# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1953_S212
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

212. PARISH EDUCATION

rights of those many parents in our state (we are told that g
200,000 children are enrolled in the released-time progranis in
jurisdiction, and ten times as many throughout the nation) to.
ticipate in and subscribe to such programs.”

The opinion also affirmed the principle promulgated in
famous Oregon case (1925) that is formulated now in these we
“right of parents to direct the rearing and education of their
dren, free from any general power of the state to standardize’
dren by forcing them to accept instruction from public
teachers only.”

To this reference they added a reference to a more
decision (Prince vs. Commonwealth) in which the Supreme
declared: “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and 34
ture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary fun
and freedom include preparation for obligations the state x¢@
neither supply nor hinder.”

The petitioners next carried the case to the United S$
Supreme Court. On April 28, 1952, the Supreme Court uphel
decision of the Court of Appeals on the constitutionality o!
New York released-time program. In its decision the Sup.
Court said:

“The first Amendment within the scope of its coverage pert
no exceptions; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendni
however, does not say that in every and all respects there’
be a separation of church and state. Rather, it studiously
the manner, the specific ways in which there shall be no concé
union or dependency one on the other. That is the common
of the matter. ... We find no constitutional requirement v
makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion
throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective sco
religious influence.” :

In applying the general principles enunciated to we
religious education, the Supreme Court stated: “When th
encourages religious instruction by adjusting the schedule of ;
events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions,
it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommg
the public service to their spiritual needs. .... We cannot ex
it (the McCollum decision) to cover the present released-time
gram, unless separation of Church and State means that
institutions can make no adjustments of their schedules to ac
modate the religious needs of people.” ;

The decision of the Supreme Court opens the door for.
spread extension of programs for week-day religious educ
Dr. Edwin L. Shaver, Executive Director of Week-day Rell