sistency but whose effect is to promote human suffering. Thus, they would permit free lunches and medical and dental services to be given to parochial school children on school premises, they would not permit speech therapy to be given at public expense except off the parochial school grounds. The fact that this burdensome requirement would undoubtedly reduce the number of candidates for speech therapy does not sway the majority. Better to have a few more stammerers than to compromise one's principles. Or take the child who lives in the inner-city, where the public school system has already broken down. His parent's poverty and, perhaps, race prevent them from moving to an area where the public school system is still healthy. Nor can they afford to send their child to a private school. What hope does the majority offer to such a child other than the dismal prospect of attending a school where his physical and moral health is in jeopardy and where little learning takes place? Concepts such as the education voucher plan or tax credits are advocated not only by those who desire to save religion-sponsored schools, but also by those who want to provide opportunity to the inner-city child. Such plans would also give inner-city parents the dignity that comes with the ability to pay for educational services, and thus to choose an alternative to an unacceptable public school system, even if the alternative may be only a privately-run storefront academy. We find it highly significant that the recent White House Conference on Youth came out in favor of the educational voucher plan. To the extent that methods, such as tuition grants, education vouchers or tax credits, may be found within the recent Supreme Court rulings to permit government aid for secular education in religion-sponsored schools, we should welcome them. Hon. WILBUR MILLS, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A., Washington, D.C., September 8, 1972. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In view of the current Hearings by the Committee on Ways and Means on proposals which would provide aid to primary and secondary education in the form of tax credits and/or deductions, we want to share with you our position on the subject and request that this letter and the attached material be included in the Record of the Hearings. The enclosed policy statement "Public Funds for Public Schools" was adopted by the General Board of the National Council of Churches, a federation of 32 Protestant and Orthodox denominations. As you will note, the Statement expresses specific opposition to "tax-credits', 'tax-forgiveness', and exemption from school taxes or other taxes for parents whose children attend non-public elementary or secondary schools." Also enclosed is a subsequent interpretation statement through which the General Board sought to clarify its earlier statement by noting among other things that its position regarding "tax credits" was not intended to imply either opposition to, or support for, proposals to make parochial school tuition deductible from federal or state income tax as a religious contribution. We appreciate this opportunity to share our views on this subject with you and the Committee. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, Attachments. JAMES A. HAMILTON, Director. A PRONOUNCEMENT A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS-ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL BOARD, FEBRUARY 22, 1961 The churches comprising the National Council of Churches hold in common with many other American organizations, religious and secular, certain convictions and concerns about the role of public education in a free society. All citizens share responsibility for the general education of all children in our society. The public school, supported by the taxes of all citizens, is the main and indispensable agency for this purpose. Non-public schools, however valuable to their patrons and to society, cannot fulfill the responsibility of the whole society for educating all children. As a nation it is our duty to encourage the full development of the talents and abilities of all of our citizens. The provision of general education for all requires the mobilization of the best resources of our society to support the public school system, which in many areas is already inadequate to cope with the rate of our population growth and the rapid increase of knowledge. New public school buildings must be planned and built. More teachers must be recruited and trained. Better methods of education must be perfected and applied. This is a mammoth and long-term effort. Where there is inability or unwillingness in any community to provide adequate educational opportunities for all children, such failure must be remedied by society as a whole. Sharing these concerns with a wide range of our fellow citizens, the members of the churches which comprise the National Council of Churches have in addition convictions which rise more directly out of their faith in Jesus Christ. That the Kingdom of Christ transcends all nations, that no government of men is independent of God, that the survival of our society depends ultimately upon the Providence of God, that no man should be prevented from responding in faith and obedience to God as He is revealed in Jesus Christ: these are some of the specifically Christian convictions that bear upon our attitude toward questions of educational policy in the United States. Thus, while supporting as Americans the public system of elementary and secondary schools with a host of our fellow citizens, as Christians we stand for the right of all parents, all citizens, and all churches to establish and maintain nonpublic schools whose ethos and curriculum differ from that of the community as a whole. (The Constitution of the United States as presently interpreted guarantees this right.) In principle Protestant and Orthodox Churches claim the right for themselves to establish and maintain schools in any community where the ethos of the public school system is or becomes basically inimical to the Christian education of our children. But we believe that to encourage such a general development would be tragic in its results to the American people. The elementary and secondary schools of general education related to or operated by constituent communions of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. value their freedom and independence to witness to the Lord of the Church, and to nurture their pupils in the Christian faith. We do not, however, ask for public funds for elementary or secondary education under Church control. If private schools were to be supported in the United States by tax funds, the practical effect would be that the American people would lose their actual control of the use of the taxes paid by all the people for purposes common to the whole society. We therefore do not consider it just or lawful that public funds should be assigned to support the elementary or secondary schools of any Church. The assignment of such funds could easily lead additional religious or other groups to undertake full scale parochial or private education with reliance on public tax support. This further fragmentation of general education in the United States would destroy the public school system or at least weaken it so gravely that it could not possibly adequately meet the educational needs of all the children of our growing society. We reaffirm our support of the public school system as an indispensable means of providing educational opportunity for all children; we urge provision of increased resources for the operation and improvement of the public schools; we declare our whole-hearted support of the principle of public control of public funds. Therefore, 1. We favor the provision of federal funds for tax-supported elementary and secondary public schools under the following conditions: (a) that the funds be administered by the states with provision for report by them to the U.S. Commissioner of Education on the use of the funds; (b) that there be no discrimination among children on the basis of race, religion, class, or national origin; (c) that there be adequate safeguards against federal control of educational policy. 2. We oppose grants from federal, state, or local tax funds for non-public elementary and secondary schools. 3. We oppose the payment from public funds for tuition or "scholarships" for children to attend private or church-related elementary or secondary schools, or grants to their parents for that purpose. 4. We are opposed to "tax-credits," "tax-forgiveness," and exemption from school taxes or other taxes for parents whose children attend non-public elementary or secondary schools. 5. We favor the supplying of dental or medical services, lunches, and other distinctly welfare services to all children, whatever school they may be attending, provided such services are identifiable by recipients as public services, and the expenditures are administered by public authorities responsible to the electorate. We are concerned to promote and safeguard the principles already expressed, and to avoid the infringement of religious liberty which arises when taxes paid under compulsion by all the people are used to aid non-public schools. 87 For, 1 against, 0 abstentions. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A.-INTERPRETATION PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, APPROVED BY THE GENERAL BOARD, JUNE 8-9, 1961 INFORMATION On February 22, 1961 the General Board of the National Council of Churches adopted a pronouncement entitled "Public Funds for Public Schools." Questions which have been raised regarding the meaning of this pronouncement indicate that the General Board should approve an interpretive statement which would be incorporated in the minutes of the Board. Therefore it was Voted to approve the following statement: The General Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America wishes to provide the following interpretation of the Pronouncement PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS adopted February 22, 1961, in order to clarify some of the implications of that Pronouncement. 1. The statement "We are concerned . . . to avoid the infringement of religious liberty which arises when taxes are paid under compulsion by all the people are used to aid non-public schools" should be understood to include opposition to loans for the construction of non-public elementary and secondary schools or classrooms therein. 2. The statement "We oppose grants from federal, state or local tax funds for non-public elementary and secondary schools" should be understood to include special-purpose grants as well as general or across-the-board grants. 3. The statement "We are opposed to 'tax credits', 'tax forgiveness', and exemption from school taxes or other taxes for parents whose children attend nonpublic elementary and secondary schools" is not intended to imply either opposition to, or support for, proposals to make parochial school tuition deductible as a religious contribution from federal or state income tax. WISCONSIN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNOD, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, GENTLEMEN: This letter with its pertinent information is offered to your committee for consideration when studying tax credit bills such as those introduced by the honorable Wilbur Mills, Hugh Carey, and John Byrnes. This is written in opposition to the tax credit laws. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, of which I am executive secretary of the Board for Parish Education, has 266 elementary and secondary parochial schools with a total enrollment of 30,000 students. These schools are located in 15 states. Many churches of the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod have established and maintained parochial schools since the early history of our Synod. This was and is being done in order to give our children a Bible-centered education and training in which all subjects and teaching are permeated with the truths of God's Word. The Wisconsin Lutheran Synod does not seek government aid in order to carry out its educational programs in its parochial schools. Our elementary schools are supported and maintained by free-will offerings of the members of our churches; our high schools are supported by free-will offerings and by tuition payments of parents who enroll their children in these schools. When we choose to establish our own schools, we at the same time choose to assume the obligation to support and maintain them. In fact, we consider it a privilege guaranteed us in our land of religious freedom. Although our churches have sought no governmental aid, we are experiencing no closing of schools and no decline in enrollment. During the past ten years the enrollment has increased from 26,000 to 30,000. New schools are opening every year. The reason: Our Christian people realize and appreciate the need and importance of thorough Christian education and training and they are willing to bring the necessary sacrifices. Other reasons for not seeking governmental aid for our parochial schools: We are fearful that accepting government aid may hinder our schools from carrying out their objectives; it may lead to dependency upon government and undermine our Christian stewardship; it may bring with it undesirable government control: it may jeopardize our Bible-permeated Christian education. We respectfully ask the committee to consider carefully the following points: 1. Decline in enrollment in Catholic schools is not due only or mainly to lack of funds to maintain them. The State of Wisconsin Governor's Commission on Education reported in 1970 as follows: "A substantial number of Catholics nov question the need for, and the desirability of, a separate parochial school sys tem. There is considerable doubt whether the absence of public tax support is the cause for declining enrollments or whether the furnishing of governmental aid will reverse the decline." 2. Minimal aid will not keep keep schools from closing. Such aid will be looked upon as merely a prelude for more and more aid. Pressure groups will keep on demanding more financial support for parochial (church) schools until these schools receive the same tax support as the public schools receive. 3. Aid to the parents by means of tax credit is indistinguishable from rendering that same aid to the church or church school itself, for the amount granted in tax credit is intended to flow into the church or parochial school treasury. Making possible such aid is therefore a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The establishment clause of the First Amendment means that "tax in any amount cannot be levied to support any religious activity or institution." 4. Parochial schools are established and maintained to give the children enrolled thorough indoctrination in the religious confessions of that respective church body and to permeate all teaching with the religious confessions held by the church body. Hence, religious instruction is carried on all day. There are no purely so called "secular" subjects. The Wisconsin State Governor's Commission on Education stated in its report: "It is not good public policy to appropriate nublic funds to preserve a system of education the unique purpose of which is to teach a religiously-oriented value system." 5. Interdependence between church and state can be damaging to both the church and the state as history well illustrates. When churches become concerned about the amount of money they think they should receive, they will find it necessary to lobby for their maintenance. Churches will inevitably be used by the state as one of its sources of political support and influence and the state will be used by the churches for the same nurposes. The actual and intended purpose and function of state and church will become confused and both will suffer as a result. 6. Control always follows expenditure of tax money, and it should. It is only right and natural that the government agencies control that which they subsidize. Tax payers expect the government to see to it that our tax dollars are spent wisely and that they accomplish their intended purposes. We quote again from the Wisconsin Education Commission report: "Public aid programs to private institutions are likely to lead to public control and regulation which the Commission believes will inevitably depreciate the uniqueness of the private system." We are convinced that it is most advantageous that churches carry on their rarochial school educational programs independent of government tax support and that they do so with their own resources. In this way, we believe, the best interest of both church and state will be served. Respectfully yours. ADOLPH FEHLAUER, Wisconsin Synod Board for Parish Education. Mr. JOHN M. MARTIN, Jr., WASHINGTON, D.C., August 16, 1972. Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR MR. MARTIN: I am submitting a written statement in lieu of a personal appearance for consideration for inclusion in the printed record of the Hearings relating to Primary and Secondary Education to begin Monday, August 14, 1972. Allow me to submit a brief biography. I represent no organization. I am a Jesuit, finishing a second Master's Degree in Theology, a product of parochial schools from kindergarten through college, and have taught at both a Catholic high school and college. I hold an M.A. summa cum laude from UCLA, and am obtaining my second M.A. at the Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, California. I am editor of two regional Jesuit magazines, and am preparing for a career as a Jesuit lawyer specializing in poverty and minority problems. This summer I have conducted an in depth legislative and legal study of the issue of aid to non-public schools as a Congressional legislative intern. I hope you will find my brief testimony worthy and suitable for inclusion in the printed record of your hearings. After August 20th, my residence will be: Jesuit School of Theology, 2538 Virginia Street, Berkeley, California, 94709. Thank you very much for your consideration of this testimony. With every best wish, I am Cordially yours, Enclosure. STATEMENT To: The Committee on Ways and Means. ROBERT CURRAN, S.J. From: Robert Curran, S.J., The Jesuit School of Theology, 2538 Virginia Street, Berkeley, Calif. 94709. Date: August 16, 1972. Re: Testimony opposing tax credits or deductions for parents with dependents in church related schools on the primary and secondary levels. BACKGROUND AND BIASES I am a Jesuit and a product of parochial schools from both sides of the desk from kindergarten through college. I have taught at both a Jesuit high school and a Jesuit university, and I share pride in the high quality of Jesuit and Catholic education in America. And as one or two of these Catholic schools close each day, I mourn the loss of such fine institutions. Sadly, economic necessity is slamming the door on many enduring religious values handed on in religiouslyaffiliated schools. OPPOSITION TO LEGISLATION Yet I must reluctantly testify today in opposition to the proposals before the Committee on Ways and Means regarding tax credits or deductions for parents with dependents in Church related schools on the primary and secondary levels. A FUNDAMENTAL REASON FOR OPPOSITION A single, fundamental reason prompts me to conclude, contrary to my personal sympathies and feelings, that the proposed legislation should be rejected: our Constitution in letter and spirit precludes the advancement of religion by government, and this legislation primarily advances religion. The Constitutional issue stands or falls on whether state money (here, tax credits or deductions are unambigiously money refunds issued by the state) has as its primary effect the advancement of religion. Charitable contributions are tax deductible presumably because they primary effect is usually to advance some secular or human concern without directly affecting or promoting institutional religion. But since the primary purpose of Church-related education is religious education, the primary effect of state subsidized tuition would be the advancement of religion. If Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish schools are not primarily established to educate children in religious principles for religious reasons, then what is the justification for their separate identity or very existence? And if Church-related education primarily advances religious purposes, it cannot receive, directly or indirectly, any form of state money-and remain within the bounds of the Constitution. |
