# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S1069
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

PARISH EDUCATION 371

hurch is acting as God’s agent and representative, whose will
is that His Gospel should have free course in the world and
jt be opposed and suppressed by the power of the sword or the
ting of wicked men.

: Religion and the Public Schools

,The American Council on Education correctly says that the
sularization of our schools has not been so complete as certain
matements would lead us to believe. Bible reading and other prac-
Bes have been common since the first public schools were estab-
shed; hence these practices may not be construed as a growing
ency to flout the First Amendment and weaken the wall of
ration between the Church and State. In spite of this, mem-
rs of the Supreme Court apparently think that absolute separa-
in of Church and State is a goal set up by the framers of the
titution and that the time has come to reach that goal. Their
ntion, with respect to the schools, seems to be to outlaw any
tice, with respect to the schools, that is religious in nature, In
language of the Court, our schools are secular schools.

Our Church simply must repudiate the reasoning which says
ie State is responsible for the child’s general education, the home
fd the Church for his religious education, In principle, our
ch cannot approve of a general education from which religion
bsent, for an education without religion is incomplete. It is
fireasonable for the State to take over education and then bar
Church from the schools on the supposition that the Church
‘giving religious instruction in an unrelated context can fulfill
mission. The Church has a commission from God to educate,
d the State has an interest in education. Unless the Church is
nm an opportunity to fulfill in part its commission in the context
e school, it is greatly hampered in the performance of its duty
rd children who can attend only the public school. This is
to advocate the imposition of so-called sectarian religious in-
uction upon our public schools. It does advocate that the
urch be given an opportunity to bring religious instruction to its
dren in connection with the daily school program.

Our definition of religious freedom in America should include
me right of parents to give their children the kind of education they
Wish their children to have. This means that the churches, as the
Epresentatives of the parents, should be permitted to bring their
ith to the children in the classroom. Because religion is an es~
fenitial part of education, the child should receive religious in-
Rruction as part of his schooling. The practical plan would be for
i¢ school to set aside one or two hours per week for religious
ruction. The classes would be entirely under the supervision of
various churches, and whatever expenses would be incurred