xt73ff3m0f8r https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73ff3m0f8r/data/mets.xml Kentucky. Department of Education. Kentucky Kentucky. Department of Education. 1964-11 bulletins  English Frankford, Ky. : Dept. of Education  This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.) Education -- Kentucky Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "An Analysis of the Present Trend in the Church-State Issue in Public Schools of Kentucky", vol. XXXII, no. 11, November 1964 text 
volumes: illustrations 23-28 cm. call numbers 17-ED83 2 and L152 .B35. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "An Analysis of the Present Trend in the Church-State Issue in Public Schools of Kentucky", vol. XXXII, no. 11, November 1964 1964 1964-11 2022 true xt73ff3m0f8r section xt73ff3m0f8r  

0 Commonwealth of Kentucky 0








An Analyyis of the Present TQE‘W
,Q . M
Cfiurc/Z’Slate [55 6 mLEWRY

Public 56/100]; qf enliffkjfi‘ *965




Published by


Superintendent of Public Instruction






ntered as second-class matter March 21, 1933, at the post office at

P0 Frankfort, Kentucky, under the Act of August 24, 1912.

‘ LETINTMAtSTER: Return undelivered copies of EDUCATIONAL BUL-
3! Frankforto Igommonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Education,
'i ’ entucky 40601. RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED.

VOL. xxxn NOVEMBER, 1964 No.1]





‘ An Analysis of the Present Trend in Ilse

Cnnrcn’Slnle Issue In
Public Schools 0/ Kentucky

i by





, An Analysis Of The Present Trend In The
Church-State Issue In
Public Schools Of Kentucky


Samuel Kern Alexander, Jr.



The Kentucky Department of Education

‘ 1964





Superintendents, school board members, teachers, clergy and the
lay public are becoming increasingly aware of public school practices
and activities that might be considered religious in nature. The 1962
and 1963 court decisions resulted in serious concern as to the rule of
public education and its relation to religion.

This concern regarding religious practices in Kentucky public
schools has been reflected in the many requests made to the Depart-
ment of Education for information on “just what can or cannot be
done and remain within the law.”

Since this question of religious practices in the public schools
is of such great interest and concern, the Department of Education
is proud to present this comprehensive, objective analysis as one of
Its series of education bulletins.

The author is to be commended for confining this paper to the
elementary and high school levels since the question of religion in
the colleges is generally conceded to be of a different nature.

This summary of information on the Church-State issues in the
public school is not intended to be an exhaustive report, but does
represent, however, the most current information available on the
Prastices in Kentucky public schools. And too, this bulletin because
0f1ts historical treatment of the issue will be of specific interest to
thOSe searching for the “facts.”

The author’s objective approach to the questions directs one
toward a reasoned discussion and a growmg understanding of Ameri-
can SOClety. It can, hopefully, lead to the formulation of guidelines
50 that superintendents, board members, principals, teachers, and

parents may understand and support the lawful operation of public
schools in our State.

Harry M. Sparks
Superintendent of Public Instruction







I. Introduction ___________________________________________ 1
Statement of the Problem ____________________________ 1
Procedure __________________________________________ 2
Limitations _________________________________________ 2

H- RevieW of the Literature ________________________________ 4
Legal interpretation _________________________________ 5

First Amendment (Establishment Clause) ________________ 7
Church versus State in Kentucky ______________________ 8

The Hackett case ____________________________________ 10

The McCollum case ___________________________________ 11
Released time ______________________________________ l2
Dismissed time _____________________________________ 14
Shared time ________________________________________ 15

The Bible as educational literature _____________________ 15
Religious influence of schools __________________________ 16

The Gobitis case _____________________________________ 17

The West Virginia case ______________________________ 18

The Doremus case __________________________________ 18

The Regents Prayer case _______________________________ 19

The Albington Township and Murray cases ______________ 21
Attorneys’ General opinions ___________________________ 25
Legislative action ___________________________________ 28

HI“ The Questionnaire Results _______________________________ 31
Local pOlicy changes __________________________________ 32
Principals’ and teachers’ discretion ______________________ 33
V01untary devotional exercises _________________________ 35
Religious Clubs ______________________________________ 36
Religious holidays ___________________________________ 36
Released time _______________________________________ 37
BaCcalaureate exercises _______________________________ 38
MiSSionaries _________________________________________ 39
Pressure from religious groups _________________________ 40
StUdents’ reactions ___________________________________ 40
Shared time ________________________________________ 40

SUmmary comments __________________________________ 41








_______ 27

XI. Montgomery v. State

IV. Conclusions ___________________________________________ 43
BIBLIOGRAPHY ___________________________________________ 45 L
APPENDIX A ______________________________________________ 48 ’
APPENDIX B ______________________________________________ 53
APPENDIX C ______________________________________________ 58
APPENDIX D ______________________________________________ 61
APPENDIX E ______________________________________________ 68
APPENDIX F _______________________________________________ 73 ‘
TABLE PAGE . 3:61:13
I. Responses to Questions Indicating Changes in Overall l can go
Policy as Stated on Questionnaire _____________________ 33 ment.
II. Totals on Two Questions Indicating Discretionary handed
Power of Teachers and Principals ____________________ 34 ‘ attemp
III. Voluntary Devotional Periods ___________________________ 36 % could .
IV. Questions on Holiday Services __________________________ 37 same 6
V. Response on Released Time Questions __________________ 38 ‘r aspeci
VI. Responses to Questions on Baccalaureate Exercises _______ 39 dimens
VII. Questions Relative to Admitting Missionaries on f the qm
School Premises ____________________________________ 39 this 001
VIII. Complete Table of All Answers, Totals, and of this
Percentages Obtained _______________________________ 41 . Kentuc
CASE PAGE 1 local h
w . . . 1o mterprl
. I. Hackett v. Brooksvflle School District ____________________ 11 will als
II. McCollum v. Board of Education ______________________ 13 £0110we
III. Zorach v. Clauson ___________________________________ 17 ‘ 6mm
IV. Minersville School District v. Gobitis ___________________ 18 ‘ in lega
. V. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett --------- 19 been (I
3 VI. Doremus v. Board of Education _______________________ 19 the ch;
5 VII. Engel V. Vitale _______________________________________ 21 at astir
VIII. Murray V. Curlett __________________________________ 22 Sllprerr
; IX. Schempp v. Abington Township____________——-——---"": 27 l Re
g X. Lawrence v. Buchmueller ____________________________ .




,- 43
.- 45
,- 48
.- 53
- 58
- 61
- 68
- 73






. 10
_ 11
. 13
_ 17
_ 18
. 19
. 19
. 21
, 22
. 27
. 27



An Analysis Of The Present Trend In The
Church-State Issue In
Public Schools Of Kentucky



The age-old problem of defining the proper relationship between
the Church and the State is today more prominent than it has been
for more than one hunched years. The American people have
recently been faced anew with the question as to what extent a people
can go in building a barrier between their religion and their govern—
ment. In June of 1963, the Supreme Court of the United States
handed down a decision on religious exercises in the schools that
attempted to outline the extent to which religion and government
could intermingle in a public institution. The result has had the
same effect of many other court decisions in that it has, by answering
{Specific question, opened a whole new field of questions with new
dimensions. It would be inconceivable that this paper could answer
the questions that these cases present for the diverse population of
tllls country. The writer has, therefore, limited this paper to a study
Of this current situation as it pertains to the public schools of



The problem of this study is to examine the current policies of
10031 boards in Kentucky to determine how school districts have
1n_tel'131"3t63(1 and observed the Supreme Court decisions. This paper
$1111 also attempt to identify the different practices and procedures
exescwised .111 implementing school policies dealing with religious
in le aels'm the school. Because of the relative recency of changes
beengd tlntel.1)1'etatrons, the local schools reactions have not as yet
the clue Gimmed. This paper, in analyzing current practices and
at estiinngfs that have taken place, will represent the first attempt
Supremeaéng the reaction of the schools of Kentucky toward the

ourt decrslons dealing with this current controversial issue.

Recently the newly elected Attorney General of Kentucky




(elected in 1963) has issued an opinion that differs in many respects
from the previous Attorney General of Kentucky’s opinion. This paper (3'
will attempt to record the diversity of policies and practices that

the r

these conflicting opinions may have caused. l encdin
More specifically, the policies of the local school boards will be C:
studied as to released time, voluntary prayer, voluntary Bible reading, velopn
baccalaureate exercises, pupils’ attitude, religious holiday services, States
and religious clubs. The local school officials will be asked also to ‘ ‘
explain or express their feelings on these topics in an effort to gain ‘ C-
better insight into the local administrators’ ideas and problems. C:


The procedure involved in this research was first for the l
writer to review pertinent literature on the subject and assemble it. l
The writer then arranged an appointment with Kentucky State
Department of Education officials who helped develop the questions [
which they believe provide valuable information. Through this
procedure the questions were deduced that were most significant :
to the problem. The questions formed were written into a ques-
tionnaire. The questionnaire contained short answer questions which
were easy to answer, and therefore, produced better returns. The l
questionnaire was sent to all the local school districts. [



The problem faced in this study goes much deeper than can be
studied through purely statistical measurements and primary research-
5 The problem here to be analyzed is one faced by a Changing security.
This paper then will serve only to examine a small segment (>f'Pub.hc
school policy in one state of the nation. Because of the great dlveI‘Slty
of public school policies and opinions, the paper can be used only
to indicate the current situation in Kentucky.

A further limitation of this study is the fallibility of all queSthfl'
naireabased research in that the best questions always Prodllce
ambiguities which may be interpreted differently. Also the recelver
of the questionnaire is not obligated to an answer; and, thereferi;
many times questionnaires are not returned. Another problem “{thn
is peculiar to this type of problem is that the question of rehgflle
touches most persons very deeply; and therefore, responses toth
questionnaire may be prejudiced toward what should be rather an l
what is or perhaps vice-versa.






ll be
o to

e it.

1 be




Chapter I of this paper states the problem of this study, describes
the procedure used in investigating the problem, and the limitations
encountered in this type of research.

Chapter II provides a historical account of the significant de-
velopments in this subject area—both in Kentucky and in the United
States as a whole.

Chapter III analyzes the findings of the study.

Chapter IV is a summation of the paper.


The principle of the separation of Church and State has recently
been subjected to the attention of the public more than ever before
in American history. The idea of this separation was born and
nurtured in the centuries immediately preceding the establishment
of the American Colonies. The governments of this era generally
held religious convictions which led to the persecution of other
religious groups. These practices did not end with the establishment
of the Colonies. Religious persecution continued until the Colonists
were shocked to the sensibility of separating Church and State. It
then became apparent that religion and government should operate
in their own individual spheres and there should be no encroach
ment upon one another. Thomas Jefferson expressed the principle
that there shall be a “wall of separation” between Church and State.
This idea then was engendered to permit each citizen to enjoy the
religion of his choice.1

The history of Europe is dominated by accounts of religions
disputes and wars. In Europe the Christians fought against Chns-
tians. The Protestant forces fought to keep from being engulfed
once more in Catholicism. Europe was a battleground of religious
wars for hundreds of years. “Heretics” were murdered for offenses
they did not commit. The Roman and Spanish Inquisitions convicted
and condemned persons for witchcraft, blasphemy, heresy, and many
other offenses; and the offenders were promptly executed. MOOrs
and Jews were persecuted and brutally murdered. In the German
states and England, Catholics were persecuted; and in Spain and
Italy, Protestants were subjected to an equal fate. The Counter
Reformation produced fanatical bloodshed on both sides.2

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United StftteS
provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an effabhsfl‘
ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This
provision is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amen '

ment. “It follows that neither Congress nor any state shall make

JRobert R. Hamilton and Paul R. Mort, The Law and Public Education
(Brooklyn, New York: The Foundation Press, 1959), p. 25. Id Press
2James Mulhern, A History of Education (New York: The Rona

Company, 1959), p. 322.


any 1
free i


the ‘
of tht

. .7

the 0:

the F
no la
the i1

t0 sh:
law is
the p
to ur
to cor
t0 tllt
of \V()
as to
part i




a. It
v the







any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.” We are concerned here primarily with the
resultant effect that this rule has had on the schools.

The First Amendment contains two clauses which provide regu—
lations regarding religion. The first clause, generally known as
the “Establishment Clause,” says, “Congress shall make no laws
respecting the establishment of religion. . . The final six words
of the First Amendment, . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

. .,” is what is known as the “Free Exercise Clause.” In describing
what is meant by the First Amendment, one must consider with what
the original draftsmen were concerned when drafting the amendment.

Legal inierprc/afion. The interpretation of what the drafters of
the First Amendment meant when they wrote, “Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .,” is really the
center of the controversy as may be said of all cases which involve
the interpretation of statutes or constitutional questions.

The question of custom and law arises here. The question of
whether law molds society, or whether law is clay in the hands of
society arises. In the former, law is the active principle which acts
to shape the inert society. At the other extreme, we have an active
society changing and reshaping the ideas and laws of former legis—
lators and judges. The idea that society influences and changes the
law is the school of Savigny, Duguit and Llewellyn which has had a
tl‘emendOus influence on the legal thought in this country. This
legal realism has become firmly implanted and doubtlessly has in—
fluenced all judicial policies in this century. This legal realism
Pl’itles itself in the theory that the decision is not made solely through
the perspective of the precedent prism or through any strict inter-
Pl‘etation thereof. This influence must be considered in attempting
it) understand any judicial decision in interpretation of constitu-
thnal or statute law. Because all men are handicapped ‘by having
to Communicate in words, there is always the latitude for judges that
defining the words presents. Pound suggests several ways that a
legISlative rule may be interpreted, ranging from the very strict
lo the very lenient. The judges have reached past the definition
0ftVOrds and of phrases and have applied the Fourteeth Amendment,
Wth11 was not written until much later, to interpret the First Amend-
ment. It would seem then that changes in the philosophy of law,
as to the intent of lawmakers, could play a much more important
part in the decision than at the first meets the eye.




 Virginia led the colonies in the sentiment against the establish-
ment of the church in government. Virginia disestablished the
Church of England in the 1780’s. Thomas Jefferson and James

Madison played the leading roles in Virginia’s disestablishmentarian—

In 1786, the State legislature of Virginia passed a Statute of
Religious Liberty which abolished tax support of churches. This
document said:

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free;
that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or
*burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget
habits of hyprocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from
the plan of the Holy author of our religion . . . that to compel
a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;
that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher
of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of (his)
liberty. . . .

Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no man
shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious wor-
ship . . . but that all men shall be free to profess, in manners
of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish,
enlarge or affect their civil capacities.

Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, 17863

Thomas Jefferson made it clear in his autobiography that the
Virginia Statute was not only concerned with separate branches of
religion within Christianity, but included all religions.

A Singular Proposition proved that its protection was
meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that
coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of
our religion, an amendment was Proposed, by inserting the
word, ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read ‘a departure from,
the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;
the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof thélt
they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its pro-
tection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and
Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.

Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 18214

3The American Jewish Committee. Church, State and the Public scgé’b’
(A Citizens Handbook. New York: Institute of Human Relations Press,
pp. 13—14.

41bid., p. 14.

less t]

The !
of re]

the II‘.
it by
to the
of all
to do





the fe
the 81
the st:
was p
of law
was a
the st;
as bei

was a





e of


6l )


In a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822, James Madison said,
“. . . religion and Government will ‘both exist in greater purity, the
less they are mixed together.5

First Amendment (Establishment Clause). In five of the thirteen
colonies, including Massachusetts. the church held substantial ground.
The Constitution excluded in the powers of Congress control over

religion—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion.”

Madison drafted the First Amendment; and he, though being
from Virginia and opposed to Church-State mingling, comprehended
the meaning of the words of the “establishment Clause” as “Congress
should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of
it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary
to their conscience.”6 The wording of the clause then placed a ban
against congressional action that would guarantee the local policies
of all the states. The word “respecting” in the clause means “having
to do with” and not “tending toward.”

First Amendment (Article I)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . .
Fourteenth Amendment (Article XIV)

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or pmperty, without the process of law; nor deny to any
flerson within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the


Historically, the First Amendment applies only to Congress, to
the federal government and does not include the states. In 1845,
the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not restrain
the states in making laws. Then in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment
Was passed and it provided in part that: “. . . nor shall any State
delmve any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
0f law, - - It was not until 1925 that the Fourteenth Amendment
Was applied to the First Amendment to provide “liberty” against

6 State. In 1884, the Court specifically singled out religious liberty

as ' . . a . ,
€ng protected from state Violations. The free exercrse’ clause

w - . , . .
Wd to the First Amendment in the 1940s as a restriction

51W, p. 15.
615111., p. 17.



 on state action, and it was as late as 1947, in the Everson case, when F]
the “establishment of religion” clause was given application to states. readin,
in the 1948 McCollum case, the Supreme Court first declared uncon— f dissent
stitutional a legislative enactment, either state or federal, based on the B1
the “establishment of religion clause." This was one hundred and the Pr‘
fifty-eight years after the First Amendment was first enacted.7 Comm
Church versus State in Kentucky. Although Thomas Jefferson D
had advocated a wall between Church and State, his own Virginia ‘ was a
legislature, in 1783, had incorporated the Transylvania Seminary as immigi
the official school of the state for the Transylvania Territory, which Cathol
is now Kentucky. “The trustees were drawn very largely from the by the
membership of the Presbyterian Church.”*“ This fact introduced the ‘ Protest
idea of religious control of higher education. The first head of i school
Transylvania University was Reverend David Rice, a Presbyterian ,‘ 1847, .
ministers“ ‘ appoin
the Pri

In 1816, Governor Slaughter of Kentucky advocated liberal sup-

. . , 0f the

port of Transylvania Universitv. In 1820, the Kentucky legislature P
, . .. . ' . . . ffthe rotest
established a theiaiy fund. It was piov1ded that one-hal 0 made'
profits of the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky would go t0 hein ;
,_ this fund. It provided that from this fund $20,000 would be provided g ‘
, for payment of debts of Transylvania University. It also pl‘OVK18d Bi
'3 that one—third of the profits from the Branch Bank of the Common- 3 objecti
wealth, located at Harrodsburg, would be appropriated to Centre Cathol:
College, a Presbyterian school.10 benefit
We have here then, a mixture of both religious and state (“)ij W
of education. This tradition of Church—State cooperation contlntlo . its orig
well into the 1800’s. It was not only in Kentucky and Vlrgrma ‘ there;
StatuteS, but also in other state constitutions and statutes whelfe ‘ ment:
there was provided support for denominational schools at all leVCSv ‘ school
Education at the college level was definitely inter—mixed wtilth Emerge
state and religion, and also the administration of the schools at ‘16 age r1
state level. The first seven State Superintendents of Public Schoos ‘i ua Y’b
were Protestant Clergymen.11 " W
7Harry N. Rosenficld, “Separation of Church and State in the Public Schools, . 7 12C
The University of Pittsburgh Law Review, (March, 1961), p. 561. k (Lex- \01. 61,
8Moscs Edward Ligon, A History of Public Education in Kentuc {/1 Pp. 122..
ington, Kentucky: The University of Kentucky Press, 1942), p- 56- 1311
91bid. 1411
101btd., p. 59. ” I _ of W 1511
11Barksdale Hamlett, “History of Education in Kentucky, Bid 01?" 191 7 1611
Kentucky State Department of Education, No. 4, (Frankfort, Kentuc Y, ”If

pp. 15—78.





:d on
I and

ry as
1 the
l the
d of



;0 to








From 1830 to the Civil War, there were skirmishes over Bible
readings in the schools. These conflicts were mostly a result of the
dissension between Catholic and Protestant as to which version of
the Bible should :be read. The Catholic position was repulsed and
the Protestant Version of the Bible readings became the way of the
Common School.12

During the 1850’s, a wave of nativism swept the country. This
was a policy favoring the native inhabitants of a country against
immigrants.”13 Nativism “found expression in the old Protestant-
Catholicism controversy.”1*1 This conflict was intensified in Kentucky
by the movement to establish an adequate public school system. The
Protestants, to a large extent, had taken refuge in the idea of a public
school to shield them from having to attend Catholic schools.15 In
1847, an arch-nativist, the Reverend Robert ].Brecki11ridge, was
appointed Superintendent of Public Instruction. He realized that
the Protestant schools and academies were not meeting the demands
of the majority of the people in Kentucky; and, consequently, many
Protestants were having to attend Catholic schools. Breckinridge then
made proposals that general school tax be established, and another
being support for schools by private subscription.16

. Bishop Martin John Spalding, speaking for Catholics, listed his
0b]ections to the Public School Program. One of these was that
Catholics paid taxes to support schools from which they received no
benefit.17 This is still an active argument of the Catholics today.

‘ We can see now that the Church and State had progressed from
its original relatively quiet mixing to the mid-19th Century where
there arose a bitter conflict between religious groups over govern-
mint E71'PplFOpriations for public schools. To this time the public
5C 001 was controlled 'by Protestants but from this point on there
xii: :1 gradual breakdown .Of this control to the point that we
uall b C e today. The d1v151on between Church and State grad-

Yt egan to show as court decisions established a criteria {by which
seDaration could be made. ’

70. 61Cl§rles E. Deusner, “The Know Nothing Riots in Louisville,” The Register,
Pp. 122112;: 2 (Frankfort, Kentucky: Kentucky Historical Society, April, 1968),

131M, p. 128.




-, p. 129.
17117111., p. 130.






In a number of states, as in Kentucky, Bible reading was required.
While Bible reading in public schools has been in our public schools
throughout American history, only recently have there been laws
requiring or permitting it. The first law of this type was in 1826,
in Massachusetts; but it was not until almost a century later that any
state followed the lead of this state. The early cases, with few
exceptions, upheld the reading of the Bible in public schools. This
pattern began to change though, for it was in an 1890 Wisconsin case
that suit was brought to require teachers to discontinue reading the
Bible on the ground that it was sectarian instruction contrary to the
provision of the Wisconsin Constitution. The suit was successful.18

The issues that the courts had to contend with most frequently
relating to religion in schools, boiled down to these essentials: free
textbooks for parochial pupils, transportation of children to parochial
schools at public expense, released time for religious instruction,
Bible reading in public schools, and religious literature in schools.

The Hackett case. By the early 1900’s, Kentucky’s courts had
established a policy by which they have abided to the present.
The case that set the precedent was Hackett v. Brooksville Graded
School District. In this case the court dealt with the question of
Bible reading by saying that a public school opened with prayer and
the reading without comment of passages from the King James
Translation of the Bible, during which pupils are not required to
attend, is not a “place of worship,” within the meaning 0f the
Constitution, § 5, providing that no person shall be compellef1 to
attend any place of worship or contribute to the support of a minister
of religion.18

Concerning the type of Bible, the Hackett case said that-ihe
King James’ Translation of the Bible, or any edition 0f the B1ble,
is not a sectarian :‘book, and the reading thereof without commeflt
in the public schools does not constitute sectarian instruction, WIthln
the meaning of Ky. St. 1908 § 4868, providing that no books 0f;
sectarian character shall be used in any common school, not sha
anV sectarian doctrine be taught therein. It also said a prayer
offered at the opening of a public school, imploring the aid 3f“
presence of the Heavenly Father during the day’s work, asking 0r
wisdom, patience, mutual love and respect, looking forward to a

' . . . : ‘ ot
heavenly reunion after death, and concluding 1n Christs name 15 11

18Hamilton and Mort, op. cit, p. 31. K 608.
19Hackett v. Brooksville Graded School District, 87 S. W. 792; 120 Y-



aid of


and it

cited ,

is still

and ti
Case (
(10 not



5, 1962



t any
, few
g the
a the



n of
l to
l to

>f a
) a




sectarian, and does not make the school a “sectarian school,” within
Const. § 189, prohibiting the appropriation of educational funds in
aid of sectarian schools.20

The prayer that the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld was the
following fixed prayer in conjunction with reading of the King
James version of the Bible. It reads as follows:

Our Father who are in Heaven, we ask Thy aid in our
day’s work. Be with us in all we do and say. Give us
wisdom and strength and patience to teach these children
as they should be taught. May teacher and pupil have
mutual love and respect. Watch over these children, both
in the schoolroom and on the playground. Keep them from
being hurt in any way, and at last, when we come to die
may none of our number he missind around Thy throne.

These things we ask for Christ’s sake. Amen?1

Despite the fact that there are several different versions of the
Lord’s Prayer, commonly used by different groups, differing in length
and in the use of “debts” or “trespass,” it is believed that no one of
these versions is more sectarian than the