Magyar Egyház, 1962 (41. évfolyam, 2-12. szám)
1962-06-01 / 6-7. szám
6 MAGYAR EGYHÁZ MAGYAR CHURCH Editorial DANGEROUS AVENUES The wide publicity given to the June 25 Supreme Cout decision which declared the daily reading of the so-called Regents’ prayer in New York public schools unconstitutional shows that it touched upon an issue of vital interest to the American public. The fact that a wide variety of opinions was offered by editorials, churchmen and the public and that the opinions both critical and approving were sharp and passionate rather than calm and reflective shows that the issue is not only controversial but also highly complex. We may well agree with Justice Hugo L. Black who wrote the outlawing majority opinion that “in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite.” He insists that applying the First Amendment, in this case in the way the majority opinion does, is in no way hostile to religion or to prayer. He argues, on historic grounds, that it is for the safeguarding of religion and prayer from government control. Yet, taking into account all the implications and ramifications of this complex matter, we believe that the high court’s ruling was unfortunate and has opened avenues far more dangerous than the one travelled by those who favor a simple prayer like the New York Regents’ prayer. Fear of endangering freedom of religion by allowing the recitation of non-sectarian prayers resulted in a court ruling practically equal to a declaration that freedom from religion is the law of this country. This, certainly, has not been the intention of the founding fathers and the genius of the First Amendment. The court’s choice was not between state religion and freedom of conscience — where it must ride in favor of the latter —, but between the conviction that we are a nation and a people under God and the contention that although individual Americans may believe in God as a nation and as a people we are in no relationship to Him — which is tantamount to a godless state. Unfortunately, the court’s decision — even if unintentionally — is on the latter side. Ten years ago the Supreme Court sustaining a released time religious program in New York declared that “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” The recent decision implicitly contradicts this — a previous ruling of its own — by making the “beliefs” of atheists and agnostics the governing American principle on religion. What is the aim of education? To equip children with spiritual and intellectual tools to find truth. Where is the truth to be found? A long article in the July 12 issue of the Hungarian language communist weekly “Amerikai Magyar Szó”— “Hungarian Word” states that the goal of schools is to help children to separate tales from historical facts. “Belief in supernatural powers has completely lost its ground . . . What should a child think taught in school by history, geology, physics, chemistry, biology and other subjects that scientific experiments have so far come up with no data ivhatsoever proving the existence of supernatural beings yet ithe childI has to begin each class with a prayer to such a mystical, supernatural being?” This will confuse the mind of the child, says the article and concludes that making children pray leads to increase the number of the mentally ill. We don’t think that faith leads to mental sickness, on the contrary, so very often faith saves from confusion and lifts the strain from a mind on the verge of collapsing under life’s heavy load. Nor do we think that religion is outmoded and we are sure the Justices of the Supreme Court don’t think so either. Yet, this article shows that although sincerely intending to defend the individual’s freedom to search for the truth according to his conscience the Supreme Court by its decision favored a t endency which wants to oppress this freedom. We strongly believe that the majority of Americans — Protestants, Roman Catholics or Jews — holds to th truth that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who practice it.” (Psalm 111:10.) And we don’t believe that the spirit of the First Amendment is or was ever intended to be contrary to this truth. Andrew Harsanyi -------o-------HIGH FIDELITY FOR MARRIAGE Editors Note: In this column we will examine from the point of view of Christian ethics some significant issues of our private and social life. Comments and questions will be welcome. A few generations ago the preference, sentiments and choice of young people had, in matters of marriage, far less significant role than today. The will of parents and families as well as social and financial considerations often had a greater part in arranging marriages than the feelings of the bride and the groom. More recently strong objections were raised against this view and practice. Now with a complete round about, it has been stressed that the most important condition of a happy marriage is the subjective attraction and love of the young people toward each other. This is the foundation and every other consideration pales into insignificance be-
