# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S1066
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

868 PARISH EDUCATION

This decision, not being based on history or precedent
legislative, the Court having framed a “constitutional principle’
its own, and is equivalent to the laying down of a principle,
absolute separation between the schools and religion. Atheists ar
extreme liberals have, therefore, heralded the decision as a vic’ ‘or
One group has said that this victory is only the opening we
that the enemies of religion must now work for a complete ¢
quest: Sunday laws, Church exemption from taxation, exemp'
of ministers and conscientious objectors from military service, :
ployment of chaplains at public expense, compulsory attendance of,
military personnel at religious exercises, requirement of oaths. .
court, at inaugurations, etc., all of these are to be legislated
of existence. ;

Christian people are vitally concerned over these recent:
cisions of the Supreme Court. Separation from government
from education is a concession to secularism, and it may be a
toward regimentation or totalitarianism. It will lead to a depriyg
tion of the rights God Himself has granted to the Church. .
may happen is exemplified by Communism. In Russia absol i
separation has meant the submersion and degradation of
Church. The Orthodox Church is now granted certain rights
condition of complete subserviency to the State.

The establishment-of-religion clause of the First Amend
prohibits the Federal Government from creating, by legislatio
a national Church that would be given a preferential position, Th
freedom-of-religion clause protects the religious freedom of ,,
dividuals and groups, or freedom of conscience and freedom.
worship.

The State may lawfully co-operate with and befriend religi
on a non-preferential basis to the extent that it preserves the dis
tinction between the two realms. Distinction, or differentiation, of
the two realms allows for co-operation, whereas “separation,”
many understand the term, today seems to forbid co-operationig
When Lutherans speak of simple separation, they mean that we;
must distinguish between the two realms and not mix their fun¢
tions, “Separation of Church and State” is an unfortunate te
because so many different meanings have been imported into
Moreover, we are guilty of a loose usage of words when we spe
of the principle of separation. What is meant is a policy or
practice. In America it is the rule or practice to distinguish hen.
tween the functions of Church and State and not to permit eithe
institution to exercise functions belonging to the other. Th
Church-State relationship is fluid and not precisely fixed. Hoy,
much the State may aid all religions on a non-preferential bi
(direct use of tax moneys excluded) cannot be established or