—of New York City, what the court has to say is interesting: "In no sense does the practice of reading from the Scriptures destroy or weaken or affect the cleavage between church and state; the practice does not bridge or conjoin the two... It it not maintained that dogmatic religion is being foisted upon any pupil. No special creed or sect or tenet is favored. Even those who …

—regarding as constitutional a statute allowing the commencement of public school classes in New York City with Bible reading "without note or comment."

York (26) the court held that reading of portions of the Bible from several versions, without comment or note, at the opening exercises in the public schools was lawful and not in violation of either the State or Federal Constitutions; but on the contrary, was permitted by and was in accord with constitutional and statutory provisions (27).

—presently pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court of Appeals of New York affirmed by a divided court a decision of the Appellate Division (206 NYS 2d 183) holding that the noncompulsory daily recitation of the "regents prayer" [2] in the public schools was not violative of either the state or federal guarantee of freedom of religion.

The constitutionality of a state-financed purchase of a book of Bible readings and hymn books had not yet been decided, although there had been cases on this subject dismissed on procedural grounds.

On sectarianism in the schools, see the cases noted in 57 ALR I95 (I928); 3I ALR 1125 (1924); 20 ALR 1351 (1922); 5 ALR 866 (1920).

IX renumbered and amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938; approved by the people November 8, 1938. US Const. Amend. 1.

—characterizing the plaintiffas some sort of "God attacker," declaring that "[u] ndisguised, the plaintiff's attack is on a belief and trust in God and in any system or policy or teaching which enhances or fosters or countenances or even recognizes that belief and trust

Accordingly the use rather than the user was the deciding factor, afid in this case the use for "giving and receiving instruction in education, learning and the arts" was legally sufficient

He could not, we hypothesize, prevent, on constitutional grounds, the houses of Congress from opening their sessions with prayer to the Almighty for guidance in their deliberations, even though he were a member of Congress, or from maintaining chaplains for service with the armed forces, even though he were a member of those forces.

[PDF] Equal Citizenship, Civil Rights, and the Constitution

[PDF] Philosophy of the State as Educator