domiguy -> RE: High School Student Stands Up Against Prayer at Public School and Is Ostracized, Demeaned and Threat (5/26/2011 3:39:12 PM)
|
"The State" = public schools The Supreme Court's June 1963 decision on Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools The Supreme Court's Decision On June 17, 1963, the Court decided, by an 8-1 majority, that the required religious practices of Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer and the laws requiring them are unconstitutional. Justice Clark, in his majority opinion, noted that past cases involving the First Amendment the Court had held that the state must "be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them." Toward the end of his opinion, Justice Clark said: The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church, and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality. In answer to arguments that the decision would establish in the schools a "religion of secularism," Justice Clark said: We agree of course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism," in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." . . . We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect. As the following paragraph indicates, he made it clear that the study, of religion, as distinguished from religious exercises, is permitted. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistent with the First Amendment.
|
|
|
|