public schools of Hawaii, which is now one of the States of our nation.
Let us suppose for illustrative purposes that the Lord's Prayer was by some means chosen as the official prayer in many of our public schools. How could this prayer be acceptable to those of the Jewish faith? As the title indicates, this is a distinctive Christian prayer, originating with Jesus Christ. The terms: Father, Our Father, Thy Kingdom and Thy Will are peculiar to the teachings of Jesus, and have no comparable connotation in Judaism. Furthermore, when, as a Christian, I pray, Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour is at the heart of my utterance and expression. Anything short of this embracement will not, or should not satisfy me. When I am attending a public or private gathering of adult people, at which a Rabbi is giving an Invocation, I can, in spirit, pray with him to the God of the Law and the Prophets, his God, who is likewise my God and have my own inscription to God, as revealed in his Son, Jesus Christ. By the same token, when an invocation or Benediction is uttered by a Christian clergyman, those of the Jewish faith who are in attendance can say the prayer to their God, omitting the] inscription to Christ. However, to expect children in our public schools, particularly those in the lower grade levels, to make such a distinction seems to me unrealistic. How can a Christian parent or Church School teacher train a child to accept that its of the essence that the prayers at home and in the Church be ascribed to God as revealed through Christ, while at the same time it is not of similar import when he prays in the public schools. Likewise, how can Jewish parents and teachers expect their children to accept a distinctive Christian prayer in the public schools, which they do not profess at home or in their places of worship?
Then let us consider the role of the public school teacher in the leading of prayer, Normally, a child feels that his parents, minister or Church School teacher sincerely believes what he or she is uttering and looks to them as examples of what they profess with their lips. Is the child going to regard his school teacher in any different light? What about the teacher's convictions? What if she is not in inner accord with the prayer which she is reciting? Has she compromised her personal integrity? Does God desire prayer insincerely uttered? Does the child sense her lack of conviction and corresponding results? If so, what effect does it have upon him?
One of the greatest contributions our public school system makes to our nation and its democratic process is that of bringing together children from many national, racial, religious and cultural backgrounds in a common experience of learning, sharing and cooperative adventure. Would it not be more truly religious to place an emphasis upon the commonality rather than the differences between these pupils in the school room? For children to leave the class-room to avoid participating in a prayer session might well make for hostility rather than appreciative understanding of the various religious faiths represented by their fellow pupils. To be sure, the public school system needs to assume the responsibilities and privileges of teaching its pupils concerning the nature and tenets of the religions of the world and of our nation; the contributions they have made to mankind and their impact upon many of the men and women who have shaped human society. However, in doing this the school system need not indoctrinate its pupils with any particular religious faith or belief.
Under the Bill of Rights, religious freedom has flourished in this country. All religions are free to express their faith. I not only fail to see the need for a Constitutional Amendment to provide for the enhancement of religious freedom and propagation, but I view any modification, qualification, and compromise of the Bill of Rights with extreme seriousness and considerable alarm. I do not believe the Bill of Rights can ever be the same once its original spirit and intent has in any way been warped or frustrated. The implications herein are not only for religious freedom, but for all of our freedoms as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A hasty Amendment to the Constitution bearing upon the Bill of Rights might well set a precedent, which would eventually prove catastrophic. It is entirely possible for a nation to surrender its liberties through constitutional and democratic processes. If I recall correctly, Adolph Hitler came to power in Germany through duly constitutional and democratic processes.
I believe that organized religion does have a definite role to play insofar as the public schools are concerned. There are values, philosophies and perhaps religions (although not usually recognized as such) being expressed in the general educational processes of our public schools. It is the place of the Church to be aware of these, evaluate them and take appropriate action to affirm or oppose their inculcating processes as the need to do so arises.
Finally, not only regarding the subject under discussion, but in many other areas of our national life, the people of our nation sorely need wholesome dialogue and communication across religious, racial, national, cultural and geographic lines and boundaries, which are of the essence for the well-being of our nation and its people. We need to relate personally and deeply to our fellow-beings. It is often difficult to have frank communication amongst people who share common convictions, let alone with those having a diverse and different approach.