Those who are vested with civil authority ought to
promote religion and good morals among all under their government. John
Witherspoon, Signer of the
I had the honor of being one among many who framed that
Constitution. In order effectually to accomplish these great ends, it is
incumbent upon us to begin wisely and to proceed in the fear of God; and it is
especially the duty of those who bear rule to promote and encourage piety
respect for God and virtue and to discountenance every degree of vice and
immorality. Henry Laurens, Presidential of Continental Congress; U.S. Diplomat;
Selected as delegate to the Constitutional Convention
The primary objects of government are peace, order, and
prosperity of society. To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican
government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good
morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support and among
these religious institutions are eminently useful and important. Oliver Ellsworth,
Constitutional Convention; Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court
It is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous
governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion. John Jay,
Original Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court
Since the Founders who prohibited an establishment of
religion also encouraged religion, it is clear contrary to the Court’s
assertion in this case that the Founders did not equate encouraging or
endorsing religion as an establishment of it. Chief Justice Burger struck out
at the Court’s new anti-endorsement criterion:
It makes no sense to say that Alabama has “endorsed
prayer” by merely enacting a new statute “to specify expressly that voluntary
prayer is one of the authorized activities during a moment of silence.” To
suggest that a moment of silence statute that includes the word “prayer”
unconstitutionally endorses religion, while one that simply provides for a
moment of silence does not, manifests not neutrality but hostility toward
religion. The notion that the Alabama statute is a step toward creating an
established church borders on, if it does not trespass into, the ridiculous.
The statute does not remotely threaten religious liberty. It accommodates the
purely private, voluntary religious choices of the individual pupils who wish
to pray while at the same time creating a time for nonreligious reflection for
those who do not choose to pray. The statute “endorses” only the view that the religious
observances of others should be tolerated. Since this decision represented yet
another in the Court’s recent series of historically untenable rulings, Justice
William Rehnquist undertook a review of the basic history of the First
Amendment. His dissent in this case is recommended reading as one of the best
historical overviews of the First Amendment available from any source. After
his lengthy history lesson, he concluded:
