New Madison (Ohio) Universalist Church

By Paul Britner

(Seminary student-Earlham School of Religion)

My sermon this morning generally is about our fourth principle, a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, with an emphasis on free. I may spend more time on my short diversions than on the main road. So, let me start at the end, and tell you two things I’d like you to remember from this message. First, we are part of a faith tradition dating back at least 500 years that affirms the right of each individual to exercise his or her free conscience in matters of faith, and we should never hesitant to claim this tradition. Second, we must be vigilant today, perhaps especially today, in recognizing and responding to threats to that tradition. Along the way, I’ll also tell you why, if Amos were prophesying today, he would not need to address the UUA general assembly—though I might recommend a few other denominational assemblies he might address.

I’m going to start in 16^th century Europe. Then, after a brief stop during our early national period, and in particular, 1789, I’ll jump ahead to 1963, when the Supreme Court banned organized prayers in public schools. That’s when you will find out who Schempp is. I’m going to stay there for a while, then skip to the present day.

Before doing any of that, though, I want to tell you how I came to choose this topic. Several weeks ago, I read a column in the USA Today by Kathleen Parker in which she alleged that the September 11 attack shows how important it is that we re-integrate God and our civil institutions. She was particularly adamant in asserting that, "ever since we evicted God from our public schools," we’ve been going downhill. In response to that column, I wrote my first-ever letter to the editor. In my reply, which the USA Today editors chose not to print, I wrote:

"To Ms. Parker’s amazement, I’m sure, most of the emergency workers who died saving lives at the World Trade Center were raised without the benefit of school-led prayers. Without having been exposed to posters of the Ten Commandments in libraries and courtrooms, these brave and faithful women and men saved tens of thousands of lives and still managed to raise an American flag over the rubble at ground zero. Moreover, in thousands of spontaneously organized services the day of the attack, millions of Americans found their way into places of worship without any help from the government

Contrary to Ms. Parker’s analysis, recent events show that it’s possible for families to instill faith and patriotism in children without compelling them to do so through our public institutions."

Thus, this sermon was inspired by September 11, but it is not about September 11.

Now, let’s go back to 1553. Most of you know this, but for those who might not remember, permit me briefly to refresh our collective memory. Our first and most famous martyr is Michael Servetus, who was burned at the stake in Geneva Switzerland on the order of John Calvin himself and in his presence in 1553. His crime was to have written a book criticizing the contemporary view of the trinity that, in the words of one of one author, "ignited smoldering embers of Anti-trinitarian sentiment in Germany, Switzerland, and especially Italy. At that time, though, these anti-Trinitarian concepts had yet to gel into an organized faith tradition. In part due to the martyrdom of Servetus, the Unitarian Church emerged in Transylvania. From this movement, we got the first and only Unitarian king, John Sigismund. During his reign, Transylvania was a very diverse area, composed of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Calvinists, Lutherans, and Unitarians. The decree that I read earlier was issued 1568, but actually came near the end of Sigismund’s reign. Sigismund’s first decree of religious toleration occurred in 1557 and was renewed in 1563. At the urging of the Transylvanian legislature, the King strengthened these earlier decrees with the so-called Act of Tolerance and Freedom of Conscience that served as today’s reading. Eventually, though, this freedom was crushed by a combination of forces, which is another story for another time.

The ideas survived. Religious toleration was nurtured for a while in England. It was the Americans, however, who most forcefully and with the most dedication embraced the idea of religious freedom. So, let’s jump ahead now to 1789 and the adoption of the United States Constitution.

It has taken a long time to achieve the religious liberty we enjoy today. By analogy, remember that the Constitution recognized slavery. It was only after fighting the civil war and adopting the 13^th amendment that legal slavery was abolished. Many African-Americans will tell you, though, that real freedom for African-Americans did not come until after Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Some would argue that they’re still waiting.

The story of our religious freedom is similar. The original Constitution did not prohibit the creation of an official state church. The Bill of Rights, including the first amendment, was added after the 13 states first adopted the Constitution. Further, until the adoption of the 14^th amendment after the civil war, for legal reasons I won’t go into here, the first amendment did not apply to the States. They were left free to adopt state religions, if they chose to do so. Indeed 8 of the 13 states at one time or another had state religions. Maryland had a statute expressly baring Jews from public office until it was repealed in 1824 – and it was perfectly legal. I don’t want to minimize the importance of what the founders did, though. For all of its imperfections, this still was the freest country on earth in its time. Yet, until 1963, the public school systems in most States were protestant school systems.

In that year, the Supreme Court decided the case of Abington v. Schempp, and that case is as important in the history of religious freedom as Brown v. Board of Education is to civil rights. Abington was the name of the school district and Schempp was the name of the family that brought the case. At issue was a statute in Pennsylvania that required all public schools to being each day with the reading of ten verses of the Bible, followed by the Lord’s Prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance and the morning announcements.

Time for another quick side trip. There’s a reason why I chose a reading from Amos. Classroom prayers, nativity scenes in public parks, and the posting of the Ten Commandments everywhere are artificial displays of public religiosity. They are no different than those feasts and burnt offerings that Amos condemned over 2500 years ago. If our faith is not felt in our hearts and demonstrated in our conduct, then artificial displays of public religiosity are meaningless. If our faith is felt in our hearts and demonstrated in our conduct, then artificial displays of public religiosity are unnecessary. And, as these school prayer cases show, they can be downright dangerous. So, let’s go back to the school prayer case.

If somebody asks you whether you favor voluntary prayer in schools, I hope you will say "of course," and go on to note that we always have had voluntary prayer in schools, we always will, and, in fact, that it cannot be banned. No authority ever will be able to stop a young girl, before a meal or a test, from quietly centering herself, assuming a posture of prayer if she chooses, and silently or very quietly, saying a prayer. It cannot be done. The problem is that the fundamentalists in this country, which includes our President, have a different idea of what it means to be voluntary. They think something is voluntary if you are not compelled to do it. Thus, in their minds, if a teacher leads a class in spoken prayer, and a child is permitted to be excused from that exercise, they think that is voluntary. Let’s call that what it is: it is a lie. There’s nothing voluntary about putting the burden on a young child to request to be excused. Let’s not let others co-opt that word. Fortunately, because of the courage of Shempp family, most children today don’t have the burden.

The Schempp family consisted of Edward, Sidney, and their three children, Ellory, Roger, and Donna. At the time of the trial, the children were ages 17, 15, and 12, respectively. The record shows that they were members of the Unitarian Church in Germantown, Pennsylvania. They attended church regularly and their children attended RE regularly.

Now, I’ll continue the story by reading from the trial court record:

"Edward and Donna testified that they had never protested to their teachers or other persons of authority in the school system concerning the practices of which they now complain. In fact, on occasion, Donna herself had volunteered to read the Bible. The father, Edward Schempp, testified also that no complaint was lodged by him with the school authorities. Ellory Schempp, however, did complain of the practices, and demonstrated his objection first in November of 1956 by reading to himself a copy of the Koran while the Bible was being read, and refusing to stand during the recitation of the Lord's Prayer. He testified that his homeroom teacher stated to him that he should stand during the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, and that he then asked to be excused from "morning devotions." Afterwards he was sent to discuss the matter with the Vice-Principal and the School Guidance Counselor. As a result, for the remainder of the year, Ellory spent the period given over for "morning I devotions" each day in the Guidance Counselor's office."

At the trial, each of the children personally took the stand to testify. Here’s how the court summarized Ellory’s testimony – remember, he was the oldest:

"Ellory Schempp testified that he did not believe in the divinity of Christ, the Immaculate Conception, or the concepts of an anthropomorphic God or the Trinity. All of these doctrines were read to him at one time or another during the course of his instruction at the Abington High School. The other two children and Edward L. Schempp, their father, testified similarly."

Another diversion. Our young people are a real blessing, and so too, is the religious education program of our faith tradition. I love to visualize young Ellory reading the Koran in school. Note that, it was not the parents who first objected to this statute; it was their son. They didn’t go to the Supreme Court to fight a statute. They went to the Supreme Court to defend their son and his right to determine his faith. Abington v. Schempp says a lot about the importance of reason and conscience in matters of religion. It also says a lot about how we regard our children. For a contrary view, I direct your attention to Deuteronomy 21, verses 19-21, which states: "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them . . . they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice . . . And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." What’s scary is that most of the people who most want organized prayer in public schools also believe the preceding passage is literally the revealed word of God. I think it’s the revealed word of a child abuser myself. But, that’s another sermon.

Now, let me get back to the case. Of course, the court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. I want to read only one small part of the decision, written by Justice Clark. In this excerpt, he addresses the argument that few minutes taken each day for the reading the prayers is only a minimal intrusion that adherents of minority faiths like the Schempps should simply put up with:

"It is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the first amendment. The breach of neutrality that it today is a trickling stream may all too soon become a raging torrent and, in the words of Madison, "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties."

So, today, do we have any cause to take alarm? For the most part, the fight over prayer in school is over. It’s not dead and gone. Not long ago, Virginia enacted a moment of silence, which has been upheld. Every couple of years, creationism rears its head. We saw this most recently in Kansas. The lesson from that case is that school boards matter, and so do state boards of education. It’s easy for non-parents to pass on those electoral races. If we are not vigilant about these contests, though, these so-called stealth candidates will continue to get elected and will continue to threaten our liberty. Another hot-button issue these days is vouchers. I fear that there is a growing consensus in the Congress to support some kind of program that siphons away public funds for parochial schools. For your information, the Supreme Court is hearing a case this term involving the vouches that may decide the issue, for a while. The UUA has an office in Washington that follows these and other issues, and I strongly encourage you to check out their website, which you can find by going to UUA dot org and then clicking on "Faith in Action." You can sign up to be on a list serve that will alert you to pending items in Congress or at the White House we should know about.

So, let us be vigilant. As the columnist I quoted at the beginning of this sermon demonstrates, those who would threaten our religious liberty will take advantage of this war. Let’s not let that happen. Let us also be grateful for the saints of our tradition, the famous and the footnotes, for the sacrifices they made that made our freedom possible. Most importantly, let us commit to ourselves this morning, that in 40 years or even 400, our descendants will look back at our conduct and be grateful for us.

1^st hymn: 103, For All The Saints

Lesson: Amos 5:21-24

I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Reading: King John Sigismund’s Act of Religious Tolerance in Transylvania

His Majesty, our Lord, in what manner he-together with his realm [i.e., the Diet]-legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same manner now, in this Diet, he reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well, if not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment by removal from his post for his teaching, for faith is the gift of God, this comes from hearing, which hearing is by the word of God.

Sermon: From Servetus to Schempp

2nd hymn: 168, One More Step