# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1953_S211
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

PARISH EDUCATION 211

isions on these matters must be made by lawmakers,
ool authorities, and the courts, every American citizen
dy these problems and have an opinion on them and,
ecessary, seek to influence policies and decisions. Christian
should recommend and support those practices which give
place to religion in education and at the same time rec~
“thé rights and privileges of all American citizens.
ng the past triennium there have been developments on
tion of released-time classes and religion in the public
* The attacks made on the public schools during this period
est the desirability of examining the obligations which
jho sponsor full-time Christian schools have toward the
‘schools. Our thinking on these questions is summarized in
wing paragraphs.
jased-Time Classes. — The subject of released-time classes
a matter of concern in many communities after the
‘Court decision in the McCollum case. About twenty per
xe communities which had conducted weekday religious
discontinued them, and the number of pupils enrolled in
grams decreased by ten per cent. Many communities, how-
iply proceeded with their weekday religious programs,
the assumption or on actual legal advice that the ruling
eCollum case did not apply. This was the case in New
here court action was taken testing the legality of the
f releasing pupils from public schools to attend released-

<,
t4

‘Brooklyn parents, Tessim Zorach and Esta Gluck, wanted
h instruction of public school children during the public
urs. They took their plea to the New York Supreme
tice Anthony J. DiGiovanna in his ruling emphasized
ch-State separation never meant freedom from religion,
om of religion. He said further: “To permit restraint upon
{local educational agencies which are authorized to grant
time to our young citizens would constitute suppression
it of religious freedom.” Under New York law, children
‘school one hour a week to attend religious classes.
petitioners next carried their case to the Court of Appeals

ite of New York. The Court of Appeals said:

i extreme care must, of course, be exercised to protect
itutional rights of these appellants, it must also be re-
that the First Amendment not only forbids laws ‘respect-
blishment of religion,’ but also laws ‘prohibiting the free
éreof.’ We must not destroy one in an effort to preserve
* We cannot, therefore, be unmindful of the constitutional

ae