In it decision in McCollum v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional for religious instructors to enter public schools to give religious instruction. As a response to this decision, students in New York City public schools were allowed to go to the religious institutions during the day to receive religious education. The students needed the written permission of their parents in order to participate in the program.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court permitted the public school students to travel to parochial schools to receive religious education.
| Majority Opinion: (Justice Douglas) |
The costs for the instruction are paid for by the religious institutions. The deprivation of free exercise is not an issue because no one is forced to partake in the program. Because parental permission is required, there is no coercion involved. The relationship created between church and state follows the “best of our traditions”. It is beneficial when the government encourages or cooperates with religious instruction. If the state took an indifferent attitude towards religion it would favor unbelievers. The public schools are merely accommodating the people of faith who want to receive religious education. Lack of cooperation by the state towards religion should be construed as hostility.
This opinion differs from many other decisions which require neutrality by the state regarding religion. In this decision, such neutrality, which it terms ‘indifference’ would be a hostile attitude. Therefore, in order for the state to not favor unbelievers it must work with religious institutions.
Copyright © The Religious Freedom Page.
|
