cipate. After Murray found out that her son was subject to participate in religious activities, she pulled her son out of school as protest to his being involved with religion. After attempting to talk with the Vice-Principal to the Superintendent of Schools, and failing in her attempt to clear up this matter, Murray brought this issue to the attention of the newspapers, radio, and local television stations. This issue would later receive national attention and bring an oversized crowd to the courtroom the day her case went to the State Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Boston Schools did compromise and allow Bill to excuse himself from the school's daily religious activities (Blanshard 105-06). In February of 1963, after being defeated by the lower state courts, Murray finally got an appeal to the highest state court. Once again Murray was defeated, but she had won the opinion of three of the seven judges on the panel. These four judges ruled, "The short answer to this claim is that the equality of treatment which the Fourteenth Amendment affords and does not provide protection from the embarrassment, the divisiveness or the psychological discontent arising out of non-conformance with the mores of the majority" (Blanshard 106). This in Rogers 3perspective means that even though the Fourteenth Amendment is for citizen's rights, no mental or physical damage is done to a person if he or she hears, sits in on, or watches a prayer. Basically, anyone can join in on the prayer if he or she chooses, or if this person wishes to stay out of the prayer he or she may do so. It's a personal choice to do so under the First Amendment rights. All to often this right and privilege is misinterpreted and abused. On June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court ruled against daily reciting of a school prayer which was drafted by the New York State Board of Regents. With a vote of six to one, the court said that the prayer constituted "an establishm...
