Evening star., 1960-08-07
ReIiqion in Schools

One of the few non-politi-
cal statements made in Chi
cago was former President
Hoover's observation that this
country is in a moral slump.
Let anyone who doubted his
words ponder the protest by a
group Of Montgomery County
residents that religious in
doctrination' is being offered
in the public schools"
BY all means let our chill
dren devour their food with
no thought Of thanking God
for it. But let US go further
than that-let us refuse to
have them taught the second
stanza Of America, Protect
us by thy might, great God,
our KING" Let us amend the
national anthem to eliminate
reference to our "heav'n res
cued land" And of course
forbid the singing Of God
Bless America" Further, let
us eliminate study Of the
Declaration Of Independence
with its statements Of rights
endowed by their Creator"
and firm reliance on the pro-
lection Of Divine Provi-
dence."
But let us not confine our
program to the schoolS-let
us as adults set the pace for
our children by refusing to
honor currency that suggests
reliance upon so anachro-
nistic a motto as IN God
We Trust"
Marie S. COnsrOe.
The Sunday Star carries
news stories Of a probe of
alleged religious teaching in
the schools of Montgomery
County. Such problems are
duplicated in a number of
States at the present time.
Many persons, without Civ
ing much thought to the
matter, feel irate and frus-
trated because religion may
not be taught in our public
schools. The trouble with
attempting this-quite apart
from the constitutional OBJ
lectionS is posed by the
problem: Which religion shall
we teach? Most people want
religion taught - their own
brand to be sure. They would
rather not have it taught if
it is to be someone else's
brand. This is the crux of
the problem.
Must the schools then re-
sign themselves to doing
nothing in this field? Not
quite. The public schools can
certainly teach about reli-
gion. Christianity and Ju-
daism-Islam, Buddhism and
Hinduism as we'll - are GER
tainly facts which carry an
immense, sociological freight.
They cannot be ignored and
must be dealt with in any
adequate education.
Then, too, much in art,
music, history, etc, is quite
ineXplicable without the reli-
giouS factor, and this must
be accounted for. Again the
public schools can teach re-
spect for all religion, a kind
OF teaching that could
scarcely be objected to by
anyone.
Once more, the public
schools can teach the moral
and ethical values of religion.
Such values as truthfulness
honesty, fidelity in marriage,
etc. are ethical standards
common to most faiths.
What may not be done in
the public schools is to
present the theological un-
dergirding of any particular
faith. Or, for that matter.
no purported common core"
theology of all faiths can be
offered. Now admittedly, this
is the most dramatic and
dynamic feature Of any faith.
Yet, precisely because of this
fact, herein lies the area of
emotion and of struggle. We
must keep clear of this en-
tire area in the teaching of
the public schools. This is a
part of the price we pay for
amity in our pluralistic cul-
ture.
There are certainly COM
penSations for this price. One
of them is our great public
school system where children
OF all faiths can have a Won
derful experience in getting
acquainted with each other
and learning to respect each
others beliefs. When we
study countries which lack
such a unifying cultural
factor. we can we'll believe
that this compensation alone
Justif1es the foregoing of