The Political Origin of Religious Prohibition in United States Schools

The prohibition of religion in public schools can be traced to two important decisions made by the Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 and McCollum v. Board of Education just a year later, the latter testing the Everson precedent.  For the first time, under McCollum, the federal Court dominated religion in State run schools, ending 160 years of religious freedom in the States and in schools throughout the United States.

The makeup of the "New Deal" 1947-1948 Supreme Court may provide a window as to what brought about the radical change in the nation's character.  Franklin D. Roosevelt had been elected president 15 years earlier, and by 1947 had appointed nine Supreme Court justices, seven of whom were sitting members.  Harry Truman, who inherited Roosevelt's unprecedented forth term, had appointed the remaining two.  Thus, every member of that Supreme Court was elected by Democrat presidents, seven, by perhaps the most liberal president the United States has ever had, and all by either Roosevelt or his chosen successor.

Roosevelt's unrestrained influence in the Court's radical change from that of a nation under God to effectively an atheist government can be clearly seen in the provided table.  The first column contains the name of all the justices appointed by Roosevelt or by Truman prior to1949, followed by the year oath taken and date of service terminated.  The last column displays whether the justice was sitting on the bench during the crucial decisions of Everson and McCollum.

*1947 Everson v. Board of Education / 1948 McCollum v. Board of Education

Source: United States Supreme Court web site

Roosevelt was elected to the presidency in 1932 in the middle of a depression, and immediately found himself at odds with a Supreme Court controlled by Republican appointees who struck down his "New Deal" legislation.   Not a single justice on the court resigned or otherwise left the bench during Roosevelt's first term, denying him an opportunity to alter the Court's political makeup.  Roosevelt, after his first reelection, concocted what proved to be an immensely unpopular and ultimately doomed plan to "pack" the Supreme Court with  his own appointees and swell the court from nine to as many as fifteen members.  Although the plan would never become law, the Court's makeup began to change in Roosevelt's favor as it's youngest member began voting in Roosevelt's favor, and older justices began retiring.  Roosevelt ultimately controlled both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, additionally to the executive branch, and just a few years later an alarmed Congress would pass a new amendment to limit the term of president to just two four year terms.

Roosevelt's seven Supreme Court appointees greatly impacted morality in the United States with the 1947 and 1948 federal policy prohibiting religious teaching in schools throughout the United States, and created a foundation of law for all subsequent Court decisions outlawing school prayer and display of religious artifacts.  No modern Court decision limiting religion does not cite Everson or some other case which grew out of it, and the Court's liberal interpretation of the Constitution's fourteenth amendment, of which all limitations on the States must arise, most likely became a guideline for the taking of future liberties on the law with new limitations on the States, such as Roe v. Wade, nearly 25 years later, founded on previously non-existent federal powers..

The Court is more conservative now, but continues to follow the Everson precedent and retain control of religion in the States, even though the first amendment specifically delegated the regulation of religion to the States, not to the central government.   Justice Clarence Thomas has indicated an interest in overturning the "incorporation" policy of Roosevelt's post-war era Court, and perhaps as many as three more conservative justices might harbor similar interests.  Ultimately the makeup of future Courts will determine the outcome of this controversy, and whether the Court will someday overturn "incorporation" and give the States back their former authority under the Constitution. Thus, the future of religion sits in the hands of the people and with the presidents they ultimately choose to guide them, and with the Senators they pick that will confirm and reject future Court nominees.

States' Liberty Party,  May 21, 2003