April 19, 1999

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to express our support, in the strongest possible terms for SB 973 and HB 1209, which would codify the U. S. Supreme Court’s Zorach v. Clauson decision regarding released time for public school students. As the objective of the bill suggests, this legislation would merely implement policies consistent with the holding in the landmark case of Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306. Justice Douglas eloquently set forth the reasoning of the majority of the court as follows:

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. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. (Emphasis added)

In the final paragraph of his opinion, Justice Douglas noted that the ruling of the Court was entirely consistent with its prior ruling in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203. As Justice Douglas again made clear:

In the McCollum case the classrooms were used for religious instruction and the force of the public school was used to promote that instruction. Here, [the] public schools do no more than accommodate their schedules to a program of outside religious instructions. We follow McCollum. We cannot expand it to cover the present released time program unless separation of Church and State means that public institutions can make no adjustments of their schedules to accommodate the religious needs of the people. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion. (Emphasis added)

We respectfully submit that Justice Douglas’ remarks are even more timely today than when he penned the majority opinion in the Zorach case almost fifty years ago. We respectfully urge you to pass the legislation in question and fear not those who seek to spread paranoia concerning a misguided understanding of separation of Church and State. Let there be no doubt, that what is at stake is the proper advancement of religious freedom, as opposed by a philosophy of separation of Church and State which is hostile to the mere accommodation of the free exercise of religion. Please send the message that government will henceforth consider it a duty and an honor to secure for the people that liberty which we all should cherish, and without which, the true meaning of liberty is lost.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard D. Land, D. Phil.