A Descending View: In 1789 the Congress passed ten amendments to the constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. The first of these reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” What this states, in effect, is that Congress can have nothing to do with either the advancement or retardation of religion on the part of American citizens. The word "establishment" means something very special - the word refers to an official religion as the Establishment in England. The fact that religion-state problems are so important in American life makes it all the more surprising that the first amendment was never discussed by the Supreme Court for 158 years, until the famous Everson case in Illinois in which the Supreme Court permitted the use of public school buses for parochial schools. In this past year, the Supreme Court session 1961-62, a whole group of cases were decided by the courts. Seven were decided, three more are yet to come in the near future.In very many of these litigations, Jews, or those of Jewish names (usually Ethical Culture enthusiasts who are racially Jews), and Jewish organisations were active on the side of the so-called "liberal" interpretation, outlawing any expression of religion in public life. Usually too, Jews and Jewish organisations were either the initiators of the litigation, or "friends of the court." A majority of Jews no doubt follows the American Jewish Congress in this "liberal" position. So do all or almost all rabbinic organizations, including the R.C.A. to which I belong. I am one of the small minority who dissent. My function here this evening is to urge you to rethink your whole position and perhaps in that way foster a new outlook, for there is no virtue in the unanimity of what appears to…