Apus Court Cases: Abington V Schempp

Court Case Chronicles June 17th, 1963

Schempp v. Abington 1963 Bible in School?

And the Decision? Majority Rule in Favor of Schempp

By Diana Lenhardt

By: Travis Coleson

The question arises as to whether or not the reading of Bible passages should be instituted in public schools. Although approved in the state of Pennsylvania in1949, should public schools permit the reading of “at least ten verses from the

On June 17, 1963, the United States Supreme Count ruled 8-1 in the Abington School District v. Schempp case that it is unconstitutional for public schools to have students read from the Bible. Only one court member, Justice Potter Stewart, dissented to the case. The majority of the court included Early Warren, Tom C. Clark, Hugo Black, Byron R. White, William O. Douglass, Arthur J. Goldberg, John M. Harlan, and William J. Brennan. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clark, stated that the Constitution required religious neutrality among government organizations, such as schools. Justice Clark also added that, "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion'".

Holy Bible…without comment, at the opening of each public school day.”?

Many parents disagreed with this practice, even though “any child shall be excused

from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon written request of his parent or guardian.” In1958, when

Edward Schempp first took up this case in court against the recitation of the bible in the Abington Township School District, he argued that reading the bible in public school was unconstitutional under the first amendment. As a resident of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, Mr. Schempp felt that reciting the bible in public schools “prohibited free exercise of religion for his children.” This case took several years to settle as it bounced back and forth in the Supreme Court, however, was settled with the federal district court on June 17th, 1963, in favor of Mr. Schempp’s arguments, ruling that reading the bible in public school is ( L eft ) Photo of Schempp, the Plaintiff. A unconstitutional. Unitarian and resident of the Abington township. Excerpt from the Bible ( Right) .

Issue 1, Volume 1

Page 1

“Whatever Jefferson or Madison would have thought of Bible reading or the recital of the Lord's Prayer in . . . public schools . . ., our use of the history . . . must limit itself to broad purposes, not specific practices. . . . [T]he Baltimore and Abington schools offend the First Amendment because they sufficiently threaten in our day those substantive evils the fear of which called forth the Establishment Clause. . . . A too literal quest for the advice of the Founding Fathers upon the issues of these cases seems to me futile and misdirected” -Justice Brennan

Concurring Beliefs

Brennan Writes a Significant Concurrence. By Justin Draeger In an almost landslide victory for Schempp, eight of the supreme court justices agreed that bible reading in public schools is an unconstitutional act. In light of this recent event the School District of Abington Township Pennsylvania will be lawfully obligated to make changes in their format. A concurrence was written by Justice William J. Brennan, who was one of the four concurring of the eight majority. Writing the only long and really significant concurrence, Justice Brennan wrote among other things, about his beliefs about how the writers of the First and Fourteenth Amendments wanted them to be interpreted. Despite critics saying that

religious involvement in public schools was a practice dating back the formation of the Amendments, Justice Brennan claimed the Amendments were somewhat ambiguous and that a present-day interpretation of them was needed. He wrote, “There are persons in every community to whom Christian Bible is offensive. There are others whose reverence for the Holy Scriptures demands private study or reflection and to whom public reading or recitation is sacrilegious. . . . To such persons it is not the fact of using the Bible in the public schools, nor the content of any particular version, that is offensive, but the manner in which it is used.”

Applying the Laws Abington v. Schempp Case Opens Important Questions about Constitutional Amendments

Portrait of Justice Brennan, 1976, wrote concurrence

Issue 1, Volume 1

By: Danny Ritter Everyone knows that the latest Supreme Court case, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, dealt with the constitutionality of Bible reading in public schools. Some may be wondering: Exactly what part of the Constitution was being violated? Edward Schempp claims that the required Bible reading in his children’s schools violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment. In the First Amendment, there is a phrase that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” This means that neither the government nor government institutions, including public schools, can favor one religion over another in any way. Since reading the Bible in class is favoring, Christian doctrine, it is unconstitutional. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment deals with limiting laws that are unfair to certain groups. Since the law requiring Bible reading in Pennsylvania gave more attention to the Christian students, this violated the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the first.

The Dissenter Potter Stewart is the Minority Vote in Abington v. Schempp. By: Nicole Furr The dissenting opinion of the court was made up by Potter Stewart, who supported religion in state. He felt that the freedom of religion allowed for practice of religion anywhere, including in state and government. After all, court does open up with phrases such as, “God Save this Honorable Court”, which is followed by a prayer. The case was decided against Potter Stewart’s hopes, however, on June 17th, 1963.

Justice Potter Stewart, who argued against the court’s decision in the case of Abington v.

“If religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed in an artificial and state-created disadvantage. . . . And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at least, as governmental support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private” -Justice Potter cized the plaintiff, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, to be “the most hated woman in America.” Next, evangelists like Billy Graham criticized the ruling because he thought that 80% of Americans But Does the Public Agree? wanted the Bible in schools. On the governBy: Kevin Lim ment side, many Congressmen were prepared to amend the Constitution to include the right For the most part, public reaction to the for schools to allow prayer and reading of the ruling on Abington School District v. Schempp Bible. was split. Many people thought the case deciOn the other hand, some well known sion to be an outrage while others looked fornewspapers accepted the courts ruling without ward the aftereffects and appreciated the rulquestion. For example, the New York Times did ing. not publish any articles either for or against the The newspapers were very upset with the ruling. Finally, the ruling was embraced by courts ruling, which in their opinions were most religions other than the Roman Catholics. wrong. One such newspaper was The WashingPeople of other religions believed that the rulton Evening Star which ventured to say that, ing would lessen the power of the Roman “that the ruling all but ‘kicked God and prayer Catholic Church and the people would be more out of schools’.” In addition, Life magazine criti- open to explore other religions.

The Reaction

Issue 1, Volume 1

Page 3

taught in public schools. The list of these cases is long. Even today people are arguing about whether the Pledge of Allegiance should include “one nation, under God” and whether the United States Federal Bills should read “In God We Trust”. The battle continues for a more religiously neutral government and the ideal stanIs it Possible? dard of the separation of church and state. By Briana Wall However, in reality, it is impossible to totally separate church issues from state isAlthough many of the first colonists sues. There will always be a majority who beand immigrants of America journeyed across lieves in a certain religious belief and they will the seas seeking religious freedom from state vote for the person that they can most identify churches, the extent of religious freedom in the with who will probably also hold their religious United States has always been a subject of de- beliefs. This has been proved throughout history bate. One would think that with many Puritans as almost all of the Presidents of the United fleeing persecution in England, the new setStates have been associated with some branch tlers would be more sympathetic to other deof Christianity, and the Congress in 1998, nominations seeking religious freedom and alone, having over 90% of its members known to eager to practice tolerance, however as more be of a Christian faith. When a majority of peoimmigrants came to America, religion became ple of one religious faith are elected into the sectional, and tolerance for minority religious decision and law making branches of governbeliefs grew low. This lack of tolerance resulted ment, their beliefs are inevitably reflected in all in the persecution and banishment of many walks of the nation’s life. This is why the line of people like the separation of church and state neutrality between church and state has been pioneer, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. blurred and become such a source of debate Later in American history laws were throughout the years, and it is probably plausipassed to ban this sort of intolerance, and form ble to say that as long as there is religion, it will a country that was a refuge for the religiously continue to be a source of debate in the years to persecuted. With the passing of the Bill of come. Rights and the “Establishment Clause” along with the “Free Exercise Clause” of the first amendment, Congress was restricted from making laws concerning religion, and a freeThe Group Decides Whether the dom of religion was ensured. However, this was Constitutional Question has been not very specific to whether state and local govAnswered. ernments were banned from making these laws. This of course, led to debate. Debate By: Jan Cutler heated when the Fourteenth Amendment’s leThis trial shows a fair trial in favor of each indigal doctrine of the “Incorporation of the Bill of vidual’s constitutional right. Enforcing the readRights” was used to interpret the Bill of Rights ing of the Bible in public schools, when not all to include local and state governments in the students are religious does interfere with one’s ban against making the laws. personal rights. There is nothing wrong with Opening the way to controversy, sepachildren reading the Bible on their own free will, ration of state became one of the most debated however, when instituting the practice of readtopics of the twentieth century with many court ing the Bible every morning, parents do have a cases concerning prayer, reading of the bible, right to argue. The federal court system made religious education in schools, and arguments the correct decision in ruling Bible reading in about whether Creation or Evolution should be public schools as unconstitutional.

Separation of Church and State through the Years

Constitutional?

Issue 1, Volume 1

Page 4