THE NEW AGE--ARTICLE--JANUARY 1990--ARTcomed.JAN

Committee on Education and Americanism


	The Orients have variously reported on programs which they
conducted celebrating the bicentennial of the United States
Constitution.  Those programs have been successful in educating
those in attendance on the continuing values of that American event
unique in history which Catherine Drinker Bowen described as the
"Miracle at Philadelphia."  The Orients have also reported on the
distribution of literature to schools, other organizations and the
general public relating to the freedoms which the American
constitutional system protects.
	With respect to education of our own members on moral values
and Masonic teachings, Orients have commented favorably on the
Bridge to Light, which is now being extensively used throughout the
jurisdiction.  There has been steady progress in many Orients
involving Scottish Rite aid to education through scholarship and
fellowship grants. In this connection your committee is pleased to
sense a restoration of amicable working relationships between the
Supreme Council and the Orients and George Washington University. 
	For the first time, Orients were asked by the Grand Commander
to report to this committee on the status of programs for childhood
language disorders.  In general, the reports from the Orients show
steady expansion of their programs through diligent work by
dedicated Brothers.  The program epitomizes Masonic charity and
continues as a great credit to the fraternity.
        Because of the Scottish Rite concern for the preservation of
our constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and of
worship, this report would not be complete without a brief summary
of the current status of the philosophical attitudes of the United
States Supreme court on those subjects.  Obviously, any brief
analysis can only appraise the current climate and cannot predict
whether or where tornadoes may touch down.  In making the following
comments, your committee has been struck by the fact that recent
fights in the Supreme Court have been waged over symbols.  Masons
are heavily involved with symbols because every Degree from the
first through the thirty-third deals with them.  We sometimes
wonder if we overdo symbolism; if it is really as important to
people as the authors of our rituals believed.  Experience in the
Supreme Court suggests that symbols are very important in everyday
life as well as in fraternal ceremonies.
	The first case involved the much ballyhooed subject of flag
burning.  Texas had a statute making desecration of a state or
national flag a crime.  The statute said the word "desecrate" means
deface, damage or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the
actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to
observe or discover his action.  The appellant was convicted of
burning an American flag at the Republican national convention as
a protest against government policies.  The Supreme Court held five
to four that the statute is unconstitutional.  Media hype and
political posturing following the court's decision tended to
obscure the reasons for it.  
	The court actually held that the statute violates the First
Amendment which prohibits any law "abridging the freedom of
speech."  The act of burning was held to be a form of expression,
no different than words or pictures, protected by the Constitution. 
The court was obviously concerned about setting a precedent for
government censorship which would be the very antithesis of the
system of government for which the flag stands.  The court
commented that:
The flag's deservedly cherished place in our community
will be strengthened, not weakened, by our holding today. 
Our decision is the reaffirmation of the principles of
freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects,
and of the conviction that our toleration of criticisms
such as Johnson's is a sign and source of our strength. 
Indeed one of the proudest images of our flag, the one
immortalized in our own national anthem, is the
bombardment it survived at Fort McHenry. . . .
	The second case involved Christian and Jewish religious
symbols.  At Christmas, Allengheny County in Pittsburgh decorated
the grand staircase of the county courthouse with a creche which
is a visual representation of the scene in the manger in Bethlehem
shortly after the birth of Jesus, as described in the gospels of
Luke and Matthew.  Over the scene was a banner proclaiming "Gloria
in excelsis deo!"  No figures of Santa Claus or other decorations
appeared on the grand staircase.  One block from the courthouse was
the city-county building, which at the same time was decorated with
a Christmas tree in its main arch and in an adjoining arch an 18-
foot menorah of an abstract tree and branch design.  The court
commented that the menorah is a symbol of the Jewish holiday of
Chanukah which celebrates the Maccabees' rededication of the temple
of Jerusalem after recapturing it from the Greek-influenced
Seleucid empire.
	By a five to four decision the court ruled that the creche was
a Christian display which constituted an endorsement of religion
by government contrary to the provision of the First Amendment
which prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion. 
It was important to the court's decision that the creche was not
surrounded by other ornaments.  In an earlier case the court had
approved the display of a creche on government property where the
display contained:
. . . a Santa Claus house with a live Santa distributing
candy; reindeer pulling Santa's sleigh; a live 40-foot
Christmas tree strung with lights; statues of carolers
in old-fashioned dress; candy-striped poles; a "talking"
wishing well, a large banner proclaiming "Seasons
Greetings"; a miniature "village" with several houses and
a church; and various "cut-out figures," including those
of a clown, a dancing elephant, a robot, and a teddy
bear.
	In that case the court characterized the entire display as
secular.  The distinction between the two cases evoked the comment
that the court had reduced a legal issue to one of interior
decoration.
	The court at the same time concluded in the Pittsburgh case
that the government display of the Jewish menorah was acceptable
because the 18-foot menorah was displayed with and in a less
central position then a 45-foot Christmas tree.  The overall
display was considered secular, and therefore there was no official
endorsement of religion.  The ruling produced objections by some
Jewish leaders that an important religious symbol had been
"secularized" and thus cheapened.
	In the broader picture there is truly cause for concern about
the future of the constitutional guarantees of religious liberty. 
At a time when he was usually a lone dissenter, Justice Rehnquist
said:
The "wall of separation between church and state" is a
metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has
proved useless as a guide to judging.  It should be
frankly and explicitly abandoned.
There has been no indication that he has changed his mind.  In the
recent Pittsburgh case Justice Kennedy said, "Substantial revision
of our establishment clause doctrine may be in order."  Justices
White and Scalia have voted consistently in favor of "recognizing
and accommodating the central role religion plays in our society." 
They have thus voted in favor of government aid to religion. 
Justice O'Connor at the moment is the swing vote on crucial issues. 
Those stalwarts of religious liberty, Justices Brennan (a Catholic)
and Marshall, are in their eighties.
	A change in personnel of the Supreme court in the relatively
near future is inevitable.  It can and probably will have a
profound impact on the constitutional guarantees which Scottish
Rite seeks to protect.  It has been apparent in the past that
notwithstanding the independent and almost insular position of
Supreme Court justices, they nevertheless read headlines and are
ultimately responsive to the citizens' demands.  It behooves us to
continue even more strenuously than before to educate the public
and ourselves about the wisdom of preserving intact the
constitutional guarantees of religious liberty which our forebears
struggled so hard to bring into existence.
						Respectfully submitted,
						John D. Blankinship, Chairman
						S. Barry Casey
						H. Wallace Reid
						H. Douglas Lemons
______________________________________________________________
The flag's deservedly cherished place in our community will be
strengthened, not weakened, by our [Supreme Court] holding today. 
Our decision is the reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and
inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and of the conviction
that our toleration of criticisms such as Johnson's is a sign and
source of our strength.

In the broader picture there is truly cause for concern about the
future of the constitutional guarantees of religious liberty.  

It behooves us to continue even more strenuously than before to
educate the public and ourselves about the wisdom of preserving
intact the constitutional guarantees of religious liberty which our
forebears struggled so hard to bring into existence.
