The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1961-09-01

Iy."
What do other eminent aU-
thorifies say on This matter7
Wilbur G. Katz, former
dean of the University of
Chicago Law School and an
expert on constitutional law,
points out: "The basic Ameri-
can principle of Church-State
relations is not separation
but religious liberty. sepa-
ration ordinarily promotes re-
ligious freedom; it is defen-
sible so long as it does, and
only SO long"
In his well-reasoned dissent
in the McCollum case, Justice
Reed suggests that the Court
should return to the language
of the Amendment and in
terpret it rather than Jeffer-
sons phrase, 'wall of separa-
ton" II is a wise suggestion,
for the meaning of the
metaphor has become so con-
fused that many can't distin-
guish the figure of speech
from the principles involved.
What does the First Amend
men4 really mean?
Simply that, in ordinary cir
cumstances, the government
may not directly and active
" maintain or support any
religion. Hence. it prohibits
any legislation designed to
favor directly a particular re-
ligion. The key words are sin
ordinary circumstances plus
directly and actively"
The amendment doesn't for
bid nonreligiouS legislation
which has only an incidental
or secondary effect upon re-
ligious activity or which ac-
cords religious people the
same benefits afford the gen.
eral public. 1t does not for
bid chaplains for the inmates
Of penitentiaries, hospital pa
tients, or military personnel.
Thus Prof. Edward S. Cor
win of Princeton, one of our
foremost authorities on con-
stitutional law, says: "The
historical record shows be-
yond peradventure that the
core idea of an establishment
of religion comprises the idea
Of preference; and that any
act of public authority favor
able to religion in general can
not. without manifest falsifl-
cation Of history, be brought
under the ban of that phrase"
What is the danger in the
proposed Federal aid TO edU"
cation exclusively I'll: oUgh de-
Velopment of public schools?
1t tends to achieve Indirect
" what is forbidden by the
constitution: compelling at
tendance at public schools.
BY combining its taxing pow
er with its spending power,
government can gradually
force public education willy
nilly down the threats of all
citizens just as surely as by
a specific ordinance.
THE REAL THREAT"
points out the commission Of
81 Washington lawyers, lies
in the unconstitutional threat
posed by and inherent IN any
large-scale spending program
solely for the benefit of pub
lie schools. We can justify
a demand that publicly col
lected monies be distributed
to all those who participate in
the task of education, not just
those in secular schools.
Otherwise government is on
the side of the secularists."
Who are TO be the bene-
ficiaries of the proposed
legisIation7
The school children of
American. The government
subsidies are to be provided
so that there will be achieved
''the maximum development
of every young Americans
capacity" Hence all pupils,
regardless of the school at
. tended. should share in these
benefits.
Otherwise the right of par
ents to determine the educa-
ton of their children by send
ing them to schools Of their
choice will virtually be NULL
fled. To count nonpublic, non
profit school children "in"
for purposes of taxation and
"out' for distribution of taxes.
as the proposed bill does, is
unfair unjust, and un,Amerl-
can to the core
What is the bearing of the
US. Supreme Court decision
in the Eyerson ease upon the
proposed Federal aid bill?
The New Jersey law reim-
bursed parents for the cost of
public transportation of their
children to and from school,
regardless of the school at
, tended. It's constitutionality
was challenged on the ground
that religious institutions wee
~ Lo-of;+aJ TInhnIdInU