. |
Conflicting rights and religious liberty: The school-prayer
controversy in Alabama, 1962-1985
THE CONTROVERSY THAT ERUPTED over the 1962 United States Supreme Court
decision banning school-sponsored prayer was notably fierce in Alabama.
Sharply contrasting interpretations of the ruling developed because of
divergent perspectives on constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.
Parents, school officials, politicians, and religious leaders entered the
battle over defining the relationship between church and state, transforming
constitutional issues into political, religious, and cultural debates." Gov.
George C. Wallace led the resistance to the 1962 ruling and gained political
popularity by denouncing the Supreme Court and liberals and defending states'
rights and conservative Christian values. Judicial mandates and local custom
remained in conflict after 1962 as institutionally sponsored prayers
continued in many of the state's public schools, but the controversy was
frequently overshadowed by the tensions associated with the Civil Rights
movement.
The school-prayer controversy reappeared on the Alabama political stage in
1982 when Ishmael Jaffree sued to stop organized school prayer in Mobile
County classrooms. Religious leaders and Gov. Forrest "Fob" James Jr.
eagerly joined the fray, the latter carrying the banner for those urging
defiance of federal courts and support for prayer in public schools.
Appealed to the Supreme Court in 1983, the Jaffree case gained national
attention when the justices declared Alabama's 1981 "voluntary prayer" law
unconstitutional. Enveloped in the politics of fear and demagoguery, the
school-- prayer controversy exposed the difficulties experienced by Alabama
in adjusting to cultural and religious pluralities and in evaluating
religious freedom in light of the changing circumstances of the twentieth
century. The struggle to define the relationship between church and state
turned public schools into a battleground for religious, political, and
cultural forces.1
Like many constitutional issues, the right to religious liberty exhibits
an outward simplicity that belies its intricate nature. Religious freedom is
guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." These sixteen simple words in the Bill of Rights define and
protect religious liberty, but applying them in a legal context is fraught
with difficulty. The framers of the Constitution crafted a governmental
framework that created separate spheres for civil authority and religious
institutions, but they provided only general guidelines for governing the
relationship between church and state.
The intent of the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights became the
object of contention soon after the documents were adopted. Perhaps the
most important entry in the debate appeared in 1802 when Thomas Jefferson
penned his famous letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, in which
he asserted that the First Amendment was designed to build "a wall of
separation between church and State."2 Jefferson's articulation of the
framers' intent advanced the emergence of a constitutional landscape dotted
with varied and contentious opinions but dominated by two primary camps of
interpretation.
The nonpreferentialist, or accommodationist, view is that public policy and
government can aid or support religion and religious exercises provided that
the state does not show preference for one religion or church over another.
By emphasizing the Free Exercise Clause and interpreting the Establishment
Clause in strict and narrow terms, nonpreferentialists maintain that
government can-many argue should -"accommodate" religion and sponsor
religious activities because nonpreferential treatment of religion by
government was the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights. In the
school-prayer controversy of the last half century, nonpreferentialists have
argued that the Free Exercise Clause protects the rights of teachers and
students to pray in schools; any governmental attempt to prohibit prayer
violates an individual's right to free exercise. They also maintain that
the Supreme Court's limitations on religious activities in schools have
mistakenly given too much credence to Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of
separation. The doctrine is not found in the Constitution, they argue, and
therefore lacks any basis for guiding legislative or judicial considerations
of the role of religion in the public arena.
In contrast, the separationist view advocates a broad interpretation of the
Establishment Clause that would bar any government aid, support, or
sponsorship for churches or religious activities. Separationists argue that
government should be "neutral" in public policy toward religion and that a
strong, high, and impenetrable wall separating state and church should
prevent any government interference with religion or religious liberty as
defined by the Free Exercise Clause. Since the 1950s separationists have
argued in the courts that teacher-led or other forms of institutionally
sponsored prayer violate the Establishment Clause. Public schools, as
governmental agencies, and teachers, as governmental representatives or
functionaries, should not be involved in sponsoring or supporting religious
activities, and to do so not only constitutes government support for
religion but also infringes on the rights of students who prefer not to
participate. These opponents of organized school prayer consistently invoke
Jefferson's wall of separation, arguing that the doctrine embodies the
intention of the founders with respect to the First Amendment.4
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses received infrequent attention
at the national level prior to the twentieth century, and religious symbols,
practices, thought, and ceremonies have permeated government operations
throughout U.S. history. A few examples include the following: the opening
of state legislature and congressional sessions with prayer, the imprinting
of "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, government observances of religious
holidays, the seeking of God's blessings in national anthems, references to
God in government proclamations and before sessions of the Supreme Court
(the bailiff proclaims "God save the United States and this honorable
Court"), and, in 1954, the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge
of Allegiance. Prayer, Bible readings, hymns, and religious devotionals were
a common part of public education in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, but their presence was never universal and often a point of
contention.5 Supporters of religious instruction in the classroom believed
that religious activities benefited students, instilled moral values, and
supported democratic institutions. Justice William 0. Douglas noted this
symbiosis of American heritage and religion in a 1952 opinion: "We are a
religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.... When the
state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious
authorities .... it follows the best of our traditions."6
As the twentieth century progressed, however, expansion of government
services, growth of the public sector, and greater ethnic and religious
diversity in the U.S. slowly produced tensions over interpretations of the
First Amendment. The prospect of judicial protection of the rights of
religious minorities improved in the 1920s when the Supreme Court began
ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause makes the
Bill of Rights applicable to state governments as well as the federal
government, a doctrine known as "incorporation" because the Bill of Rights
was effectively incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. When Jehovah's
Witnesses challenged school practices such as the Pledge of Allegiance to
the U.S. flag, they faced near universal scorn, suffered a series of legal
defeats, and were physically abused. But by 1943 the Supreme Court ruled in
West Virginia State Board ofEducation v. Barnette that the Establishment and
Free Exercise Clauses protect groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who adhere
to a religious prohibition against saluting government symbols, from
mandatory participation in the Pledge of Allegiance. Calls for a stricter
separation of church and state soon followed and challenged the notion that
Americans were uniformly a "religious people whose institutions presuppose
a Supreme Being."'
The initial challenge to prayer in public schools originated in New York.
Continuing a tradition of school prayer, the Board of Regents of New York
State prepared in 1951 a "nondenominational prayer" for use in classrooms
after the flag salute. Based on the Regents' recommendation, some local
school boards adopted the prayer, which read, "Almighty God, we acknowledge
our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our
teachers, and our Country." Parents of ten children in New Hyde Park, New
York, challenged the use of the prayer. New York courts rejected the legal
challenge to stop use of the prayer because students were not required to
participate. The case, Engel v. Vitale,8 was then appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling against the school in 1962. Given the
earlier decisions of the Earl Warren Court (1953-69), the judgment in Engel
should not have been a surprise.9 Since 1954 the Supreme Court had issued
rulings that protected religious dissenters (Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961),
racial minorities (Brown v. Board ofEducation, 1954), and political
dissenters (Yates v. U.S., 1956); required redrawing of electoral districts
to achieve equal representation (Baker v. Carr, 1962); and extended greater
protection to the poor (Griffin v. Illinois, 1956). These and subsequent
rulings were often divisive. Although many viewed the Supreme Court as
promoting long-overdue social, economic, and political change that extended
liberty and justice, others interpreted this "judicial activism" as usurping
the power of the states and the elected branches of the federal government
(the president and Congress) because decisions often overruled state and
federal political policies and traditions.
Justice Hugo Black eagerly sought the opportunity to write the majority
opinion in Engel.10 One of the most influential justices of the twentieth
century, Black was a native of Clay County, Alabama, and his experiences
growing up in a rural area and overcoming financial and social obstacles
shaped his strong beliefs in community values, individualism, and religious
freedom. But the young, talented, and aspiring Hugo had learned that
community standards and rights of individuals were often difficult to
reconcile. Reared in a Baptist home where his mother insisted on church
attendance, Hugo witnessed the social and moral conformity that a rural
Protestant community could enforce. His Baptist heritage--including the
long- standing Baptist position on strict separation of church and state-
stayed with Black as he taught Baptist Sunday school in his hometown and
later in Birmingham, where he had a successful law practice. Ambitious and
determined, Black entered politics and won his bid for a U.S. Senate seat
in 1926. In 1937 Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Black to the Supreme
Court, where the Alabamian soon established his reputation as a brilliant
and insightful justice.
Already known for his conviction that First Amendment protections were
absolute, Black viewed the Engel case as an opportunity to define clearly
the wall of separation between church and state. Black spoke for the Court
in declaring the New York Regents' prayer unconstitutional and stressed
that the First Amendment means "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 as part of a religious program carried on by
government." After tracing the history of religious persecution of
nonconformists in England, Black maintained that the founders knew "that
one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in
his own way lay in the Government's placing its official stamp of approval
upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious
services." Responding to the charge that nondenominational prayers do not
threaten religious liberty, Black cited James Madison's advice that "it is
proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.1 Black's
decision further eroded his already damaged standing in Alabama. Because of
his role in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared school segregation
unconstitutional, and now Engel, many Alabamians thought Black had betrayed
his native state and its heritage. As biographer Virginia Van der Veer
Hamilton aptly notes, the Alabama justice was viewed as a `Judas" who sold
out the South.12
In his lone dissent in Engel, Justice Potter Stewart rejected the argument
that the Regents' prayer represented an establishment of an official
religion, especially given that no coercion or pressure was involved.
Instead, he argued that by declaring the Regents' prayer unconstitutional
the Court was restricting religious rights of students under the Free
Exercise Clause and denying America's religious heritage. Stewart believed
that the Regents' prayer followed a pattern of "deeply entrenched and highly
cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation."13
Engel was followed in 1963 by a Supreme Court decision in Abington School
District zv. Schempp that declared unconstitutional a Pennsylvania statute
requiring daily Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public
schools."4 Writing for the majority, Justice Tom Clark emphasized that for
Bible reading to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause it must
have a clear secular purpose and neither advance nor inhibit religion.
Although coercion was not involved, the requirement of Bible reading was
unconstitutional because it represented government interference with and
aid to religion. Clark asserted that reading the Bible as literature and
history and the study of religion were strongly endorsed by the Supreme
Court; as a subject of academic inquiry, religion was an important and
essential part of education. But religion as an academic subject differed
from the issue before the Court. Addressing the position that restrictions
on Bible reading violated the majority's right to relipious freedom, Clark
asserted that the First Amendment "has never meant that a majority could
use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs." In his dissent
Justice Stewart argued that if religious exercises were prohibited in
schools, then "religion is placed at an artificial and state-created
disadvantage" and that government neutrality on religious issues should
allow religious activities. Otherwise, prohibiting religious exercises
results in the "establishment of a religion of secularism, or at the
least... government support of the beliefs of those who think that
religious exercises should be conducted only in private."
The rulings on school prayer and Bible reading generated a storm of
protest." Claiming that religious liberty was jeopardized by the Supreme
Court, many politicians and religious leaders labeled the high court's
decisions as communistic and atheistic attempts to remove God from the
educational system and as evidence of a secular and liberal attack on the
moral and religious foundations of America. Evangelist Billy Graham claimed
that Engel "is another step toward the secularization of the United
States.... The framers of the Constitution meant we were to have freedom of
religion, not freedom from religion." Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York
responded, "The decision strikes at the very heart of the Godly tradition
in which America's children have for so long been raised." Opinion polls
indicated that the majority of Americans opposed the Supreme Court rulings
on prayer and Bible reading. School systems were slow to comply with the
judicial decisions, and many educational institutions openly defied the
high court. Although estimates vary, reports in the mid-1960s indicated
that 70 to 95 percent of southern schools continued with state-sponsored
prayer or Bible reading or both. In one 1973 study cited by the New York
Times, a survey of school superintendents revealed that 10 percent of the
nation's schools and about 28 percent of southern schools were continuing
with school- sponsored prayers in morning assemblies. The frequency of
teacher-led prayers in individual classrooms pushed the percentage of
schools with religious activities much higher. In 1985 Paul Hubbert,
executive secretary of the Alabama Education Association, confirmed that
religious activities were routine in many Alabama classrooms."
Evident from the beginning was a widespread misunderstanding or conscious
misrepresentation of Engel. Rather than promoting careful analysis of the
ruling and rational debate, pronouncements by religious and political
leaders magnified public furor. From 1962 forward, social and religious
conservatives portrayed judicial decisions prohibiting school-sponsored
religion as removing God from schools and as subverting religion. Newspaper
headlines and editorials about the justices' "outlawing prayer" and
"outlawing God" reinforced the distortion. But contrary to popular belief
and politicians' statements, the Court's decision prohibited only
organized, school-sponsored prayer. Engel did not prohibit individual,
voluntary prayer in the classroom, nor would it have been possible to do
so."
Many politicians deliberately misrepresented the Engel decision in their
attempts to gain popularity, but the Court's ruling would have been
controversial even without the political posturing. The school- prayer
issue touched a nerve that was already sensitive because of increasing
concerns over the cultural and moral direction of American society, and
the struggle over the religious activities of school children became
acrimonious. Although some individuals, religious organizations, and social
policy groups praised the Supreme Court decision, popular disapproval-often
outrage -was the norm. Engel generated as much if not more furor as any
Supreme Court ruling of the twentieth century, including Brown and Roe v.
Wade. It also resulted in more congressional moves to overturn a Supreme
Court decision than any other twentieth-century ruling.19
Alabamians' reactions were representative of those of the nation at large,
with shrill repudiations characterizing most." Governor Wallace condemned
the ruling and prepared to fight for traditional religious activities.
From his 1963 inaugural address forward, the astute governor used the
school-prayer issue, and later the ruling against Bible reading in schools,
to his political advantage. These controversies provided Wallace with one
more emotional issue in his states' rights campaign against the federal
government, the Kennedys, and communists. He maintained that the
"beneficiaries" of recent Supreme Court decisions had been "convicted
criminals, communists, atheists, and clients of the N.A.A.C.P." and
charged the justices with undermining moral values and Christianity.
Before the Citizens' Council of Louisiana in August 1963, Wallace delivered
a lengthy attack on the Court that typified his rhetoric on the subject.
"And now, we find the court ruling against God," Wallace began. "They tell
us the Bible can't be read to our children in school. I reject the theory
that ungodliness is the American way... We are going to continue to read
the Bible in Alabama Schools.... If the Court, and the Justice Department
don't like it, let them send their Federal troops to Alabama to stop us."21
Other Alabama politicians joined the outcry against the Warren Court's
ruling on school prayer. Congressman George Andrews railed, "They put the
Negroes in the schools and now they've driven God out." Senator John J.
Sparkman branded the ruling a "tragic mistake." Labeling Engel a
"diabolical decision," the Alabama legislature shouted approval for a
resolution that condemned the ruling and called for a constitutional
amendment ensuring children "the right to prayer in our schools." Bobbie
James, wife of future governor Fob James, expressed the reaction of many
Alabamians. On hearing of the 1962 decision, she recalled, "I saw the
violence that would overtake the schools and I thought, `Oh no, that can't
happen.'"22
Assemblies and speakers vilified Justice Black in forums throughout the
state. In a resolution that was prepared but not presented, legislators
castigated Black as a "native son" who had abused his power, "like a
decadent Caesar reached the apex of a personal delusion of infallability
[sic] and used his position of public trust" to undermine the
Constitution.23 For a southerner to author the majority decision in Engel
was clear betrayal. Southern politicians angered by Brown had already
criticized the Warren Court and used numerous methods to block or thwart
desegregation, and Engel gave them another reason to denounce the justices.
Furthermore, school prayer seemed easier to justify than segregation, but
preservation of traditional values was at the core of both and would appeal
to conservative, Protestant constituents.
The furor over school prayer prompted challenges to Engel but failed to
generate much reflection on the implications of religious activities in
public schools or on religious freedom in a pluralistic society. Partisan
cartoons-many lambasting the Supreme Court-filled the editorial pages of
newspapers across the state. One atypical cartoon depicted a neglected
aspect of the school-prayer controversy. Reacting to the Engel decision,
three men point to the Bible, the Constitution, and a book of law as they
rant and rave about the Supreme Court. In the background an individual
representing minorities meekly asks, "Will somebody say a prayer for me?"24
Wallace never evinced concern for religious minorities, but his rebuke
of the Court struck a resonant chord with Alabamians and many Americans.
Letters flooded into the governor's office, praising his attacks on the
1962 and 1963 decisions and his calls to teach religion in schools. The
correspondence represented a broad cross section of society and came in
the form of handwritten notes, formal letters, and postcards; the
overwhelming majority echoed Wallace's attacks on the Supreme Court, the
federal government, the Kennedys, and communists.
The school-prayer ruling created disagreement within many religious
organizations and denominations. Most Jewish and mainline Protestant
leaders supported Engel, but many Catholic and some southern Protestant
leaders were divided on the issue.26 One southern supporter was Rev.
Herschel H. Hobbs, the highly respected pastor of First Baptist Church
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, president of the Southern Baptist Convention,
and native Alabamian, who asserted that Engel was "one of the most
powerful blows in our lifetime, maybe since the Constitution was adopted,
for the freedom of religion in our nation."27 The majority of laypeople,
however, opposed the ruling on the grounds that prohibiting religious
activities discriminated against religion, violated a cherished religious
and national heritage, and deprived individuals of their right to express
their faith publicly.
The Alabama Baptist State Convention, the largest Protestant denomination
in Alabama, reflected this divided mind. As editor of the Alabama Baptist
(the newspaper with the highest circulation in Alabama except for the
Sunday edition of the Birmingham News), Leon Macon joined several
prominent Alabama Baptist ministers in supporting the decision, which put
federal jurisprudence in accordance with the denomination's historic
position on the separation of church and state. Macon asserted that the
Supreme Court was not antireligious and that its position on separation
of church and state was within the best interest of the church. He
maintained that Americans "have our churches in which to teach our
children their religious practices and beliefs, and trying to use some
state agency to accomplish what the church ought to be doing is a
confession that one's particular church program is ineffective." In a
sermon reprinted in the Alabama Baptist, Rev. James E. Davidson, pastor
of South Avondale Baptist Church in Birmingham, defended Justice Black's
opinion in Engel: "Many sincere Christian people of our country have
declared that the Supreme Court has by its decision led America another
tragic step toward secularism and materialism. Some have charged that
the Court in effect has abolished God from the lives of American people.
If we were dependent upon public schools and government sanctions of our
Faith in God and Christian ideals we had very little to lose." Others in
the denomination, especially laypeople, rejected the paper's position and
criticized leaders who supported Engel. A Baptist church in Decatur voted
unanimously to send a resolution to Governor Wallace supporting his stance
on school prayer and Bible reading.9
Concerned about the public response to Engel, the Baptist Joint Committee
on Public Affairs, an independent publicpolicy group supported by several
Baptist conventions, placed an advertisement in the Alabama Baptist with
the caption, "GET THE FACTS ABOUT THE COURT DECISION ON PRAYER." In
response to "much misinterpretation and misinformation" about Engel, the
agency offered to send copies of the entire decision for a cost of
twenty-five cents. Many Baptists and Alabamians of various religious
affiliation, however, preferred the "misinterpretation and misinformation"
to the admonitions of religious leaders.
Some Alabama Methodists likewise campaigned vigorously against Engel.
Vituperative attacks on the Supreme Court filled the pages of the Methodist
Christian Advocate, the newspaper for the Alabama-West Florida and North
Alabama Conference. Editor T. P. Chalker railed that by "bowing to the
tyranny of a few misguided individuals it [the Supreme Court] now assumes
the role of establisher of irreligion in complete denial of America's
spiritual heritage." In an article comparing communist brainwashing to the
"Devil's brainwash[ing]" orchestrated by "forces of irreligion," Chalker
asked, "Where will it all stop, Will America finally succumb, a sick
victim of a demonic national brainwash, and become officially atheistic,
Will we who call ourselves Christian endure, in our battle to `keep God
constitutional'?" Rev. John W. Bryan maintained, "We have seen men in high
government positions presume to drive God from the classrooms of our schools
and the hearts of our children." But in spite of these acerbic condemnations
and in contrast with Alabama Baptists, it was Methodist laymen and pastors
who provided a great deal of affirmation of the principle of separation of
church and state and pleas for a rational response. Several letters in the
Methodist Christian Advocate emphasized that Engel banned only
state-prescribed prayers in public schools and that churches "should pass
resolutions of hearty endorsement of the Court's action."31
Alabama Churches of Christ were also divided on the school-prayer and
Bible-reading controversies. Contributors to the Gospel Advocate more
frequently expressed support for Engel and Schempp but also shifted the
emphasis from issues of constitutionality to the nature of prayer, arguing
that the proper place for prayer and Bible reading was in the church and
home. "Prayer must come from the heart," L. R. Wilson argued. "It must be
an individual matter. The mere `recitation' of prayers, composed by someone
else, is a ritual without any serious meaning." Rather than being concerned
about "this much-talked-of matter of a governmental, Christless prayer [i.e.,
the New York Regents' prayer]," L. D. Harless urged that Christians should
pursue "more prayer at home, more Bible reading at home, more family
devotions and more daily, dedicated Christian living at home." School prayer
and Bible reading, these Church of Christ authors warned, entrusted the
state with a responsibility that Alabama families had too readily abdicated.32
Wallace perceived, however, that most Alabama voters supported organized
religious activity in the classroom, so he urged defiance of the Court and
backed up his rhetoric with action. Alabama law already required Bible
reading in public schools as part of the statewide course of study, so the
governor and the Alabama State Board of Education demonstrated their
resolve at a meeting of the board on August 5, 1963, by reinforcing the
curriculum with a resolution that prescribed daily Bible reading in Alabama
classrooms. If the federal government challenged him, Wallace vowed, he
would go to schools personally and read the Bible. "I would like to see the
people of Alabama in defiance" of Schempp, Wallace stated. "I want the
Supreme Court to know that we in Alabama are not going to conform." With
this act of defiance Alabama was one of six states that continued to
require religious exercises; nine other states continued prayer or Bible
reading as a tradition but not because of state law. Letters of support
from across the state and nation once again poured into the governor's
office.
Reflecting the influence of Wallace's rhetoric, Alabamians linked support
for school prayer and Bible reading with support for segregation and states'
rights and opposition to communism and liberalism. A Birmingham student
praised Wallace for supporting Bible reading and fighting integration
because he did not want to attend school "with any dirty black negro." After
attacking the American Civil Liberties Union and communism, another writer
claimed that people "who `promote freedom' by supressing [sic] religion are
bigger hypocrites than fanny pinching preachers."34
Although Wallace enjoyed the support of most Alabamians, he was not without
critics, and opponents often highlighted the inconsistency that crept into
the governor's rhetoric. James A. Brooke of Anniston compared Wallace's call
for civil disobedience to that of Martin Luther King Jr. After referring to
King's strategy of disobeying "unfair" laws, Brooke noted that Wallace made
Bible reading mandatory in schools, thereby implying that defiance of an
unfair ruling by the Supreme Court was justified. "TELL ME, GOVERNOR, WHO
ARE YOU BEGINNING TO THINK LIKE?" was Brooke's concluding sentence. Alvin
Rosenbaum of Florence claimed that there was a "paradox" in Wallace's
"political philosophy," particularly involving governmental authority and
Wallace's recent actions on Bible reading in schools. He quoted from
Wallace's inauguration speech on January 14, 1963: "As free men we do not
recognize any government right to give freedom, or deny freedom. No
government by man has this right." Then on August 13 Wallace claimed that
"the federal government is trying `to take over your life and mine."'
Rosenbaum criticized the governor for taking the same position he had
previously attacked: "You are using a `governmental right' to deny the
freedom of one third of the population of our state. In requiring Bible
reading in all Alabama schools, you are denying a student the right not to
study the Bible. Although a majority of the people of Alabama agree with
you, so do the majority of the nation agree with the acts of the United
States government. If Kennedy is guilty of the sin of centralization of
power, than [sic] I think that you are guilty of the same sin."35
Engel's unpopularity was evident nationwide and led to efforts to negate
the ruling. Conservative individuals and groups viewed it as one more
example of the Supreme Court's undermining America's "traditional" values.
Politicians tapped into this moral outrage and used numerous
strategies-including proposed constitutional amendments -to overturn
Engel.36 The most notable was the Becker amendment, introduced in 1963 by
Rep. Frank J. Becker (R-- New York), which proposed permitting voluntary
state-prescribed prayers in public schools. Although it met with initial
popular approval, the Becker amendment failed to win adequate congressional
support and thus was never submitted to the state ratification process.37
Not content to fight the Supreme Court's decisions on the state level,
Governor Wallace acquired a national forum by testifying before the House
Committee on the Judiciary during hearings on the Becker amendment in 1964.
Wallace began his endorsement of the proposed amendment by attacking the
federal government, socialism, and secularism and by claiming that when "the
crimes against humanity are finally catalogued, this monstrous breach of
faith by the nonelected branch of the federal government must stand out as
one of history's greatest infamies." The remainder of Wallace's presentation
advanced the nonpreferentialist view of church-state relations and maintained
that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments.38
Opposition to Engel continued unabated, but except for repeated attempts to
pass a constitutional amendment, the public witnessed more rhetoric than
action in the school-- prayer controversy in the late 1960s. After the
Becker amendment failed, Congress proposed similar amendments, a legislative
practice repeated over two hundred times by the 1990s. Political and
religious conservatives, however, were slow to employ other strategies for
skirting Engel. Social and political unrest, the Vietnam conflict, and the
Civil Rights movement captured the nation's attention during the turbulent
sixties and overshadowed the school-prayer issue. Although the controversy
continued as a theme in Alabama politics and even in presidential elections,
activity on the school-prayer front declined until advocates of school
prayer mobilized behind new initiatives a decade later.
Beginning in the late 1960s and accelerating in the 1970s, state governments
devised different tactics to bolster religion in the classroom. A common
legislative approach was to adopt a statute permitting a moment of silent
meditation in public schools; occasionally the statute explicitly designated
the time for prayer. Justice William Brennan had indicated in his concurring
opinion in Schempp that a period of silent meditation might be allowed, and
legislators likely drew confidence from his speculation. Tennessee in 1968
and Georgia in 1969, for example, were among the first states to pass
moment-of-silence statutes. By the 1980s more than twenty states had
legislation of this type, but few included reference to prayer. Pursuing a
similar strategy, in 1978 Kentucky passed a statute requiring that the Ten
Commandments be posted in public schools, but in Stone v. Graham the Supreme
Court ruled that the act violated the Establishment Clause because the
statute lacked a secular purpose.39
The Alabama legislature followed this trend in 1978 by passing a statute
that provided for a moment of meditation: "At the commencement of the first
class each day in the first through the sixth grades in all public schools,
the teacher in charge of the room in which each such class is held shall
announce that a period of silence, not to exceed one minute in duration,
shall be observed for meditation, and during any such period silence shall
be maintained and no activities engaged in." The legislature amended the
statute in 1981 by adding the words voluntary prayer and substituting the
word may for shall: "At the commencement of the first class of each day in
all grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge of the room in which
each such class is held may announce that a period of silence not to exceed
one minute in duration shall be observed for meditation or voluntary prayer,
and during any such period no other activities shall be engaged in. "40
The 1981 "voluntary prayer" law, as it came to be known, seemed a minor
adjustment and still within the legal bounds established by the Supreme
Court. The legislative process, however, revealed motives that made the 1981
statute constitutionally suspect. Although the wording of the statute was
probably acceptable by Supreme Court guidelines, Sen. Donald G. Holmes, the
Alabama legislator who sponsored the bill, openly admitted that the 1981
statute was "an effort to return voluntary prayer to our public schools. "41
The avowed motive would become central to the Supreme Court's later ruling
in the Ishmael Jaffree case and reflected the perspective of many Alabamians.
Like Holmes, most Alabamians favored "returning voluntary prayer" to the
classroom, even though teacher-led prayers had never left many public
schools.
Alabama's statutory support for voluntary prayer appeared just as a new
conservative movement was staking its claim on the American political
landscape. In response to social turmoil, secularization, and the expansion
of individual rights during the 1960s, a conservative resurgence emerged by
the late 1970s. Increasing political activism by evangelical religious groups
corresponded to this trend, and the rise of the Religious Right (or New
Christian Right) was the most dramatic and visible embodiment of the new
social and economic conservatism. The Religious Right comprised primarily
conservative Protestants but also included Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish
activists. By mobilizing evangelical Protestants and other social
conservatives, groups such as Rev. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority grew in
political strength and national prominence. By allying with the older
establishment of the Republican Party, the Religious Right helped elect
Ronald Reagan president in 1980.42
School prayer was a defining issue for the Religious Right, whose leaders
advocated social policies designed to reverse the perceived moral decay of
America and to redefine the relationship between religion and government.
Although never a monolithic movement, the Religious Right generally
opposed strict separation of church and state and encouraged political
activism at the local, state, and national levels to influence public
policy. Arguing that since the 1940s the Supreme Court had misinterpreted
the intent of the founders on church-state relations, Religious Right
leaders urged church members to unite and reclaim America for Christians
with a constitutional amendment returning voluntary prayer to schools.
Supporters of school prayer claimed that a rise in social problems (crime,
divorce, pornography, drug use, abortions, illegitimacy, sexual promiscuity)
and a decline in morals and student achievement scores had occurred because
God had been "removed" from public schools. Followers of the Religious Right
rarely questioned the accuracy of this presumed cause-effect relationship,
nor did they acknowledge the theological ramifications of claiming that God
could be removed from classrooms by order of the Supreme Court. Critiquing
the "populist cries" that Engel and Schempp were causing moral decay,
religious historian Martin E. Marty sardonically noted the implications of
"a portable little God who gets wheeled in andout of the schools at the
whim of government officials. If America ever depended on such a disposable
God, it deserved to have the moral decline we are told began after the court
decisions."43
Although efforts for a school-prayer amendment had been perennial since 1962,
the Religious Right pushed the item to the top of the legislative agenda in
the 1980s. After congressional efforts to pass a school-prayer amendment
failed, President Reagan proposed a constitutional amendment in 1982 to
"restore the right to pray": "Nothing in this Constitution shall be
construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other
public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by
any State to participate in prayer." Reverend Falwell endorsed the proposal
as an appropriate strategy "to circumvent the Supreme Court." Alabama
senators Jeremiah Denton and Howell Heflin supported the Reagan amendment,
which failed in the Senate in 1984.44
The emotional appeal of the school-prayer issue was evident in the political
battles over the Reagan amendment, which received broad support in Alabama.
Known as a conservative state and mainstay of the Bible Belt, Alabama had a
political and religious culture conducive to the national conservative shift.
The impact of the Religious Right was not necessarily to convert Alabamians
to a set of theological beliefs or to mobilize them for political activism
but rather to reinforce the beliefs inherent to segments of Alabama's
conservative and evangelical communities. Within the Southern Baptist
Convention, for example, conservative forces were gaining ascendancy by the
early 1980s and redefining the denomination's stance on major issues. In
1982 the Southern Baptist Convention reversed its position on Engel and
supported-by a three-to-one margin-a constitutional amendment on school
prayer. The Alabama Baptist State Convention reflected this conservative
trend, although a vocal minority at both levels opposed Reagan's proposed
constitutional amendment.45
Rev. David Bowler, pastor of Calvary Baptist Temple in Montgomery and state
board member of the Moral Majority, voiced the perspective of most Alabama
evangelicals in the early 1980s: "The present battle [for biblical
righteousness] calls on Bible-believing Christians to stop pornography and
abortions, to fight feminism and homosexuality and to get good `God-centered
education' back in schools."46 The struggle to reverse secularization and
restore traditional values was as intense in Alabama as in any other part
of the country, but the dominant conservative culture met a potent
challenger in a 1982 lawsuit that objected to a continued policy of school
prayer in Mobile County.
An African American native of Ohio and an agnostic, Ishmael Jaffree moved
to Mobile in 1977 with his wife, Mozelle, a member of the Baha'i faith, and
their children and began working at the Legal Services Corporation of
Alabama. Ishmael Jaffree wanted his children to "be free to examine, to
explore, to ponder. . . to be exposed to different philosophies" and to
decide their beliefs by their own volition. Through exposure to their
mother's religious faith and a questioning of various belief systems, the
Jaffree children were encouraged to make their own decisions, and the
parents had agreed not to try to convert their children to their respective
viewpoints. This home environment fostered a spirit of inquiry, especially
in Chioke Jaffree, whom his father described as "perceptive and
sophisticated."47
By the fall of 1981 the Jaffrees had three children enrolled in school:
Chioke, age five; Makeba, seven; and Jamael Aakki, eight. The children
attended different schools in Mobile County, but each encountered religious
activities in the classroom. The father first became aware of school prayers
when Chioke told him in September 1981 that his kindergarten teacher led the
class in a daily lunch prayer: "God is great, God is good, Let us thank Him
for our food; Bow our heads, we all are fed, Give us Lord our daily bread.
Amen!" Later the other two Jaffree children acknowledged teacher-- led
prayers in their classrooms. Jaffree objected to the school prayers not
because he was "anti-church, anti-Christ, anti-- prayer," he later explained,
but because "I'm anti-public officials having a role in religious matters. I
felt that public officials should be neutral in matters of religion."48
During the next several months Ishmael Jaffree took a series of steps to stop
the school prayers. He believed that reminding Chioke's teacher, Charlene
Boyd, about legal prohibitions on classroom prayer would end the practice.
When this approach failed, Jaffree continued his efforts, culminating in
contacts with Abe Hammons, the Mobile County school superintendent. After
consulting the school's lawyer, Hammons informed Jaffree in the spring of
1982 that classroom prayers did not violate Supreme Court rulings because
the prayers were voluntary and teachers had not been instructed to lead
students in prayer. Believing that filing a lawsuit would be enough to alter
school policy, Jaffree responded with legal action. When the American Civil
Liberties Union declined to take the case, Jaffree convinced Ronnie Williams,
a private attorney in Mobile, to represent him if Jaffree would do all the
background and legal work. On behalf of his three children Jaffree filed,
jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County in Mobile federal
court on May 28, 1982. The lawsuit maintained that his children's rights
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments had been violated because
teacher-led religious activities constituted an establishment of religion.49
The Jaffree lawsuit energized proponents of school prayer as Gov. Fob
James turned the legal case into a political issue at the state level, and
Dan Alexander, president of the Mobile County Board of School Commissioners,
used media attention to maintain a steady drumbeat of criticism of the
Jaffree suit at the local level. As media coverage increased, the Jaffrees
found themselves in a maelstrom of controversy. Although the family received
some verbal insults, harassing letters and phone calls, and mild physical
attacks (e.g., eggs thrown at cars), the Mobile community generally responded
with ridicule, ostracism, and isolation.50
On learning of the Jaffree lawsuit Governor James identified school prayer
as a priority for a special legislative session. James believed that the
school-prayer controversy originated from a Supreme Court mistake that had
unconstitutionally limited the power of states and thereby deprived citizens
of their right to establish laws governing religion. He opposed a
constitutional amendment on school prayer because the First Amendment already
gave people the right to pray in schools; if an amendment were passed, it
would give the federal government, not state government, control over
religious activities in school. Instead, he adamantly maintained that Engel
was a "tragic error" and that he was prepared to give the Supreme Court "an
opportunity to correct its previous rulings."51
In a special legislative session in June 1982 Governor James introduced a
bill authorizing teacher-led prayers. The governor's state-of-the-state
address condemned the Jaffree lawsuit and Supreme Court rulings on school
prayer and advocated a "bill that will insure the rights of teachers and
students to pray to God while at school." Included in the proposed
legislation was a "model prayer" written by Fob James III, the governor's
son and a Mobile lawyer, which read, "Almighty God, You alone are our God.
We acknowledge You as the Creator and Supreme Judge of the world. May Your
justice, Your truth, and Your peace abound this day in the hearts of our
countrymen, in the counsels of our government, in the sanctity of our homes
and in the classrooms of our schools in the name of our Lord. Amen."52
The governor's family took an active interest in the prayer bill and lobbied
for its passage. First Lady Bobbie James stated, "This has been my heart's
desire to see prayer back in the schools. We need to acknowledge God as
sovereign over our public schools." Fob James III maintained that the
"Supreme Court has allowed a few atheists to deprive our people of the God
who created them" and that the model prayer would enable the state to
"confront the Supreme Court." Because of the religious fervor of the
governor's family, some opponents labeled the Jameses the "new trinity":
"Fob the father, Fob the son and the holy host."
The prayer bill was politically popular, especially in an election year,
and easily passed the Alabama legislature in July 1982. Jaffree responded by
amending his lawsuit to challenge Alabama's 1978 and 1981 moment-of-silence
statutes and the 1982 prayer bill and by naming Governor James and various
state officials as defendants.54
The 1982 prayer bill also had its critics, including the influential Paul
Hubbert, who labeled it unconstitutional. From his perspective as a Church
of Christ member, Hubbert found the dictated prayer offensive because prayer
was a personal matter. Rev. Earl Potts, a prominent Baptist and later
executive secretary-treasurer of the Alabama Baptist State Convention,
supported the concept of prayer in schools but opposed the legislature
prescribing the prayer, noting that the Supreme Court had already addressed
this issue.
The reaction of the religious community in Mobile reflected the same
diversity of opinion exhibited elsewhere in the state. Although some
maintained that Jaffree was correct in his constitutional views, the more
common response was to defend school prayer or to counterattack with charges
that secular humanism had replaced Christian education. Rev. Fred H. Wolfe,
pastor of Cottage Hill Baptist Church, became a spokesman for conservative
Christians in Mobile. A successful and dynamic minister known for supporting
racial toleration and integration, Wolfe viewed the Jaffree case as an
attack on religious freedom. He interpreted the First Amendment as
protecting the right of religious expression and preventing the establishment
of a state church. "Separation of church and state are nothing but flag words
for those who are anti-religion," he maintained, and "freedom of religious
expression is a fundamental right given to us by God." Linking the Supreme
Court decisions and the Mobile case with a trend of spreading humanism,
Wolfe stressed that the school-prayer issue "was just the tip of the
iceberg-and it was an important tip," but the major issue was the effort to
remove "God from public life" and to erode the "freedom of expression of
religion."
Motivated by an attack on religious freedom "right in my backyard" and
involving his community and parishioners, Wolfe believed that the Jaffree
lawsuit went "far beyond the matter of voluntary prayer" and threatened the
removal "of any vestige of religious activity from the public schools." If
Jaffree were successful, all religious expressions such as observances of
Christmas and Easter, mention of God, prayer before graduation exercises and
ball games, and posting of the Ten Commandments would be prohibited. Although
the battle over school prayer had been waged across the nation, Wolfe viewed
the Jaffree case as a "chance to be personally involved" in the cause of
protecting the "freedom of public expression in the public sector" for
individuals of all religious faiths, not just for Christians.56
Several hundred Mobilians and other school-prayer supporters joined the
lawsuit as defendants (intervenors) because they claimed that halting school
prayer would violate Christians' First Amendment rights as guaranteed by the
Free Exercise Clause. Wolfe did not join the intervenors, but he chaired the
Religious Freedom Defense Fund, an organization established to raise money
for the legal cost of the intervenors. Rev. Paul McHenry, pastor of Ridgewood
Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Mobile, joined the intervenors and testified at
the Jaffree trial. He maintained that the intervenors were not trying "to
establish religion in the schools." Instead, McHenry argued that "people
should be able to express their religious beliefs in the public domain...
[and] be able to express their religious and cultural heritage without being
sued. 57
The movement to preserve religious heritage in Alabama crossed racial lines.
In a rare display of racial cooperation in southern life, whites and blacks
joined in a common cause of opposing the Jaffree lawsuit. For most blacks in
Mobile the defense of religious traditions superseded any racial solidarity
they felt with the Jaffrees. Ishmael jaffree claimed that he was "persona
non grata" and "had lost credibility in the black community." Initially the
lawsuit did not affect the Jaffree children's relationships with friends,
but attitudes of African American parents gradually filtered down to the
children. Chioke learned from friends what parents were saying about the
lawsuit, but his friends continued to accept him and relationships were not
strained. Then some African American parents imposed ostracism on the
children. Chioke, for example, learned that he was no longer welcome in
some of his friends' homes. Resentment within the black community over the
lawsuit deepened after 1982 and continued for years.58
The shared religious beliefs of white and black Mobilians eased any racial
tensions that might have developed over the Jaffree lawsuit. Although racial
epithets and slurs were occasionally used in personal attacks on the
Jaffrees, interracial cooperation characterized the public discourse and
community meetings on school prayer. Cottage Hill Baptist Church, for
example, championed the cause of the defendants, which included black
teachers. As teacher and defendant Pixie Alexander stated, the lawsuit was
"God's battle," not the teachers' battle.59 By identifying their stance
with a defense of religion, whites and blacks found common ground, and
religious beliefs took precedence over race.
Preserving American heritage also became a unifying factor.
Interdenominational and interracial religious freedom rallies were held to
alert citizens to the "grave threat" posed by the Jaffree lawsuit's attempt
to "forbid the mention of God or anything religious in nature, including
holiday observances such as Christmas, Thanksgiving and Easter." In a letter
to the editor that identified America as "officially Christian born," one
writer summarized the position of many: "This is the United States of
America under God Almighty Supreme, so why can't we go to him, our Maker
anytime, anywhere as we please?" Others interpreted American heritage
differently. That "America trusts God is no argument to violate her
fundamental, founding abrogation of official religion," argued a rare
Jaffree supporter. "That the majority seem to want school prayer is the
reason the minority must be protected, lest the majority impose its religion
on the minority through official channels."6
Opinion on the role of Governor James was divided in Mobile. Some viewed him
as an ally, but others believed that his zealous political and legal stance
detracted from the central issues in the Jaffree case. In July 1982, for
example, Governor James filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion
revealed that the governor and his lawyers viewed the Christian God as the
"foundation of the American legal system" and cast the lawsuit in terms of
a religious battle between God and atheism. Claiming that "Alabama's Prayer
Law [ 1982] had honored God," the motion maintained that "any person or
power standing against this law interposes human government as an idol in
the place of God" and asked the following questions: "Since when does the
judicial arm of government assert jurisdiction over prayer to the Most High
God? By what authority would any court compel the silence of American
citizens before their God? Is God any less the Lord when teachers and
students are in school?" The motion then cited the Declaration of
Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the writings of
George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson to argue for
state-sponsored prayer in school. Arguing that prayer was beyond the control
of the government, the motion maintained that the "Founding Fathers knew that
jurisdiction over prayer proceeds from the Throne of Heaven, and not from
the Supreme Court Building in Washington."61
Governor James again took the offensive after Judge W. Brevard Hand issued
a temporary injunction against the 1981 and 1982 prayer bills on August 9.
Labeling the injunction "intolerable to a free people" and Engel a
"dangerous usurpation of power by the 1962 Supreme Court," James urged
school officials and citizens "to stand on their constitutional rights, to
ignore this federal court injunction, and to proceed with prayer in the
class rooms."62 To block Judge Hand from hearing the case, Governor James
traveled to Washington, D.C., in September 1982 to deliver a petition for a
writ of mandamus" to the Supreme Court. Written by Hermine Herta Meyer, a
Maryland attorney known for her research on the Fourteenth Amendment, and
Fob James Ill, the petition argued that the Supreme Court had misinterpreted
the Constitution and First and Fourteenth Amendments in Engel. Judge Hand,
therefore, had no jurisdiction in the school- prayer case because the Bill
of Rights did not apply to states.64
The Supreme Court rebuffed James's attempt. The chief clerk at the Court
would not accept the petition because the James administration had violated
judicial procedures by not submitting the petition to the proper federal
court and then appealing to the Supreme Court. Accompanied by his wife and
son, James held a Washington, D.C., news conference in which he outlined
his views on school prayer and pledged defiance of the Supreme Court. When
reporters asked the governor to differentiate between his defiance of the
federal courts and Governor Wallace's defiance of the federal courts on
desegregation, James responded that the difference "is that due process was
denied by state law to black citizens" and that there is "not one scintilla,
one iota's similarity philosophically, politically or operationally between
myself and my predecessor."65
When the four-day trial in the Jaffree case opened on November 15, 1982,
Judge Hand ruled-despite objections from the plaintiff and Mobile County
school district attorney Robert Campbell-that the intervenors could join the
lawsuit. This set the stage for the hearing of two separate legal cases in
the same courtroom. One involved Jaffree's challenge to teacher-led prayers
in the classrooms. The other involved the intervenors' attempt to defend
their rights to religious expression and, if the campaign to maintain
Christian activities in the classroom failed, to prove that secular humanism
was a religion and secure its prohibition from the classroom.66
In his January 1983 opinion Judge Hand acknowledged that teachers promoted
prayers in the classroom but claimed that this was legal because the
Establishment Clause applied only to the federal government. His opinion
boldly claimed that the "Supreme Court had erred in its reading of history"
and had misinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment. The First Amendment,
therefore, did not prevent states from establishing a religion. The judge
warned that if his decision were overturned he would censor textbooks based
on his belief that secular humanism was a religion.67
Jaffree appealed his case, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
Hand's decision, ruling that religious activities in Mobile County schools
did violate the Establishment Clause. In regard to Judge Hand's view of the
First Amendment, the Appeals Court rejected his theory of state government
exemption and sternly reminded Hand that lower courts could not ignore
Supreme Court interpretations and decisions.68
After exploring several options the state filed a petition of certiorari (a
request for the Supreme Court to hear the case). The Supreme Court had
refused to hear any public school-prayer cases since 1963,69 but the
justices granted a portion of the state's petition in April 1984, agreeing
to hear only the issues involved in the 1981 "voluntary prayer" or "moment
of silence" statute. The Court let stand the decision of the Eleventh
Circuit Court striking down the 1982 prayer statute and the state-composed
prayer, thereby affirming Engel.70
The Supreme Court heard arguments in December 1984 and issued its ruling on
June 4, 1985, by which time George C. Wallace had replaced James as
governor and the case was known as Wallace v. Jaffree.71 In its six-to-three
decision the Court ruled in a majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens
that Alabama's "voluntary prayer" permitting a "moment of silence" was
unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause. The
deliberations prompted separate, concurring opinions by Justices Sandra Day
O'Connor and Lewis F. Powell Jr., as well as three dissenting opinions by
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and justices Byron R. White and William H.
Rehnquist. Stevens focused his ruling on the intent of the Alabama
"voluntary prayer" law. Based on the record of legislators' actions and
earlier testimony, Stevens concluded that the 1981 statute was adopted
because the legislature intended to support or approve of prayer in Alabama
public schools, thus violating the Establishment Clause because the act did
not have a secular purpose.72 Stevens limited his decision, however, to the
"voluntary prayer" component of the 1981 statute and legislative intent; the
ruling clearly implied that statutes providing for meditation, voluntary
prayer, or a moment of silence (as provided in the 1978 Alabama statute)
were acceptable as long as the statute did not include state endorsement of
prayer.
Of the three dissenting opinions, Rehnquist's attracted the most attention.
Based on his contention that the intent of the framers of the First
Amendment had been misinterpreted, Rehnquist argued that the purpose of the
Establishment Clause was to block creation of a national church and to
prohibit the federal government from giving preference to one religion or
church. Rehnquist provided an articulate expression of the nonpreferentialist
view, maintaining that Jefferson's wall of separation metaphor was
inconsistent with the framers' intent and lacked historical basis.73
The Jaffree family received the news with a mixture of relief that the ordeal
was ended and joy at the results. Because of publicity and peer pressure, the
two older children had developed misgivings about the lawsuit. Those feelings
turned into pride with the Supreme Court ruling, and Ishmael and Chioke
Jaffree viewed the decision as a vindication. Even support from within the
Mobile community emerged as numerous individuals belatedly expressed approval
for the Jaffrees' stance."4
A justified sense of accomplishment was also evident. Ishmael Jaffree had
won a legal victory over the school system in Mobile County. Wallace v.
Jaffree became a landmark case in church-state relations and-with Engel,
Schempp, Lee v. Weisman, and Santa Fe v. Doe 75-is one of the five school
prayer cases decided by the Supreme Court. This represents a remarkable
accomplishment for one individual and his family. Without legal assistance
except for clerical work provided by the law office of Ronnie Williams,
Ishmael Jaffree prepared and carried his lawsuit all the way to the Supreme
Court. The legal documents and strategies were perhaps not as sophisticated
or polished as ones crafted by experts in First Amendment jurisprudence, but
the effectiveness of the Jaffree lawsuit is a tribute to the legal skills,
tenacity, and independent spirit of the plaintiff.
Although Alabama politicians opposed, jaffree, their rhetoric was less
strident than in the 1960s. Wallace claimed that the Supreme Court "is in
error in its ruling" and predicted that laws supporting school prayer would
be made constitutional "at some point in time through either legislative,
judicial, or constitutional amendment." Alabama senators Heflin and Denton
criticized the ruling and urged a constitutional amendment allowing voluntary
prayer in public schools. Denton charged that the decision was "a
continuation of a distorted rationale that equates the opportunity to pray
with the establishment of a state religion." The Wallace administration let
the issue drop with verbal opposition. The controversy did not end with the
1985 ruling, but without a state figure leading the charge the school-prayer
issue received less attention in the political arena.76
Reaction of Alabama educators to Jaffree indicated that religious activities
in public schools were going to continue, especially in conservative
districts. Several education leaders readily acknowledged that their systems
would defy the ruling. Backed by a political and religious culture that
favored school prayer (including teacher-led prayer, Bible reading, and
devotionals), many Alabama administrators felt immune from compliance with
Supreme Court mandates unless challenged by religious minorities or
dissenters.77
A decade after Jaffree, Alabama once again took up the fight for school
prayer. Continuing the state's determined effort to circumvent Supreme Court
rulings, in 1993 the Alabama legislature passed its fourth school-prayer
bill, a statute that prompted educator Michael Chandler to challenge the
constitutionality of religious activities in DeKalb County schools. Chandler
v. James was filed in 1996 during Fob James's second term as governor, and
James and political and religious conservatives infused new life and
intensity into the battle over school prayer. As trial testimony revealed,
religious activities in classrooms had continued despite Supreme Court
rulings...
©Copyright 2001, Alabama Review
|
. |