Table Of ContentSponsoring Committee* Professor Louis E, Rathe, Chairman
Professor Theodore Brameld, Professor Samuel L« Hamilton
Professor John G* Rockvell
THE RELATION (F RELIGION TO PUBLIC EDUCATION
IN AMERICA
FRANK N. TRAGER
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the School of Education of
New York University
1951
/<*
> :
ft- . . ■
The student hereby guarantees that no part of the
dissertation or document vhich he has submitted for publication
has been heretofore published and (or) copyrighted in the United
States of America, except in the case of passages quoted from other
published sources; that he is the sole author snd proprietor of said
dissertation or document; that the dissertation or document contains
no matter vhich, if published, will be libelous or otherwise injurious,
or infringe in any way the copyright of any other party; and that he
will defend, indemnify and hold harmless New York University against
all suits and proceedings which may be brought and against all claims
which may be made against New York University by reason of the publi
cation of said dissertation or document.
k /
September 6, 1951
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To all whose works I have read and from whom I have
learned many things* • •
To the members of my Sponsoring Committee, Dr* Louis
E* Rathe, Chairman, Dr* Theodore Brameld, Dr* Samuel
Hamilton, Dr, John Rockwell who straggled with me
throughout the outline and drafting stages ft>r the con
sequent improvement of this final draft* » *
To the United States Government for the "G,I* Law"
which helped to finance my studies* • •
One final word - more than twenty years ago, as a
graduate student and young instructor in the College
for Teachers, Johns Hopkins University, I met Dr* A* 0*
Love joy, philosopher and scholar* His influence and
disciplined training in the historiography of ideas are
beyond my acknowledgement* I can only hope that in some
small measure this dissertation justifies that training*
Frank Newton Trager
August, 1951
ii
PREFACE
What role, If any, may education about religion play in the curriculum
of the public school?
Charles Clayton Morrison, writing on "Protestantism and the Public
Schools," notes and charges that*
The school sees millions of citizens marching to the
polls, and it teaches civics and politics. It sees
millions at work in the factories and offices, and it
teaches economics and business methods. It sees mil*
lions entering galleries where sculptures stand and
pictures are hung, and it teaches the history and canons
of art. It sees throngs crowding great halls where
symphonies and operas and plays are rendered, and it
teaches music and drama. It sees all the people living
in homes, and it teaches domestic economy. It sees in
numerable workers in acadeoio laboratalss and technolog
ical departments in industry, and it teaches science.
It sees its society cherishing great traditions, and it
teaches history and literature.
For religion, however, the school has a blind spot. It
does not see the millions going to churches* It does
not ask why they go, what is in their minds, What they
do in church, what literature they read, hew their
churches axe organised, what social concerns engage them,
what differences exist among them, out of What history
and tradition all this devotion has sprung, what signi
ficance this vast phenomenon of religious faith and organ
isation possesses for democracy and culture. To ask these
questions and to answer them is forbidden in our educa
tional system. The school does not know that there is
such a thing as religion in American society.
Obviously, no one has the right to demand that the schools
be used to indoctrinate their pupils in his sectarian be
liefs. But this principle applies also to polities and
economios and history and many other subjects. Yet the
schools do not exclude political science because the com
munity is divided into Republicans, Democrats, Socialists,
ill
Communists, and the rest. Bor does it exclude economics
because there are capitalists and New Dealers In the com
munity. If these subject sitters can be taught without
doing violence to partisan prejudices, religion can also
be taught without doing elolehee to the prejudices of
Protestant8) Catholics, and Jews.
This plaint in one form or another can be found in many places. Arthur
Bice, editorializing in The Nations Schools. writes: "Across the country,
from Los Angeles to Chicago to New York, teachers and school boards are try
ing to define the place of religion in our concept of democracy— and to de-
2
cide what the public schools shall teach about this relationship."
He is aware of the division of opinion among educators on this question,
but concludes that "knowledge of those ideas that constitute the basic faith
of religious groups is essential if we are to understand our fellow men and
3
live with them peacefully."
On the other hand, there are those who would accept the description of
the facts as presented by C* C„ Morrison but then go on to say that religion
A
is and should "be barred from our public school curriculum" and from such
5
enterprises as baccalaureate and related assembly programs•
To arrive at a determination on these curriculum and related issues will
not be a simple matter. But the problem is further complicated by the intimate
1. C. C. Morrison, "Protestantism and the Publi Schools." Xhfi Christian
Century. Vol. A3, (April 17, 1946), pp. 490-492.
2. A. Bice, "What Shall the Schools Teach About Beligion," Xhfi Nations
Schools. Vol. A4, (July 1949), p. 20.
3. Ibid. Vld. F. Ernest Johnson, "Beligion in Education— An Irrepressible
Issue." Information gfnifit* Federal Council of The Churches of Christ
In Amerioa, Vol. 29, No. 36, (Nov. 11, 1950).
4. J. S. Brubacher, (ed.), Jhft Public Schools fifth SwtrHaml jZglUfifi, p. rill,
5. L. A. Wilson, "A Ruling," SiH York XlfiQA, June 14, 1951. The New York
State Commission acted favorably upon an appeal by a Roman Catholic
priest of Somers, New York, Bight Reverend E. V. Dargin.
iv
connection between them and a more inclusive issue. For it ip held that
cooperation between church and state in education say, if it has not already,
6
lead to the unconstitutional "establishment of religion," Seam fora of co
operation between church and state has taken place at every stage in Ameri
can history including the present* What are the legitimate Unite of such
cooperation in the light of the First and Fourteenth Amendments? What light
does American history shed on this experience? And how does church-state
cooperation, if any, relate to public school education directly in the cur
riculum; indirectly through such issues as released-tlme education, federal
aid, free text-books, transportation, health and lunch provisions for paro
chial schools?
In.brief, to raise the questions What role, if any, education about re
ligion may play in the curriculum of the public school? is something like
Tennyson*s "Flower in the Crannied Wall":
"• • • • but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know What God and man is."
For an examination of this question will requires
Chapter I* The exposure of present ambiguities and
confusion surrounding this question and the
various meanings of the terms employed to
describe it.
Chapter II. The examination of the American historical
background of the Church-State issue in order
to determine what relation religion and educa
tion have in fact had.
Chapter III. The examination of the Federal and State
Constitutional and other legal aspects of the
relation between religion and public education
in order to discover the presence and/or ab
sence of legal prohibition on such a relation
ship.
6. R. F. Butts, iMtdfiRB Trariltlnn Religion and Education, p. 210*
v
Chapter IV* She analysis of modern educational philosophy
la order to discover whether “teaching" and
“religion" and “education" have a proper re
lationship in theory.
Chapter V, The review of certain practical difficulties
or roadblocks to such a proper relationship
once it has been judged to be theoretically
sound* This review will seek to find reliable
strategies to overcome such difficulties and
to establish a principle which imposes upon
education the necessity for seeking such strat
egies in the future as new difficulties nay
arise*
The following delimitations will govern the scope of this investigation:
1* There will be no consideration of the relative merits of one
religion* or of one conception of religion* as against another* or of relig
ion as against lrrellgion— religion as it exists in our contemporary culture*
is taken as a basic datum of the study*
2* Details and mechanics of an adequately constructed curriculum
with respect to religion and public education will be omitted even if in the-
7
ory and practice such a curriculum be appropriate to public school education*
Such matters* including administrative changes in the schools* vlhich may be
Incidental to a new curriculum, fall to the curriculum expert.
3* The history of the church-state conflict* the legal and consti
tutional aspects of the relation of religion to public education* the various
experiments with released-time classes* present legislation bearing on federal
aid to education could each require a volume unto itself* These issues will
enter this study only to the extent to which they will contribute historical*
7* Virgil Henry* Xtaft Hftfift fi£ filildfift 1ft Public Schools. A basic attempt
has been dede in this connection in the Teachers College, Columbia
University* doctoral dissertation by Dr* Henry* and published by
Harper Brothers* 1950*
vi
legal, or practical guidance for our eantral problem; the determination of
the proper place of religion In thepublic achool curriculum*
4* The relationship of religion, public education and problems
of the econony involving iasuea of tax exemption, et cetera, will be excluded,
as elll be considerations arising from the political straggles in T&rlous
communities over natters affecting public education.
There can be little doubt as to the need for this study* All Americans
who are seriously coneerned with the welfare of the public school system
should have a deep interest in the problem of the relation of religion to
public education* It is by no means a new problem; it has confronted Amer
icans for more than a century* It is the commonly held misconception that
the question of religious instruction in the public schools was settled with
the adoption of the First Amendment with or without benefit of the Fourteenth*
As a matter of fact, sectarian religious instruction (which is only one of the
kinds of religious instruction) was not completely banned from the public
school until the last quarter of the nineteenth century*
Various factors have prompted religious leaders to seek -the aid and pres
tige of the p iblie school system in their programs of religious education,
among then the growing "secularisation*1 of American culture, the dearth of
young leadership in the churches, the growth of juvenile delinquency, the be
lief that only a return to religion can rescue modem man from his atomic
8
predicament • More recently, large increases in enrollment for released tiara
religious classes, as well as a number of court tests of their legality, have
focused public attention on this question* In addition, the issue of govern-
8* American Council on Sduoation, Committee on Beligion and Education, Zhft
nf BaHsibn to Public Educationt Jfefc fiMifi Prlnoihlea, pp* 1-6*
vli
Milt aid to parochial schools through healthy transportation and textbook
subsidies, has given emphasis to discussions of the plaoe that religion ought,
9
or ought not, to hare In the public school system.
These discussions hare led to debates, sonatinas acrimonious, between
10
Catholics and Protestants, between Christiana and non-Christiana* It is
not here presumed that a solution to the problem of the place that religion
may have in public education will remove from the arena of public debate all
the Issues discussed in the debates* But it is contended that clarification
of this one issue may narrow the area of controversy* In that sense this
dissertation may be of use in the troublesome days ahead*
The data for this study come from the cultural histozy of our country*
The disciplines of history, law, philosophy, education and religion supply
the sources* Obviously the writer does not claim expertness in so vast a
field* In fact, no claim for expertness is put forward. However, it is hoped
that the expert reader in these respect!vet fields will find his own specialty
competently handled at least to the extent that it bears on the central prob
lems the relation, if any, of religion to public education* It is further
hoped that the educator, for whom this study is primarily Intended, will find
here a documented presentation and logical analysis of the main data bearing
upon the educational issue*
9* C* H. Moehlaan, The Wall of Separation Between Church and, State, especially
Chapter 9, "Which Way Aae^canCulvure, " pp. 1?7 ffijwllfred Parsons,
The First Freedom, Chapters 10 and 11, "Whither the Supreme Court," and
H/hither the First Amendment*"
10* Paul Blanshard, AttUdfiftB Freedom aftd gathollc Power: Bale Francis, imsir
can Freedom and Paul Blanshard* £|A* also, fig* Hllftld IritMf,
Book Review , June 10, 1951, p* 5, two reviews of Paul Blanshard1*,
fiflMUlflb fiMBSXl&Xt BOA Catholic Power: one by Perry Miller ef
Harvard University, the other by J* M* (Weill of Brooklyn College*
Also, Haw lorit Herald v-o— - June 22 and July 17, 1951. Sxohaage be
tween Rt* Bev* Masgr* J* S* Middleton, Seoretary to Cardinal Spellman
and Rabbi P* S* Bernstein, President, Central Conference of Ameriean
Rabbis*
Till
The analysis of the problem leads to What appears to the writer to be an
Irrefutable conclusions that the public school should teach about religion—
not for religion, nor against it* It should teach about religion by the same
methods and for the sane reasons that it teaches about other important as sell
as controversial areas of life1s experience* The appeal to history which never
proves or disproves a proposition exhibits precedent for teaching about re
ligion* Law, constitutional or statute, in no way prohibits such teaching
provided it does not seek to sectarianism the learning experience for the child*
Law, Whatever be the outcomes on federal aid, textbooks, released time, trans
portation and the like, has on the whole been more than friendly to religion
as part of school life* Religion in the curriculum is not only consistent
with historical and legal tradition but it is also thoroughly consistent with
major, modem educational theory, essentialist and progress!vist in orienta
tion* Religion as subject-matter of the culture, religion aB experience of
the child and comnunity, can be ignored by educators only at the peril of deny
ing the explicit nature of educational theory. It is true that there are dif
ficulties to be overcome before a theoretically sound proposition can be prac
tically carried out* To deny these difficulties would be folly; to permit
them to serve as penoanent roadblocks would be philosophically indefensible*
This study* then, which validates the proposition that religion should
have a role in public education» that educators should teach about religion,
is truly propaedeutic* It leaves to educators the task of carrying out educa
tionally the implications of the proposition Which it establishes. Profes
sional planning, experimentation and community participation will be necessary
to meet this curriculum challenge* While doing this, Americans should unite
in maintaining the "wall of separation," that is, preventing the establishment
of one or more churches; should combine In preventing sectarian encroachment
ix
