Sir:
Thanks for your interesting, fair and historically sound treatment of the Supreme Court's decision regarding the use of a prayer composed by the New York State Board of Regents for use in public schools [July 6].
In recent years, Americans have been forgetting (or have never learned) the very sound values of the separation of church and state. We hope they will read the latter part of your article carefully.
(MRS.) DOROTHY C. LEIFFER
Evanston, Ill.
Sir: The Board of Regents' prayer was sectarian. It stated or implied four dogmas that form the basis for a well-defined doctrine: first, that a "God" exists ; secondly, that there is only one such "God"; that this "God" was the "God" creator hears of such the prayers universe; and and can lastly, intercede that in human affairs to answer them. Here is an unambiguously stated credo for a sect that, no matter how large and inclusive it be, is still only a sect whose doctrine is not accept able to all.
Accepting the premise that the prayer was sectarian, the schools' use of it jeopardized the students' right to freedom of religion. To a child, the school is the fountain of knowledge and source of authority. If the school favors or encourages a practice or belief, the child must make the tacit assumption that such schools' use practice of or such a belief is prayer is a "right." Thus misuse of the its position of authority and fosters, even in the nonparticipating child, a faith in the Tightness of the prayer.
Therefore, no matter how subtle the pres sure may be, the child is pushed to accepting the beliefs sponsoring this ritual.
BUFORD C. TERRELL Altus, Okla.
Sir:
Judge Potter Stewart [who was the lone dissenter to the majority decision] for TIME'S Man of the Year !
WILLIAM J. PARENTE Washington, D.C.
Sir: You state that Cardinal Spellman was "shocked and frightened" by the Supreme Court's decision barring prayers in public schools, that Mr. Eisenhower has "always thought that this nation was essentially a religious one," and that Mr. Hoover called this decision "a disintegration of one of the most sacred of American heritages." It seems to me that we all had a right to expect that these three outstanding Americans should have been mindful that George Washington wrote, "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" (Article XI, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the U.S.A. and Tripoli, June 10, 1797).
ALBERT B. NOR WALK
Hollywood
Sir: All those who are taking issue with the recent Supreme Court decision relative to school prayers should hearken to the words of Jesus [Matthew 6:6]:
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret ; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
GEORGE SCHROEDER Pittsburgh
Sir:
I guess the Supreme Court decision squelches my hope for a prayer on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange each morning before the opening gong.
STEPHEN L. WALD Boston
Sir:
I wonder how many of those who have been screaming about the Supreme Court ruling have bothered to PRAY about the situation. And I wonder if they realize that it might not have been so simple for an irreligious minority group to sway The Six, if more Americans had been exercising the privilege of prayer a little more frequently.
HAL GOULD
New York City
God & the Scientist
Sir:
Re the article on faith and the scientist [June 29]: there is an unwarranted assumption that science deals in faithless fact and that religion traffics in factless faith. The quote from Dr. Van Ness sums it up perfectly: "Any time religious beliefs come into conflict with the things we learn about the world, we must modify the beliefs." Any number of the scientific concepts we accept today may be simply convenient schemata that impose order upon the experiences we have collected so far. They may have little or no relation to "reality." The suspicion has been growing among many scholars during the past few decades that we are not so much "discovering" our scientific theories as we are "inventing" them.
A theory is thus neither true nor false; it simply works or it doesn't. Now it is true that many scientists (including myself) believe that their theories closely approximate or correspond to "reality," but this is an act of faith, for no "proof" can be adduced for or against it. Scientific beliefs can conflict with religious beliefs, but the large number of modified or even discarded scientific theories should serve as a useful warning relating to Dr. Van Ness's pronouncement. We should be very careful about junking our deep, personal religious committals because of certain presently held schemes that we are attempting to apply to the natural world, however useful they may be at the moment.
GEORGE K. SCHWEITZER Professor of Chemistry The University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tenn.
Sir:
The article was a continuation of the excellence with which TIME has repeatedly reported the realms of faith and science.
Professor Beadle's reaction of awe in the face of the evolutionary process befits a man whose contribution to science has shown that very creativeness. We may wonder, then, if such a conception as his admits of the "retired God" that was found implicit in it (by Professor Beadle himself?). For do we not see in the evolutionary process a creativeness of an exceedingly high order ?
As radical dependence in being and becoming is the hallmark of the creature, so dominion not only of being but of becoming is the divine prerogative. Viewed in this light, the becoming of the evolutionary process is indeed divinely impregnated.
EDWARD SCHOTT, S J.
Innsbruck, Austria
[Laughter] Sir: The picture captioned "Democratic Lead ers After White House Meeting" [June 29] is a remarkable study. Each one of the seven-member group is looking off in a different direction, and all are wearing wide smiles.
In view of the unemployment situation, the stock market crash, the vanishing gold supply, the faltering economy, and the sorry state of our prestige with our NATO partners, may I inquire: "What's funny?"
SIDNEY SANDERS
Corona del Mar, Calif.
An Added Line Sir:
In recent years, the U.S. presidency has been further defined by each man elected to that office. Roosevelt proved the White House could be a lifetime residence. Truman proved that anyone could become Chief Executive. Eisenhower proved we really don't need a President. Kennedy is proving it's dangerous to have one.
KENNETH S. HODGE
Chehalis, Wash.
Reaction from the Congo Sir:
I have read with great satisfaction the comments in your article of July 6th on the breakdown of the talks between Prime Minister Adoula and the Katanga Provincial President Tshombe. I was especially pleased to see that you noted the willingness of Adoula to continue offering concessions and his patience before Tshombe's apparent bad faith.
However, I was disturbed to read certain statements about myself. The motion of censure had nothing to do with the transfer of funds to foreign banks, which I assure you is no practice of mine. It did concern the agreement I signed in the name of my government covering United Nations presence and activity in my country. The motion was put by enemies of Congolese independence who see in the U.N.'s presence an obstacle to their ends. To the best of my knowledge, there was no special deployment of troops at the Parliament. At any rate, I, as Foreign Minister, have no gendarmes at my disposal for deployment anywhere and leave these matters to police authorities.
Please accept my appreciation for this occasion to put the record straight.
JUSTIN BOMBOKO
Foreign Minister Republic of the Congo
Jack the Giant
Sir:
Your cover article on Jack Nicklaus [June 29] is to be commended. When Jack won the Open, the press overshadowed his victory by playing up Palmer's losing.
I'm an Arnold Palmer fan myself, but let's face it, this boy Nicklaus is a champion, and I'm sure that Palmer would be the first to admit same.
ED WlNBOURNE
Dedham, Mass.
Sir:
Good article on Nicklaus, but it makes unfair comparison with Bobby Jones's drives. The difference is in equipment. Jones's 240 yards with the old weak clubs (hickory shafts -- loose, crude heads) and relatively slow balls easily compares with the best of today. I know -- I'm an ex-pro who learned with temperamental hickory.
JOHN L. STOUT Portland, Ore.
Sir:
Wind up the Jack Nicklaus doll and it un winds for 300 yds.
BRUCE WADE
Los Angeles Rhapsody Reconsidered
Sir:
Byron Janis certainly works fast. I object to the story on his performance of Rhapsody in Blue [June 22] and his subsequent letter [June 29]. It was Janis who changed the previously agreed upon date of June 21. I was in Russia with Benny Goodman when Janis notified Goodman that he would not be able to make the 21st as he had to leave the country. Goodman, fearing pressure of time, replied agreeably that if the 21st was not convenient for Janis, he would consider that the concert was off. Apparently, Janis then reconsidered.
It is hard to believe that Benny Goodman is anything but a perfectionist when it comes to music. It certainly will come as a surprise to anybody who knows Goodman that he strives for anything else but the best any time he clays, no matter who is with him on the stage.
HAL DAVIS*
New York City
Cloak & Luger Sir:
While your article "007 v. SMERSH" [June 29] will probably sell more books for Ian Fleming, it somewhat left the authenticity of SMERSH up in the air. After some research, I have discovered it definitely existed. SMERSH is short for two Russian words, Smert Shpionam (Death to Spies). It was formed just before World War II by the then NKVD. Its mission was the tracking down and punishment of foreign spies, and to detect any signs of dissent within the ranks of the Soviet armed forces. Every battalion, regiment and company of the Red army had a SMERSH agent attached to it, as did all active units of the navy and air force.
After the war, it was reorganized into an efficient murder squad to dispose of all Soviet traitors at home and abroad. It was finally disbanded in 1958.
PETER J. LLOYD
Melbourne, Australia
In Celebration of Art Sir:
Chairman Herbert Johnson and the Johnson Wax Co. are to be congratulated for the excellent collection of paintings they have assembled and for their plans to use it as an international ambassador of goodwill. But in fairness to American artists across the U.S., it should be pointed out this is much more a collection of East Coast, rather than American, paintings.
It includes, of course, a few artists from other parts of the country who happen to be connected with prominent New York galleries -- a criterion for quality that I, for one, cannot subscribe to. It would seem to me that for a project with such ambitious long-term plans, and so generously financed, an effort might have been made to make the collection truly representative of current American painting.
One must conclude that this is just another example of New York's "America ends at the Hudson River" attitude, to which the John son Wax people have unwittingly become subscribers. I fervently hope that when, within the next 20 years, the West Coast assumes a position of cultural eminence equal to that of New York, it will not fall victim to the same kind of provincialism and local patriotism.
FELIX LANDAU Los Angeles
> Yet the Johnson collection includes twelve West Coast painters, and Art Dealer Lee Nordness bought one of them in Los Angeles from Gallery Owner Landau. -- ED.
Sir:
As an American art critic free-lancing in Europe this summer, I must compliment you on your concise and readable account of Venice's Biennale [June 29], an art show that could not possibly be fully covered ex cept through superhuman means.
LAWRENCE DAME
Venice
Sir: Your coverage of the Venice Biennale inspired me with the Aldo Calo "free gesture." I gleefully smashed a hole through my copy of TIME.
(S/SGT) JOHN R. KING Bitburg, Germany
* An advertising executive and personal friend who has been Goodman's representative on foreign tours for several years.
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.