# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S249
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

288 PARISH EDUCATION
of all people the parents should be the best informed and th
vocal, since the welfare of their children is at stake.

Briefly, parents’ rights are to be deduced from the Parental
authority and responsibility which God has given to fathers and
mothers. The rights of parents are commensurate with the duties
God has laid upon them or with the power and authority He has
conferred. We may therefore say that anything which makes it
difficult or impossible for parents to fulfill their God-given Tespon-
sibility encroaches upon their rights. This is a general Tule, and
all instances of apparent encroachment must be checked against
this rule. .

The rights of parents are violated (1) when parents are forced
to send their children to a school prescribed by the State instead
of being permitted to send them to a school of their own choice:
(2) when the content of textbooks which their children are com.
pelled to use is such that it contradicts the religious principles of
the parents; (3) when children are compelled to attend religious
instruction of which the parents do not approve; (4) when the
school so monopolizes the child’s time, especially on weekdays,
that there is practically no time for the religious instruction of the
child; (5) when the State gives some parents, for example, those
who want non-religious schools, the schools they desire, but
neglects to do anything to meet the desires of a large percentage
of religious parents for the kind of schools they want.

It is the obligation of parents to fulfill their duties and defend
their rights in the fear of God. It is the responsibility of the
Church to proclaim the whole counsel of God relative to the
Christian education of young and old; to instruct parents concern-
ing their rights and responsibilities; to defend the rights of parents
and instruct and prepare them for the defense of their rights. The
leaders of the Church must also awaken parents to the perils in-
herent in a school system which is compelled to divorce religion
from the child’s schooling.

Separation of Church and State

Separation of Church and State, always a controversial issue, is
being widely discussed in religious and educational periodicals
today. The subject has come to the fore in recent years for two
reasons: (a) conservative Protestants, alarmed over the increase
of juvenile crime and the decline in morals among young and
old, have been requesting permission of school boards to introduce
religious instruction for the benefit of children attending the public
schools. (b) Roman Catholics are: trying to secure public funds
for the support of their parochial schools. In opposing the Roman
Catholic Church, which in principle favors the union of Church
and State, and, in seeking to preserve our public schools from

PARISH EDUCATION 289

being misused, we must take heed lest we become advocates of a

or degree of separation that will work harm both to the
Church and to the nation.

Separation of Church and State, in so far as it is implied in the
First Amendment, does not mean the exclusion of religion from
the State or from the education of children. This is borne out by
history. The Constitution was framed in 1787. On the day of its
adoption the President was asked to recommend to the people a
day of thanksgiving and prayer in grateful acknowledgment of
this document. In 1790 the House adopted a resolution that chap-
lains be appointed by Congress, a practice which continues to the
present day. Later congresses provided for the appointment of
chaplains for the Army and Navy. Every President except Jeffer-
son has proclaimed days of prayer and thanksgiving. Grants of
land were made to denominational colleges. Most States grant
religious bodies exemption from taxation. In most States the
Churches have been granted the use of public buildings for edu-
cational and other purposes. Religious instruction was the rule
in the early public schools of the nation.

The State can be on friendly terms with the Church without
interfering with its functions or breaking down the distinction be-
tween the two institutions, in fact, the State should co-operate with
the Church wherever the welfare of the nation demands such co-
operation. Therefqre we must regard with apprehension the fol-
lowing statement of one of the Supreme Court Justices in the
Everson case: “Neither a State, nor the Federal Government, can
pass laws which aid any religion, aid all religions, or prefer one
religion to another.” We take no exception to the words: “prefer
one religion to another,” for the First Amendment certainly does
prohibit the Federal Government from any. preferential treatment
of any Church. But the first clause is ‘ominous in its import
Hitherto this court had never ruled that the Government may not
aid all churches on an equal or non-preferential basis. Hitherto
the matter of taxing for the support of religion had been left
wholly to the discretion of the States, it being considered beyond
the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and the States have
jonsequently passed legislation to prohibit the use of tax moneys

Coven eer of any gpureh. But to deny the ight of the Federal

, len € States to “aid all religions” on a non-prefer-
rua basis in any manner whatsoever is to go counter to American
wep o Senetee on the basis of the assertion in the Everson
that the practice of holding 7 1 ed. we cenPaign bie het

eleased-time classes in public school

buildings was “aiding” relisi
g” religion and
Constitution, ig was therefore contrary to the