Court Case Chronicles

June 17th, 1963

Schempp v.
Abington 1963 And the Decision?
Bible in School? Majority Rule in Favor of Schempp
By Diana Lenhardt By: Travis Coleson

The question arises as to whether or not On June 17, 1963, the United States Supreme
the reading of Bible passages should be Count ruled 8-1 in the Abington School District v.
instituted in public schools. Although Schempp case that it is unconstitutional for public
approved in the state of Pennsylvania schools to have students read from the Bible. Only
in1949, should public schools permit the one court member, Justice Potter Stewart, dis-
reading of “at least ten verses from the sented to the case. The majority of the court in-
Holy Bible…without comment, at the cluded Early Warren, Tom C. Clark, Hugo Black,
opening of each public school day.”? Byron R. White, William O. Douglass, Arthur J. Gold-
Many parents disagreed with this practice, berg, John M. Harlan, and William J. Brennan. The
even though “any child shall be excused majority opinion, written by Justice Clark, stated
from such Bible reading, or attending such
that the Constitution required religious neutrality
Bible reading, upon written request of his
parent or guardian.” In1958, when among government organizations, such as
Edward Schempp first took up this case in schools. Justice Clark also added that, "We repeat
court against the recitation of the bible in and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Fed-
the Abington Township School District, he eral Government can constitutionally force a person
argued that reading the bible in public 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion'".
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
unconstitutional. ( L eft ) Photo of Schempp, the Plaintiff. A
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 be-
cause 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 vic-
tory for Schempp, eight of the su-
preme court justices agreed that
bible reading in public schools is
an unconstitutional act. In light of
this recent event the School Dis-
trict of Abington Township Penn-
sylvania will be lawfully obligated
to make changes in their format.
A concurrence was written by Jus-
tice William J. Brennan, who was
one of the four concurring of the
eight majority. Writing the only
long and really significant concur-
rence, 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 Scrip-
tures demands private study or re-
flection 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 par-
ticular version, that is offensive, but
the manner in which it is used.”

Applying the Laws

Portrait of Justice Brennan,
1976, wrote concurrence
Abington v. Schempp Case Opens Important
Questions about Constitutional Amendments
By: Danny Ritter
Everyone knows that the latest Supreme Court case, School District of Abing-
ton 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 vio-
lated? 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, in-
cluding 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 Amend-
ment as well as the first.

Issue 1, Volume 1
 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 govern-
ment. 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 Justice Potter Stewart, who ar-
17th, 1963. gued against the court’s deci-
sion 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 reali-
zation of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at least, as govern-
mental support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in pri-
vate”
-Justice Potter

cized the plaintiff, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, to be

“the most hated woman in America.” Next,
The Reaction evangelists like Billy Graham criticized the rul-
But Does the Public Agree? ing because he thought that 80% of Americans
By: Kevin Lim wanted the Bible in schools. On the govern-
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 deci- On the other hand, some well known
sion to be an outrage while others looked for- newspapers accepted the courts ruling without
ward the aftereffects and appreciated the rul- question. 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 Washing- People of other religions believed that the rul-
ton 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.

Issue 1, Volume 1 Page 3

 taught in public schools. The list of these cases
Separation of is long. Even today people are arguing about
whether the Pledge of Allegiance should include
Church and State “one nation, under God” and whether the United
States Federal Bills should read “In God We
through the Years Trust”. The battle continues for a more relig-
iously neutral government and the ideal stan-
Is 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 is-
Although many of the first colonists sues. There will always be a majority who be-
and 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 set- States have been associated with some branch
tlers would be more sympathetic to other de- of 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 peo-
immigrants 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 govern-
beliefs 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 plausi-
passed 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 Constitutional?
making laws concerning religion, and a free- The Group Decides Whether the
dom of religion was ensured. However, this was Constitutional Question has been
not very specific to whether state and local gov-
ernments were banned from making these Answered.
laws. This of course, led to debate. Debate By: Jan Cutler
heated when the Fourteenth Amendment’s le- This trial shows a fair trial in favor of each indi-
gal doctrine of the “Incorporation of the Bill of vidual’s constitutional right. Enforcing the read-
Rights” 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, sepa- children reading the Bible on their own free will,
ration of state became one of the most debated however, when instituting the practice of read-
topics 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.

Issue 1, Volume 1 Page 4