In 1789, as the new American government began to function with George Washington at its helm, Benjamin Franklin wrote a friend: "Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise that it will last, but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."
If he were living today, that wise statesman might expand his list of certainties to include fervent debate over the role of religion in our schools and other taxpayer-supported institutions.
The issue resurfaced with dramatic impact last month when the Supreme Court ruled, 6 to 3, that it was unconstitutional for the Santa Fe, Texas, school district to allow a student, chosen in a school-sponsored election, to deliver a prayer before a high school football game.
In his majority decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: "The religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the state affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer."
Writing for the minority, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said that the majority opinion "bristled with hostility to all things religious in public life."
Both men are able jurists dedicated to protecting the Constitution. They are the two senior members of the current court and both were appointed by Republican presidents who were lawyers — Rehnquist by Richard Nixon and Stevens by Gerald Ford. But they often differ in their interpretation of the Constitution.
Rehnquist tends to be a pillar of the court's conservative bloc, although he joined the moderates on June 26 in upholding the 1966 Miranda ruling that suspects who are arrested must be informed of their rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer during police questioning. Stevens is a guiding force among the moderates.
In the matter of religion in public schools, their opposing views reflect a national dichotomy. Millions of Americans believe organized religion should play a larger role in our lives and millions more are equally committed to the Jeffersonian concept of separation of church and state.
So wedded was Thomas Jefferson to that belief that he had listed on his gravestone at Monticello, near Charlottesville, Va., the three accomplishments he was most proud of: "Author of the Declaration of Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia." Since 1962 and 1963, when the court decreed in two rulings that daily recitation of prayer in public schools was unconstitutional, the issue has divided Americans and led many to make foolish, intemperate comments. One such remark came a few years ago from Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., who contended that the crisis in public education could be traced back to the court's decrees.
That is sheer poppycock. The crisis in public education has resulted from many factors, including a breakdown in family life and an almost revolutionary change in where and how members of our society live.
Religion has not been taken away from the American people. Its practice and its teaching simply have been relegated, through interpretation of the Constitution, to the home and the church, where they belong.
But a ruling like the June 19 school prayer decision is bound to ignite anger and lead normally composed individuals to resort to inflammatory rhetoric.
The truth is that most people on both sides of the religious issue are sincere. They either were angered or pleased by the court's decision. But it would be unfair to demonize them for holding deeply felt ideas.
The issue has cropped up in the campaign between George W. Bush and Al Gore for the White House. Bush, who supported the Santa Fe school district's prayer policy, is under heavy pressure from conservatives to promise to appoint to the high court individuals who are considered "strict constructionists" in their reading of the Constitution.
By the same token, Gore is under pressure to name justices who are relatively liberal in their reading of the Constitution.
Whether the next president is Bush or Gore, he probably will have the opportunity to nominate two or three new justices. Stevens is now 80; Rehnquist is 75, and Sandra Day O'Connor is 70. In addition, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 67, has had cancer surgery.
No matter who is president, the controversy will continue. The next chapter could be the high court's decision on laws, such as one recently passed in Virginia, that permit a moment of silence in public classrooms at the beginning of each day. Most of these laws were written to convey a secular purpose, but the justices could decide that such wording is just a subterfuge.
At any rate, it is a certainty that the school prayer issue will remain a source of contention.