On March 8 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the teaching of religion on public school property during school hours by representatives of churches, as practiced in Illinois, is unconstitutional, in terms of the First Amendment which forbids state establishment of religion. Seven justices concurred in the opinion. One justice dissented. One other justice handed-down a dissenting assent, in that he agreed with the majority in principle, but contended that the majority opinion as handed down was too loose, and opened the way to endless confusion and probable further litigation.
The decision puts a stop to teaching of religion by church representatives in the public schools. But it raises several other serious questions. (I) Does it stop the dismissal of public school children during school hours to churches or other places to receive religious instruction? A million and a quarter pupils are now being taught religion in this way. (2) Does it rule out the holding of religious meetings on public school property at any hour or on any day? Many small active denominations have been doing this for years. (3) Does it permit the public school teachers themselves to teach religion? (4) Does it prevent the employment of teachers dressed in religious garb or wearing religious insignia? A number of States now permit this in their schools, and North Dakota and New Mexico are challenging the practice. (5) Does it make it unconstitutional for public tax funds to be used to aid private schools teaching religion? Some sixteen or eighteen States allow some sort of aid to parochial schools from public funds. (6) What about the reading of the Bible, and the conducting of worship, in public schools, now permitted in many States? (7) May Christmas carols and Easter hymns be sung in public schools? This has been challenged in some cities.
Here are knotty problems. It appears that Justice Jackson was right in forecasting further litigation in relation to this decision. It is to be regretted that if this happens, the drawing of the line of separation of church and state will be almost microscopically detailed, and religious dissension and differences will be accentuated.
We must hope for two possible benefits from the decision : (I) that the religious forces which have been seeking to bring the church into partnership with the state in one way or another, in teaching religion, will draw back; and (2) that the churches will awaken to their responsibility to propagate the Christian faith by their own proper means and program, without depending upon any machinery or institutions of the state.
