Legislators with intestinal fortitude seem to be an endangered species today. But Rep. Susan DuBose (R-Hoover) has shown herself to be a rare exception by introducing HB342, which provides that public school students may receive academic credit for released-time religious studies.
Released time for religious studies is nothing new. Early in America’s history, education happened primarily through home and church schools, including religious instruction and the 3Rs. As public education became widespread in the 1800s, school occupied an increasing portion of the students' time. Students were in school throughout the day, followed by extracurricular activities in the late afternoon or evening, so there was little time left for religious instruction.
To work out this difficulty, some public school administrators and churches worked out arrangements whereby pastors, priests, or other religious teachers could come to schools and hold instruction for an hour or so per week. The Lutheran pastor might hold instruction in one classroom, the Methodist in another, and the Baptist in a third, while the Catholic priest and the Jewish rabbi used other classrooms. Those who did not choose to attend religious instruction could take other classes or a study hall. However, in 1948, the Supreme Court held in McCollum v. Board of Education that this arrangement violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Four years later, however, the Supreme Court upheld a released-time plan in Zorach v. Clauson (1952). The difference was that in McCollum the religious instructors came to the school and provided instruction in school classrooms, whereas in Zorach the students left the school and attended instruction at their religious institutions. For this reason, the state’s involvement with religion was much less in Zorach than in McCollum. Writing for the Court majority, Justice Douglas noted:
We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. … When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.
About 28 states offer students the opportunity for released-time instruction. Of these, about seven offer course credit for released-time religious studies. Alabama currently leaves the decision whether to offer course credit for released-time instruction to local districts, but HB342 would make this a uniform statewide policy, requiring all school districts to offer course credit.
Brian Lyman of the Alabama Reflector thinks this is a bad idea. “We reap bitter fruit when lawmakers cross-pollinate religion and law,” he says, noting that HB342 doesn’t distinguish between credible and not-so-credible released-time programs. What kind of class gets credit, he asks: “Unitarian? Methodist? Flying Spaghetti Monster?” (Whoa! Is this the Alabama Reflector or the Alabama Ridiculer?) The state has neither the jurisdiction nor the competence to determine what is or what is not a credible religion.
If state officials determine which religions qualify for released-time credit and which do not, and if they examine religious curricula to determine whether they meet acceptable academic standards, we have the very “cross-pollination” and entanglement Lyman professes to abhor. On the other hand, if we say there can be no religious instruction of any kind in public education, we discriminate against theistic religion and establish a religion of secularism.
As for cross-pollinating religion and law, I object to the simplistic notion that everything must be 100% religious or 100% secular, with no overlap. Religion stands above the culture, but it also permeates the culture. Students whose education is devoid of any kind of religious instruction emerge from school with an unbalanced, one-sided worldview.
In Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the Supreme Court struck down a program of Bible reading in public schools as an act of religious worship. But the majority added:
[T]he State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’ … [I]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.
I hope Alabama Legislators give HB342 serious consideration. As to whether Alabama should have a uniform statewide policy giving academic credit for released-time instruction, or whether that determination should be left to local districts as is the current policy, I can see good arguments for both sides.
But enough of this patronizing nonsense about cross-pollinating religion and law. Law is based upon morality, and morality is based upon religion. Our laws against homicide, theft, adultery and perjury are based upon the 10 Commandments given by God on Mt. Sinai to the greatest lawgiver of all time.
Colonel Eidsmoe serves as Professor of Constitutional Law for the Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy (obcl.edu), as Senior Counsel for the Foundation for Moral Law (morallaw.org), and as Pastor of Woodland Presbyterian Church (woodlandpca.org). He may be contacted for speaking engagements at [email protected].
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
