# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1953_S1060
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

. +.

i
a

=

328 PARISH EDUCATION

J. Recent Developments in Church-State Relations in Education

The field.of Church-State relations includes a number of prob.
lem areas in education. These problems are not easily solved, and
the same issues arise repeatedly for one reason or another, While
policy decisions on these matters must be made by lawmakerg
public school authorities, and the courts, every American citizen
should study these problems and have an opinion on them and,
where necessary, seek to influence policies and decisions. Chyie:
citizens should recommend and support those practices which Bive
a rightful place to religion in education and at the same time rec-
ognize the rights and privileges of all American citizens,

During the past triennium there have been developments on
the question of released-time classes and religion in the publie
school. The attacks made on the public schools during this periog
also suggest the desirability of examining the obligations which
those who sponsor full-time Christian schools have toward the
public schools. Our thinking on these questions is summarized in
the following paragraphs. °

Released-Time Classes. — The subject of released-time classes
has been a matter of concern in many communities after the
Supreme Court decision in the McCollum case. About twenty per
cent of the communities which had conducted weekday religious
programs discontinued them, and the number of pupils enrolled in
such programs decreased by ten per cent. Many communities, how-
ever, simply proceeded with their weekday religious programs,
either on the assumption or on actual legal advice that the ruling
in the McCollum case did not apply. This was the case in New
York, where court action was taken testing the legality of the
practice of releasing pupils from public schools to attend released-
time classes.

Two Brooklyn parents, Tessim Zorach and Esta Gluck, wanted
to ban church instruction of public school children during the public
school hours. They. took their plea to the New York Supreme
Court. Justice Anthony J. DiGiovanna in his ruling emphasized
that Church-State separation never meant freedom from religion,
but freedom of religion. He said further: “To permit restraint upon
state and local educational agencies which are authorized to grant
released-time to our young citizens would constitute suppression
of this right of religious freedom.” Under New York law, children
can leave school one hour a week to attend religious classes.

The petitioners next carried their case to the Court of Appeals
of the State of New York. The Court of Appeals said:

“While extreme care must, of course, be exercised to protect
the constitutional rights of these appellants, it must also be re-
membered that the First Amendment not only forbids laws ‘respect-

NS

PARISH EDUCATION 329

establishment of religion,’ but also laws ‘prohibiting the free
; thereof.” We must not destroy one in an effort to preserve
4 We cannot, therefore, be unmindful of the constitutional
a OE ‘those many parents in our state (we are told that some
E ons hildren are enrolled in the released-time programs in this
0M ion and ten times as many throughout the nation) to par-
cg na ribe to. such programs.”
ticipate and oe affirmed the principle promulgated in the
an vegon case (1925) that is formulated now in these words:
f parents to direct the rearing and education of their chi -
“right " ror any general power of the state to standardize chil-
pay Fe rorcing them to accept instruction from public school
”
teachers on! veference they added a reference to a more recent
ae (Prince vs. Commonwealth) in which the Supreme Court
bo ed: “tt is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nur-
dec the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function
and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can
i nor hinder.”
neither s¥PF loners next carried the case to the United States
Supreme Court. On April 28, 1952, the Supreme Court upheld me
decision of the Court of Appeals on the constitutionality fo) e
New York released-time program. In its decision the Supreme
Cn st Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits
no exceptions; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendinent
however, does not say that in every and all respects there oe a
be a separation of church and state. Rather, it studiously defines
the manner, the specific ways in which there shall be no concert or
union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense
of the matter... . We find no constitutional requirement which
makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to
throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of
igi influence.”
eens elyine the general principles enunciated to week-day
religious education, the Supreme Court stated: “When the state
encourages religious instruction by adjusting the schedule of public
events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For
it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates
the public service to their spiritual needs... . We cannot expand
it (the McCollum decision) to cover the present released-time pro-
gram, unless separation of Church and State means that public
institutions can make no adjustments of their schedules to accom-
modate the religious needs of people.” ; ;
The decision of the Supreme Court opens the door for wide-