Could Maryland have required public schools to give equal classroom time to creation-science and evolution?

Plain-English summary

A member of the Maryland House of Delegates asked the Attorney General to review House Bill 1078 for constitutionality before a floor vote. The bill would have required Maryland public schools to give a "reasonably unbiased presentation" of "creation-science" and "evolution-science," defined to mean equal class time, equal textbook pages, and equal library volumes devoted to each. The opinion concluded the bill would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It applied the U.S. Supreme Court's three-part test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (secular purpose, a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and no excessive government entanglement with religion) and found House Bill 1078 failed all three prongs, closely tracking a nearly identical Arkansas statute that a federal district court had just struck down in McLean v. Arkansas. The opinion found the bill's purpose was religious rather than scientific, since it was based on a model bill from a creationist advocacy organization and its own preamble spoke in terms of protecting religious beliefs from being undermined; that its effect would be to advance the Genesis account of creation, since "creation-science" itself embodied a specifically religious concept of creation from nothing that no part of the mainstream scientific community recognized as a scientific theory; and that requiring school officials to monitor "equal time" and screen materials for religious content would entangle the State in exactly the kind of religious oversight the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1982. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The opinion relied heavily on McLean v. Arkansas, a federal district court decision the opinion itself noted the State of Arkansas did not plan to appeal, and House Bill 1078 itself was never enacted. Establishment Clause doctrine, including the continued use of the Lemon v. Kurtzman three-part test itself, has evolved substantially in the decades since 1982, and the U.S. Supreme Court has since addressed similar state "balanced treatment" creationism statutes in cases issued after this opinion and not discussed in it. Verify current First Amendment case law before relying on any specific description of how a public school curriculum mandate would be analyzed today.

Common questions

Could Maryland have required public schools to teach creationism alongside evolution in 1982?
No, according to this opinion. It concluded that House Bill 1078's requirement of "reasonably unbiased," equal-time treatment of creation-science and evolution-science would have violated the Establishment Clause because the bill had a religious purpose and effect.

Why did the opinion say "creation-science" wasn't really science?
The opinion relied on the extensive trial record in McLean v. Arkansas, in which a federal judge found that "creation-science," with its core concept of sudden creation from nothing, was not testable, not falsifiable, and not recognized by any part of the mainstream scientific community, and concluded that Maryland's House Bill 1078 defined "creation-science" in essentially the same way as the Arkansas statute.

Did the bill's stated goal of being "neutral" and avoiding religious establishment save it?
No. The opinion found that House Bill 1078's own preamble spoke of protecting students' and parents' religious beliefs from being undermined by evolution-only teaching, and concluded that an "avowed secular purpose," in the Supreme Court's words, is not enough to avoid an Establishment Clause violation when the bill's real purpose and effect are religious.

What did the opinion mean by "entanglement" being a problem with this kind of law?
The opinion explained that requiring school officials to monitor exactly equal class time, textbook pages, and library volumes for two subjects, and to screen creation-science materials for religious content, would draw the State into an ongoing, intrusive role policing religious content in the classroom, which is exactly what the Establishment Clause's entanglement prong forbids.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applied the U.S. Supreme Court's Establishment Clause precedents on religion in public education, including Everson v. Board of Education's holding that government may not aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another, and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp's recognition that the Establishment Clause faces its "severest tests" in the public school classroom. It walked through the Court's evolution-specific precedent, especially Epperson v. Arkansas, which struck down an Arkansas statute criminalizing the teaching of evolution because the law "selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine." Applying Lemon v. Kurtzman's three-part test, purpose, effect, and entanglement, the opinion drew directly on the extensive evidentiary findings from McLean v. Arkansas, a nearly contemporaneous federal case striking down an Arkansas "balanced treatment" statute that the opinion found substantially identical to House Bill 1078, including the fact that both bills traced back to the same model legislation from a creationist advocacy organization.

On purpose, the opinion found House Bill 1078's own preamble revealed a religious motivation, framing the bill in terms of protecting religious beliefs and religious exercise rather than advancing science education, paralleling Judge Overton's finding in McLean that the Arkansas statute was "simply and purely an effort to introduce the Biblical version of creation into the public school curricula." On effect, the opinion found the bill's definition of "creation-science" necessarily conveyed the specifically religious concept of creation from nothing, a concept the McLean trial record showed no scientific journal had ever treated as a testable scientific theory, so that the bill's mandated "equal treatment" of creation-science and evolution would inevitably advance a particular religious viewpoint rather than achieve genuine neutrality. On entanglement, the opinion concluded that monitoring precise numerical equality in class time, textbook pages, and library holdings, and screening creation-science materials to strip out overtly religious references, would draw teachers, school boards, and the State Department of Education into exactly the kind of ongoing religious oversight the Establishment Clause's entanglement prong was designed to prevent.

Citations

Statutes:

• House Bill 1078 (1982 Maryland General Assembly, the bill reviewed by this opinion)
• §7-111(c) of the Education Article (proposed, requiring "reasonably unbiased presentation")
• §7-111(b)(5)(i)(2) of the Education Article (proposed, classroom lecture time-balance requirement)
• §7-111(b)(5)(ii) of the Education Article (proposed, textbook page-balance requirement)
• §7-111(b)(5)(iii) of the Education Article (proposed, library volume-balance requirement)
• Ark. Stat. Ann. §80-1663 et seq. (1981 Supp.) (the analogous Arkansas "balanced treatment" statute struck down in McLean)

Cases:

• Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431-32 (1962)
• Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947)
• School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 230 (1963)
• Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
• Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
• McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
• Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971)
• Scopes v. State of Tennessee, 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927)
• McLean v. Arkansas, 529 F.Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982)
• Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1982/Volume67_1982.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

First Amendment—Establishment Clause—"Scientific Creationism"—Requiring the Teaching of "Creation-Science" in Public Schools Would Violate Establishment Clause

February 23, 1982

The Honorable Patrick C. Scannello
Maryland House of Delegates

You have asked us to review for constitutionality House Bill 1078, concerning the teaching of "creation-science" and "evolution-science" in the public schools of Maryland. In particular, you have asked whether, if enacted, this bill would violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits government from making any "law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

For the reasons given below, we have concluded that House Bill 1078 would violate the separation between Church and State that is required by the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment.1

I
House Bill 1078

House Bill 1078 has a number of components, but its key feature provides that public schools are required to give a "reasonably unbiased" presentation of "creation-science" and "evolution-science" in classroom lectures, textbook materials, and library volumes. §7-111(c).2

1 We have recently discussed at some length the meaning and scope of the "religious clauses" of the First Amendment. See 65 Opinions of the Attorney General 186 (1980) (distributing Gideon Bibles to public elementary school students violates the Establishment Clause); 64 Opinions of the Attorney General 134 (1979) (teaching ethical values in the public schools is constitutionally permissible).

2 Statutory citations are to proposed new provisions of the Education Article of the Maryland Code.

"Reasonably unbiased presentation" in classroom lectures is defined in pertinent part as the presentation of "evolution-science" and "creation-science" by the "time or length balance provided by an equal number of class periods or course hours to the nearest hour in a school year". §7-111(b)(5)(i)(2). For textbook materials, "reasonably unbiased" treatment requires the same "content balance" as in classroom lectures but, additionally, mandates "the length balance provided by an equal number of pages ... to the nearest 10 percent of the total pages in assigned textbook materials", to the extent such materials are available. §7-111(b)(5)(ii). The "content balance" required in library volumes is that "provided by an equal number of library volumes" in the humanities and sciences presenting evolution and creation science, to the extent such volumes are available. §7-111(b)(5)(iii).

II
The Establishment Clause

A. Purpose of Clause

As the Supreme Court has stated:

"[The] first and most immediate purpose [of the Establishment Clause] rest[s] on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. . . . Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rest[s] upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand." Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431-32 (1962).

The Court has given a broad meaning to the Establishment Clause and has held that it means, at the very least, that "neither the States nor the Federal government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). Its effect has been "to take every form of propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or indirectly be made public business", 330 U.S. at 26, "by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion", 330 U.S. at 31-32.

Because the public schools have been characterized "as a most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government", the Establishment Clause has encountered its severest tests when it has been applied to practices and policies within the classroom. School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 230 (1963). See, e.g., Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (posting copy of Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on public classroom wall is unconstitutional); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (criminal statute prohibiting teachers in state schools from teaching "the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals" struck down); School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) (daily reading of Bible in public schools banned); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (recitation of a "denominationally neutral" prayer contravenes Establishment Clause); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) (public school program in which students are released temporarily from their secular studies to attend religious classes held invalid).3

Separation of religion in the field of education was not something imposed upon unwilling states; rather, it was the democratic response of the American community to the particular needs of harmonizing "multiform creeds". "Designed to serve as perhaps the most powerful agency for promoting cohesion among a heterogenous democratic people, the public schools must keep scrupulously free from entanglement in the strife of sects." McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 216-17 (1948).

B. Application of Clause

The Supreme Court has enunciated a three-part test for determining whether a challenged state practice or policy is permissible under the Establishment Clause:

3 See also 65 Opinions of the Attorney General 186, at n. 3 (1980) for cases dealing with the provision of public aid to religious educational institutions.

"First, the statute must have a secular purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion . . . ; finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'" Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971) (citations omitted).

If a statute violates any one of these three principles, it must be struck down under the Establishment Clause. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 40-41 (1980).

Of particular relevance here, the Supreme Court has been called upon to deal with the teaching of evolution in the public schools and its alleged conflict with the Biblical version of creation in Genesis. In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), a school teacher challenged the constitutionality of an Arkansas "anti-evolution" statute, which made it a criminal offense "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals". 393 U.S. at 98-99.4

The Supreme Court in Epperson struck down the Arkansas statute as violating the Establishment Clause:

"The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." 393 U.S. at 103.5

The Supreme Court majority found that there was "no doubt" that the Arkansas statute prohibited the teaching of evolution "because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man", and that this "fundamentalist sectarian" conviction was the basis of the law's existence. 393 U.S. at 107-08. Such an intention was found to be "plainly" contrary to the mandates of the First Amendment.

4 This statute was an adaptation of the famous Tennessee "monkey law", upheld decades before by Tennessee's Supreme Court. That court nevertheless had reversed the conviction of a teacher found guilty of violating the law, because "nothing [is] to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case". Scopes v. State of Tennessee, 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927).

5 As the Epperson opinion points out, the defense in the Scopes trial had contended that the Tennessee anti-evolution law gave a "preference" "to religious establishments which have as one of their tenets or dogmas the instantaneous creation of man". 393 U.S. at 104 n. 11.

III
Creationism in Arkansas

Recently, Arkansas once again faced a controversy over the teaching of evolution. In March, 1981, that state enacted a statute requiring the "balanced treatment of creation-science and evolution-science in public schools". Ark. Stat. Ann. §80-1663 et seq. (1981 Supp.).

That statute, substantially akin to the one proposed by House Bill 1078, was subject to a court challenge on the grounds that it constituted an establishment of religion, violated the rights of students and teachers to academic freedom, and was impermissibly vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is noteworthy that the challengers included bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and African Methodist Episcopal churches, an official of the Arkansas Presbyterian churches, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.

After a ten-day trial, Judge William R. Overton of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas issued an opinion finding the statute to be unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. McLean v. Arkansas, 529 F.Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982). (We understand that the State of Arkansas has no plans to appeal this decision.)

Having carefully reviewed the Court's opinion in McLean, we find its reasoning to be sound and particularly appropriate to a consideration of the constitutionality of House Bill 1078. We of course recognize that, unlike the Court considering the Arkansas statute, we do not have before us the benefit of an evidentiary record concerning House Bill 1078. Nevertheless, given the substantial similarity in substance and effect of House Bill 1078 to the Arkansas statute, we believe it to be entirely appropriate to look for guidance to the findings of the District Court in McLean.

Such an approach is not without respectable precedent. Indeed, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court itself, in deducing the purpose of an Arkansas statute, relied in great part on the stated purpose of the Tennessee "monkey law", enacted three years before the Arkansas statute. As the Supreme Court noted:

"[Arkansas] eliminated Tennessee's reference to 'the story of the Divine Creation of man' as taught in the Bible, but there is no doubt that the motivation for the law was the same: to suppress the teaching of a theory which, it was thought, 'denied' the divine creation of man." Epperson, 393 U.S. at 109.

The trial before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, therefore, provides us with a valuable laboratory in which scientific creationism, as a mandated subject of public school instruction, has recently been tested against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

IV
Analysis

A. Purpose

Judge Overton found that the Arkansas statute "was simply and purely an effort to introduce the Biblical version of creation into the public school curricula" and "passed with the specific purpose by the General Assembly of advancing religion". 529 F.Supp. at 1264.

An important element considered by Judge Overton was the motivation of the bill's actual author, the head of a scientific creationist organization called "Citizens for Fairness in Education".6 The evidence adduced at the Arkansas trial revealed that the author's efforts in preparing model acts providing for the teaching of creationism and crusading for their adoption were motivated by his opposition to the theory of evolution and his desire to see the Biblical version of creationism taught in the public schools. 529 F.Supp. at 1263.

6 We have learned that the author of the Arkansas bill, Paul Ellwanger, supplied the model bill that was the basis for House Bill 1078. As mentioned in the McLean opinion, Mr. Ellwanger began in 1977 to collect and propose "model state acts" requiring the teaching of scientific creationsim. He believed that "evolution is the forerunner of many social ills, including Nazism, racism and abortion" and that the crusade to teach creationism in the schools is a "battle . . . between God and anti-God forces". 529 F.Supp. at 1261.

It is inescapably clear that religious concerns are at the heart of the creationist movement. For example, Judge Overton quoted the following from one creationist publication:

"Evolution is thus not only anti-Biblical and anti-Christian, but it is utterly unscientific and impossible as well. But it has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous other false and dangerous philosphies over the past century." 529 F.Supp. at 1260 (quoting Morris and Clark, The Bible Has the Answer).

House Bill 1078 is substantially based upon, and, in several aspects, virtually identical with, the Arkansas statute invalidated in McLean. Despite certain changes in style, tone, and language, both share the same ultimate purpose. This is apparent whether one considers the source of the bill, sponsor statements in published reports [see, e.g., "Teachers fight bill on creationism", Baltimore News American, Oct. 16, 1981, at 1A] or, most importantly, the language contained in the bill's Preamble.

For example, the Preamble to House Bill 1078 emphasizes that evolution-science is contrary to the "religious . . . beliefs" of many students and parents . . . (lines 93-98); that failing to teach creation-science abridges freedom of "religious exercise" and undermines "religious . . . beliefs" (lines 99-107); and that the teaching of only evolution-science discriminates against religions that profess creationist beliefs (lines 109-115). It is impossible for us to read such statements without perceiving a religious purpose behind the bill.

It is true that a stated purpose of House Bill 1078 is to permit a "reasonably unbiased presentation of creation-science and evolution-science" (line 47), as well as "insuring academic freedom", "keeping public schools neutral toward students' and parents' diverse philosophical beliefs", and "ceasing any establishment of religions" (lines 185-195). But such lofty disclaimers cannot wish away what to us is the plain fact that religious conviction is the preeminent purpose of House Bill 1078, just as it was found to be the purpose of the Arkansas statute:

"[A]n 'avowed' secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment." Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41 (1980).

B. Effect

House Bill 1078 also fails under the second prong of the Establishment Clause test in that its language leaves no doubt that the effect of the bill would be to promote the advancement of religion in the public schools.

First, like the definition of "creation-science" in the Arkansas statute invalidated by Judge Overton, the definition of "creation-science" in House Bill 1078 unequivocally reflects the influence of the Book of Genesis. The Arkansas bill described creation-science as "sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing"; and, as the Court concluded, the statement could only imply a supernatural creation by God. Although House Bill 1078 does not use the words "life from nothing", it still necessarily conveys the religious concept of creatio ex nihilo, sudden creation from nothing. And, as Judge Overton stated:

"The argument that [the] creation from nothing [referred to] in [the Act] does not involve a supernatural deity has no evidentiary or rational support. To the contrary, 'creation out of nothing' is a concept unique to Western religions. In traditional Western religious thought, the conception of a creator of the world is a conception of God. Indeed, creation of the world 'out of nothing' is the ultimate religious statement because God is the only actor. As Dr. Langdon Gilkey noted, the Act refers to one who has the power to bring all the universe into existence from nothing. The only 'one' who has this power is God." 529 F. Supp. at 1265.

Second, House Bill 1078, consistent with the general position of creationists, takes the approach that there are only two explanations for life as it presently exists, the theory of evolution or the Biblical creationist belief. The Preamble to House Bill 1078 states:

"WHEREAS, Creation-science is an alternative to evolution-science as an explanation for origins, and creation-science like evolution-science can be presented from a strictly scientific standpoint without any religious doctrine because there are qualified scientists who conclude that scientific evidence better supports creation-science, just as there are qualified scientists who reach similar conclusions about evolution-science, and because scientific evidence and related inferences have been presented by qualified scientists for creation-science just as they have been presented for evolution-science. ..." Lines 133-41 (emphasis added).

However, the evidence at the Arkansas trial simply does not support the proposition that creation-science is a scientific theory or can be presented from a scientific viewpoint. The emphasis on "origins" as a theory of evolution is peculiar to creationist literature, and the scientific community does not consider the actual origins of life as part of the evolutionary theory. "The theory of evolution assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved." 529 F.Supp. at 1266 (emphasis in the original).

Furthermore, as the McLean opinion points out, creation-science, with its emphasis on creation rather than evolution, "is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law. It is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable". 529 F.Supp. at 1267. No scientific journal has ever published an article espousing the creation-science theory. Indeed, House Bill 1078 itself states that "creation-science is not an unquestionable fact of science" and acknowledges that it cannot be "experimentally observed, fully verified, or logically falsified" (lines 87-91). It makes the same assertions concerning the theory of evolution, but they are rhetorical statements without the support of the scientific community.

Third, the bill does not avoid constitutional infirmity by substituting "reasonably unbiased" presentation for the Arkansas requirement of "balanced" treatment. Reasonably unbiased presentation, as defined, clearly is intended to provide that "equal treatment" will be given creation-science and evolution. Under the First Amendment, however, "[s]eparation is a requirement to abstain from fusing functions of Government and of religious sects, not merely to treat them all equally". McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. at 227.

Thus, the lack of scientific authority and the inherent religious nature of "creation-science" lead us to conclude that requiring its teaching in the public schools would not only have the effect of advancing religion but would promote one religious belief over another.

C. Entanglement

Finally, we believe that implementation of the bill would cause serious problems under the entanglement prong of the Establishment Clause test.

The bill requires "content balance" and "reasonably unbiased presentation" of the theory of evolution and creation-science. As defined, this means equal time, equal number of class periods or hours, equal number of pages in texts, and equal number of library volumes dealing with both of these theories. With regard to text pages and library volumes, the bill purports to require equality only to the extent of availability. However, there might well be great difficulties in finding any materials on creation-science that would be appropriate for school use. In Arkansas, the individual assigned the duty of preparing a curriculum guide on creationism found that all of the available materials were unacceptable, because "they were permeated with religious references". 529 F. Supp. at 1270.

Such legislation necessarily involves an enormous potential for government entanglement with religion. For example, supervisors will have difficulties ensuring that teachers devote exactly the same number of hours to the teaching of evolution-science and creation-science. And, as Judge Overton observed:

"The State Department of Education, through its textbook selection committee, school boards and school administrators will be required to constantly monitor materials to avoid using religious references. The school boards, administrators and teachers face an impossible task. How is the teacher to respond to questions about a creation suddenly and out of nothing? How will a teacher explain the occurrence of a worldwide flood? How will a teacher explain the concept of a relatively recent age of the earth? The answer is obvious because the only source of this information is ultimately contained in the Book of Genesis." 529 F.Supp. at 1272.

One might also ask: How could we justify mandating the teaching of "creation-science" in our public schools and not, for example, also mandate the counterpart teachings of traditions such as Hinduism, Confucianism, and Islam? And, if those teachings are to be taught, what of the more controversial teachings of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church, or the teachers of the Science of Creative Intelligence-Transcendental Meditation (SCI/TM)?

All of this is the essence of religious entanglement. And that is precisely what is forbidden by the First Amendment. As we have previously noted:

"The strain placed on school authorities by requiring them to make such religious judgments and to monitor their enforcement would entangle them in conflicts among religious groups, with the schoolhouse as the field of battle." 65 Opinions of the Attorney General 186, 196 (1980).

V
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that House Bill 1078 has as its purpose and effect the advancement of religion and would foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.

Because we are "a religious people", Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952), the notion of government neutrality toward religion is often difficult to accept. But we must remember that many of our forebearers came to these shores to escape religious persecution at the hands of hostile government and that we are today a nation of diverse, frequently conflicting, religious faiths. Then, perhaps, we can better understand that the bond that unites us all is our agreement that government should be neutral in matters of religion. The price of religious liberty, in short, is official neutrality.

Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General
Ellen M. Heller, Assistant Attorney General
Avery Aisenstark
Principal Counsel, Opinions and Advice