similar to that held by the state church in earlier times, in that one school system instead of one church receives favored treatment and tax support. Such an official establishment of education imposes exactly the same restrictions on the liberties of minorities as an established church. When parents are forced by law to have their children exposed to teachings that are alien and inimical to their own beliefs, it doesn't really matter to them whether that teaching takes place in a church or in a school, whether it comes from a state approved preacher or a state approved teacher. In fact, it is worse, because attending a state approved church was not always compulsory, whereas, attending a state approved school is compulsory for most children in America.

We hold that American educational policy does violence to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sponsored by the United Nations which provides expressly that "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given their children." (Article 26) As we understand it, the American Government is a signatory to this Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We hold that the notion that public education is religiously neutral is without basis in fact. As virtually any philosopher will point out, assumptions regarding ultimate realities and values are implied in every pedagogical approach including avowedly "neutral" or "secular" postures. The very attempt to discuss natural phenomena and ethical decisions without reference to a theological base is an expression of a religious position, the position that theistic underpinnings are not basic to such discussions. Which approach is more biased one wonders, to introduce theistic premises systematically as in religiously affiliated schools, or to eliminate them systematically, as is attempted in public schools. In essence, government schools are using tax dollars for the very purpose they are being denied to nonpublic schools.

We believe that the opponents of this measure are not consistent in that many of them, especially pastors or ministers, graduated from public elementary and secondary schools. The currently equated value of this education in terms of public tax funds is over $10,000 per student. Any public school graduate who enrolls in a seminary or divinity school uses the education the public provided for him for pre-seminary or pre-divinity school educational requirements. At that point he is in reality using public tax monies for religious purposes. Every in-service pastor or minister of the Gospel who graduated from public elementary or secondary schools is daily utilizing public funds invested in his K-12 education, for the promulgation of religious tenets. The only way to extricate all religious connotations and eradicate any inter-relatedness of public education and religion is to do like Russia and China, viz., suppress all seminaries and any fully free religious instructional activities.

On page 113 of Epperson vs. Arkansas, Justice Black virtually conceded that the Supreme Court sanctioned the teaching of the anti-Christian doctrine of evolution vs. creationism holding that the Arkansas statute forbidding the teaching of the evolutionary theory violated teachers' rights. In this opinion Justice Black observed:

"A second question that arises for me is whether this Court's decision forbidding a State to exclude the subject of evolution from its schools infringes the religious freedom of those who consider evolution an anti-religious doctrine. If the theory is considered anti-religious, as the Court indicates, how can the State be bound by the Federal Constitution to permit its teachers to advocate such an "anti-religious" doctrine to school children? . . . Unless this Court is prepared to simply write off as pure nonsense the views of those who consider evolution an anti-religious doctrine, then this issue presents problems under the Establishment Clause far more troublesome than are discussed in the Court's opinion. (p. 113)"

Setting forth a pragmatic point of view, we wish to quote excerpts from an article which appeared in the September 21, 1968 issue of Saturday Review by Dr. Donald A. Erickson, Associate Professor of Education, University of Chicago. Dr. Erickson states:

"I favor public support to non-public schools because I see little hope that public education as it is now structured in the major cities can bring about the necessary fundamental reforms. I have reluctantly concluded that the rigidities of public education in the face of the urban crisis are not a passing phase but advanced arteriosclerosis, a tendency of large, publicly protected institutions to become, as Nathan Glazer put it, 'tired, bureaucratic, and corrupt . . . At that point, they must be supplemented or supplanted by new institutions, which will hopefully respond more sensitively to the needs of their clients.'

"While all children are handicapped by these systems, the results are most serious for the poor. The schools were adapted in the first place, albeit imperfectly, to the politically potent middle class. Public education has never been given adequate resources, particularly for helping the disadvantaged, and in the light of public disinchantment it seems unlikely that the institution will receive the massive infusion of funds that effective programs require. To pour new moneys into the existing machinery would produce only negligible improvements. If anything, revolutionary adjustments now seem less likely than before. "Something drastic ails the system. It needs drastic renovation and the shock treatment of being forced to compete for clients and support. And while it is being rejuvenated, if indeed it can be, we must solve our major problems through whatever instrumentalities are available, public or private." (end quote) Emphasis added.

Again, Honorable Members of the Committee, we implore you to bear in mind that as the American educational system is operated, poor people have no choice but to send their children to state schools because the government levies a heavy tax on all and places all the revenue behind the state's secular-humanistic philosophy of education. Poor people cannot afford to pay both the tribute exacted by the state for the state schools and the tuition for semi-public schools. If education were not a compulsory, forced consideration, it would be different. We do not apply the immediately above criteria to higher education, participation in which is a voluntary consideration.

There are different ways to discriminate against religious freedom, one is to attach a financial penalty to the exercise of it.

We believe that it is wrong in principle, and totalitarian in practice, for a state to draft or requisition a child from age 5 and retain him in its possession in a forced compulsory educational framework until up to age 16 all the while subjecting him to numerous philosophies alien to those of his parents and which violate the conscience of his parents.

In America, a monolithic system of education, as Russia has, is developing. In Russia the nonpublic schools are legally exterminated, whereas in America they are being economically exterminated. This creates a situation such as Floyd McKissick so aptly described when he said, "Black people have no alternative to public education. They are trapped in public schools until they are old enough to drop out." We believe that urging the doctrine of total state power in education is dangerous. No free country has adopted it; all totalitarian states have imposed it.

Thank you very much for your kind attention to our recomendation that H.R. 16141 be reported out by your committee with recommendations for adoption by the United States Congress.

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

I. The founding fathers were opposed to any establish system which controlled religion and philosophy.

II. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for holding public office.

III. The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an estabilshment of religious, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

IV. In the 17th and 18th centuries most European nations had established churches which compelled either mandatory attendance and/or tax support of these churches.

V. Many of the colonists came to America to obtain religious freedom.

VI. In the 20th Century U.S. laws require U.S. citizens to support either by attendance and/or taxation the established public school system and its philosophy.

VII. Supporters of nonpublic schools are protesting the compulsory taxation for the support of public instruction, exclusively.

VIII. Nonpublic schools are public in that they are supervised by the state and must meet state criteria

IX. To educate is to influence. To determine to what ends and by what means is a moral question for both state and socalled non-state schools.

X. Supporters of nonpublic schools have chosen their specific schools to provide the academic-moral-spiritual education of their children.

XI. In the U.S. the state established school system is the official system of instruction. Dissension is permitted at the price of double taxation.

XII. The great tyrannies of the world usually have tried to control the mind and dissention was severly penalized. In the U.S. the penalty is financial.

XIII. Nonpublic school supporters believe that education is a subjective activity and desire to determine the moral and philosophical standards of their schools.

XIV. Many early colonies had a single established church and people protested to win the right to worship as they pleased.

XV. The early public school was largely Protestant and the Catholies objected. They established their own schools. The Pierce case of 1925 determined the constitutionality of nonpublic schools.

XVI. Some colonies gradually allowed a group of churches to be equally favored and thus established them. These multiple established churches were still supported by taxation.

XVII. The U.S. Congress has extended some forms of aid to nonpublic schools in Title I and Title II funds but has not as yet treated nonpublic schools equitably. Many private and parochial college students receive tax funds in the form of tuition grants.

XVIII. If a state determines that some schools shall not receive aid or tax funds then there is no equality and the state is infringing upon the inalienable and equal rights of parental conscience.

XIX. A series of laws which cite the control the state of Michigan exercises over nonpublic schools but denies the supporters of these schools the benefit of the educational tax dollars they have paid.

XX. In early Virginia there was a conflict between the forces of establishment and those who desired freedom of conscience. This is the basic question today in regards to American educational policies as well.

XXI. Patrick Henry wished to establish all Christian churches in 1779.
XXII. Thomas Jefferson's bill is quoted with comments.

XXIII. A bill parallel to Jefferson's bill is quoted and a model for a bill which ought to be enacted by Congress which would provide for the freedom and equality of nonpublic schools is proposed.

XXIV. Patrick Henry's bill is quoted and it is compared to provisions concerning education in the Michigan Constitution. This bill was rejected.

XXV. In 1785 James Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance" and his views are elaborated on in 15 points. Each point clearly applies to the claims for justice made by the supporters of nonpublic schools. Madison's views are given under arabic numerals and those of nonpublic school supporters under Comment.

STATEMENT OF VIEWS ON SUPPORT OF EDUCATION IN AMERICA-ITS IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

One of the most heartrending stories is that of man's struggle against civil and ecclesiastical tyranny for the simple right to freely decide how to think and what to believe.

As we refer to history, we do well to remember that a nation which ignores the lessons history teaches is doomed to repeat the tragic mistakes of the past. Let us pray that America may not do this in respect to school and state relationships. The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution of the United States were acutely aware of the dangers of any established system which controlled religion and philosophy.

They saw with the eyes of history the civil intolerance which condemned the teaching of Socrates, and his life as well; the Roman persecution of the Christians and their beliefs; the Spanish Inquisition against Protestants; the massacre of the Huguenots of France; the slaughter of the Waldensians; the hanging and jailing of English and Irish Catholics by Protestant England; the persecution of the Covenanters in Scotland; the tortures administered to the Quakers; and the banishing of the Baptists by Puritan Massachusetts; and the hundreds of other atrocities committed in the name of religion or civil philosophy.

The founding fathers noted moreover, that even during their own lifetimes those who did not conform to the doctrines and practices of the churches established by law in the places where they lived, such as the dissenters in various American colonies, had been barred from civil and military offices because of their faiths, and had been compelled to pay tithes for propagation of religious opinions they disbelieved.

The founding fathers were determined that none of these tyrannical policies should be continued in the nation they were creating. To this end they inserted two provisions in the Constitution of the United States.

The first of these provisions appears in Article VI and declares that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the United States.

The second appears in the first amendment, and states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

To understand the meaning of the first amendment we must consider the events preceding the writing of the first amendment.

At the time of the settlement of the Thirteen Original Colonies, virtually every nation in the Western Europe and the British Isles had, what were known as, established churches. A comparable condition exists today in the Communist nations where the Communist Party enjoys similar status. The Western European churches were established by law, and the law, in some instances, compelled all persons, including those who dissented from their religious beliefs, to attend their services. The law furthermore required all persons to pay taxes for the construction of church buildings and the support of the clergy of the established churches.

An overwhelming number of the colonists who came from Europe to America came primarily to secure religious liberty and freedom from taxation for the support of established churches. Unfortunately, when these people came to America, they found that in many of the colonies, predominant groups had set up established churches, and that in consequence they were compelled, in such colonies, to pay taxes for the support of churches whose religious doctrines they opposed.

A similar condition exists today in all states of the Union, known as the established public school. These schools are established by law, and the law compels all persons to attend school for a specific number of days each year until up to age 16. The law furthermore requires all persons to pay taxes for the construction of public school buildings and the support of the teachers and administration of the established public schools.

Millions of people who came from Europe to America came primarily to secure religious liberty. When compulsory education became law, these people established their own schools where they felt that their children could be instructed in a manner which would be in accordance with their religious beliefs. Yet, they were, and still are, compelled to pay taxes for the support of established public schools whose educational philosophies and moral guidance they disbelieve.

Many of our ancestors fled Europe to escape one type of persecution only to find it again in another form in America. Just as in colonial days when people rebelled against compulsory taxation for the established church, so too, people today who support non-public schools are protesting compulsory taxation for the established public schools of instruction. It is just as tyranical for the government to legally compel, with the threat of legal sanctions, the universal support of public instruction exclusively, as to decree compulsory financial support for the officially established church.

Parochial, denominational and Christian schools have been labelled "nonpublic" which is in error. These schools are supervised by the State, follow State guidelines in health, safety, curriculum and educational qualifications. In addition, since these schools fulfill the State requirement of educating children there is no reason to consider these schools non-public: They are public institutions serving a public function. In order to avoid confusion, the terms public and non-public have been used as these are familiar to all.

To educate, to instruct, is to influence. To determine to what ends and by what means this influence is to be guided is a moral question. Education is the search for knowledge and truth. Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum, it is dynamic. Knowledge changes all people who are exposed to it. Yet knowledge cannot exist without the truth and truth is always subject to human interpretation. Through this human interpretation of truth, we learn facts, figures, beliefs, and attitudes.

In our schools we transmit facts and opinions, truths and knowledge, the complexities of culture, the answers to the great human questions of "Whom am I?”, "Where am I going?", and finally "How do I get there in a meaningful way?". We educate with a purpose. If this were not true, then education would be a waste of time, money, and effort.

We as Christian parents and as God appointed guardians of our children have the moral duty (and in some cases the freedom) to choose the education which best fulfills the moral standards which the parent expects. To achieve this, diversity in educational institutions, facilities and philosophies are necessary. The human mind is the most powerful force in the world and nations have historically made efforts to control the mind either subtly or overtly. The Greeks killed Socrates, the Romans imposed emperor and idol worship, Medieval Europe tolerated no pagans or heretics. The Nazis imposed National Socialism, Russia and China and their satellites imposed Marxism or Maoism. No dissent is tolerated.

In America the publicly established State school system serves as the official State organ of instruction, levelling, molding and guiding children. Dissension from the public system is permitted but is costly. This is in keeping with the character of most of the great tyrannies of the world. To the credit of America, educational dissent has not resulted in physical persecution but financial penalty. The legislatures and the courts have mistakenly believed that subjective religious views in education are not prevalent. The establishment of the non-public schools came about primarily because certain people believed that teaching is a subjective activity and that the curriculum would be subjectively taught. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that a textbook will be interpreted with the bias of the instructor.

Let us see what similarities there are historically between church and State and church-State-school relations.

The first amendment is a reflection of the most advanced thinking on the subject of separation of church and State at the time of its adoption. In general, the process of separation from the pre-Revolutionary to early national periods, went through three identifiable stages. By indentifying them we can note the similarities between religion and education and government policies.

I. Toleration by the single establishments. Dissenting groups and the leaders who believed in religious freedom continued and speeded up the fight against established churches in the effort to win the right to the free exericse of public religious worship. This right they wrung from the conservative groups in State after State in the form of concessions and the granting of privileges of free worship.

SIMILARITY.After the Catholics expanded their system in the late 1800's a reaction set in. In many States a bitter attack was launched against all private and parochial schools. Oregon passed an amendment outlawing non-public schools and in Michigan an attempt was made but failed. The Oregon amendment outlawing non-public schools was declared unconstitutional in the Pierce case of 1925. The right for educational freedom had been won even though it had to be wrung from unwilling States by way of the courts.

II. Multiple establishments.-The liberal groups believing in religious freedom discovered however, that they were still in an underprivileged position because the legal support of taxes and property rights was still assigned by the State to the established churches. They discovered that free exercise was still a shadowy grant of toleration so long as the established churches had the support of tithes and so they renewed the fight to completely dis-establish the favored churches. The established churches on their part, tried to compromise by persuading the legislatures to open up the tax privileges to the dissenting groups one by one. This meant that gradually more and more churches were admitted into the establishment and given the legal rights of taxation for their own public worship. Thus, establishment came to be applied not just to one church, but to any or all churches that had legal and financial connections with the State. This extended application of establishment was widely recognized at the time of the passing of the first amendment. SIMILARITY.

The non-public schools are still in an underprivileged position because the legal support of taxes and property rights are still assigned by the State to the established State schools. We have discovered that the freedom to operate is still a shadowy grant of toleration as long as the established public schools have the support of taxation and therefore, we wish to renew the fight to dis-establish the monopoly of the favored public schools systems.

The established public schools on their part have made some compromises by allowing the legislatures and Congress to open up some tax privileges to the dissenting groups. This has been true particularly in regard to G.I. educational benefits, school lunches, construction loans to private colleges, tuition grants to private college students, and Title I and Title II funds for all levels of