The Schempp case involved parents who objected to the practice in Abington Township schools of opening each day with reading of verses from the Bible and recitation of the Lord's Prayer. The exercises were carried out in accordance with a Pennsylvania statute that stated

At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day. Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon written request of his parent or guardian.

The attorney for the Schempps contended that such exercises were religious in nature and violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which reads "Congress shall make law respecting an establishment of religion. . . ." He also noted that the First Amendment was made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Attorneys for the Abington Township Schools contended that the exercises were nonseclular in nature and did not seek to establish any preference for one religion over another.

They also contended that to deprive all students of the right to say prayers or read the Bible would be in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. This clause forbids Congress from making any law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The case was previously argued before a special three-judge Federal District Court, in Philadelphia, which said that the opening exercise was "a religious ceremony and was intended by the State to be one." The lower court therefore held unanimously that the exercise are unconstitutional. Attorneys for the school board then appealed to the Supreme Court for a reversal.

In Murray v. Curlett, a Baltimore mother challenged the constitutionality of a Baltimore board of education rule that provided:

Each school, either collectively or in a class, shall be opened by the reading without comment, of a chapter of the holy Bible and/or the use of the Lord's Prayer. The Douay [Catholic] version may be used by those who prefer it . . . Any child shall be excused from participating in the opening exercises or from attending the opening exercises upon the written request of his parent or guardian.

Attorneys for Mrs. Murray also argued that this rule was in violation of the Establishment clause as it applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. they argued, as did the attorney for the Schempps, that allowing students to be excused from the exercises upon written request was no less a restriction of freedom of conscience than if the student were compelled to participate. They testified that Mrs. Murray's son had been physically abused by other students the first time he was excused.

Attorneys for the board of education argued that the purpose of the morning exercises was not to promote religion but to promote moral values.

The case eventually reached the Maryland Supreme Court, where the Justices, in a 4-3 decision, upheld the constitutionality of the Baltimore board of education rule. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, where it was combined with the Schempp case because of the similarity between the two.

Justice Clark, in his majority opinion, noted that past cases involving the First Amendment the Court had held that the state must

"be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them."

Toward the end of his opinion, Justice Clark said:

The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church, and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality.

In answer to arguments that the decision would establish in the schools a "religion of secularism," Justice Clark said:

We agree of course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism," in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." . . . We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect.

As the following paragraph indicates, he made it clear that the study, of religion, as distinguished from religious exercises, is permitted.

It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistent with the First Amendment.