City's Board of School Commissioners
violated the Establishment and Free
Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
The suit was brought by an avowed
atheist. Maryland's Court of Appeals,
in reversing the trial court, found that
bible reading did not violate the Con-
stitution, in view of the fact that the
amount of time and public funds ex-
pended was negligible, and that any
student who did not wish to participate
could be excused upon presentation of a
written note from his parents.137
The Supreme Court again disagreed,
and reversed :
"The conclusion follows that . . .
the laws require religious exercises
and such exercises are being con-
ducted in direct violation of the
rights of the . . . petitioners. Nor
are these required exercises miti-
gated by the fact that individual
students may absent themselves
upon parental request, for that
fact furnishes no defense to a claim
of unconstitutionality under the
Establishment Clause . . . Further,
it is no defense to urge that the
religious practices here may be
relatively minor encroachments on
the First Amendment. The breach
of neutrality that is today a trickling
stream may all too soon become a
raging torrent and, in the words of
Madison, 'it is proper to take alarm
at the first experiment on our
liberties.' " 138
At the same time, however, the Court
said that "the State may not establish
a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of
affirmatively opposing or showing hos-
tility to religion, thus 'preferring those
137 179 A.2d698 (1962).
138 374 U.S. 203 at 225.
34
|
who believe in no religion over those
who do believe.'"139
In 1964 the General Assembly passed
a law allowing for a period of silent
meditation in the opening exercises on
each morning of a school day.140 The
statute was immediately challenged, but
before the case could be decided the
complainant (Mrs. Murray) left the
State. The cause remains on the docket
of the Federal District Court in Balti-
more. An independent survey has indi-
cated that more than one Maryland
county has ignored the Murray v. Cur-
ie tt decision, and permitted school
prayer, and that such defiance has yet
to be challenged in the courts.141
In Schowgurow v. Maryland,142 a
Buddhist convicted of homicide attacked
the requirement in Article 36 of the
Declaration of Rights that jurors profess
a belief in the existence of God. Largely
on the basis of Torcaso, supra, the
Court of Appeals reversed :
"If, as was held by the Supreme
Court in Torcaso, a notary public
cannot constitutionally be required
to demonstrate his belief in God as
a condition to taking office, it
follows inevitably that the require-
ment is invalid as to grand and
petit jurors, whose responsibilities
to the public and to the persons
139 Ibid. A constitutional amendment to
permit school prayer would take the policy
determination from the purview of the Su-
preme Court. Such an amendment has been
proposed. See Baltimore Morning Sun, Aug.
10, 1966, p. 1, col. 7.
140Mo. code ann. art. 77, §98A (1965).
141 Survey conducted by Robert Dugan,
third-year student at the University of Mary-
land School of Law, as part of project for
a seminar on Constitutional Law.
142 213 A.2d 475. See Note, 17 S.C.L. rev.
778 (1965).
|
