# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1956_S326
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

326 PARISH EDUCATION

and secondly, because a great many people could not understand
why the churches should be enjoined from holding religion classes
in school buildings as long as no one’s religious freedom is violated.
Many released-time classes were dropped, some on the assumption
that all such classes are now held to be unconstitutional, others
because local authorities have ruled that the state laws do not
permit the schools to share any of their time with the churches
for the teaching of religion, or for other reasons.

The majority of released-time systems have continued to
operate as before, on the assumption that their particular type of
released time was not prohibited by the McCollum decision. An
illustration of this type of released-time arrangement is that of
New York City, which releases students during the school day
“so that they may leave the school buildings and school grounds
and go to religious centers for religious instruction or devotional
exercises.” As set forth in our 1953 report to the convention, the
legality of this practice was called into question by two Brooklyn
parents, Tessim Zorach and Esta Gluck. The appellants carried
the case to the New York Supreme Court, then to the Court of
Appeals of the State of New York, and finally to the United States
Supreme Court. In all three instances the court upheld the legality
of the practice. Those who are interested in the opinions of the
courts are referred to the Proceedings of the Forty-Second Reg-
ular Convention of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, 1953,
pp. 328—330.

The Board for Parish Education is once more calling attention
to the United States Supreme Court opinion (Zorach v. Clauson)
in order to remind the members of Synod that as far as the Con-
stitution is concerned, released-time classes are legal and there-
fore unobjectionable so long as classes are not held on the public
school premises. State laws may be interpreted as prohibiting any
type of released-time arrangement, but we believe instances of
such interpretation will be rare. This Supreme Court opinion has
cleared up a great deal of misunderstanding. In declaring the
New York released-time arrangement to be legal, it has said, “We
are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme
Being.” The decision has heartened a great many church leaders,
who have taken it as an invitation to introduce released-time
instruction on a large scale, and are working toward that end.

The members of our church need to show a similar deep con-
cern for children attending the public schools. Perhaps our ex-
cellent system of Christian schools has kept us from being as
sympathetic as we ought to be toward released-time instruction.
We thank God for our 1,195 parish schools, which, after all, offer