|
parochial schools. The Horace Mann case
so holds and we have no reason to believe
did not correctly apply first amendment
principles."
Mr. Eisenberg further stated that a
parochial school is a religious institution
and cannot be the recipient of public funds
either as grants or loans or in material aid,
including textbooks.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have three min-
utes, Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: The position
of Americans United for the Separation of
Church and State seems to be in favor of a
more specific provision and emphasizes the
importance of the free exercise clause. It
also urges the adoption of a proviso which
says in so many words, there can be no
aid directly or indirectly to any school or
institution under the control of any re-
ligious domination.
While this is their attitude and what
they want, I think they are inclined to ac-
cept the wording of the draft. Now, this is
substantially the same view as that of
Delegate Gallagher, who made a very elo-
quent, objective and forthright statement
to our Committee.
I will leave it to him to explain his own
views which I am sure he is very capable
of doing, and what I want to say is that
these knowledgeable men and women and
concerned groups have had a very per-
suasive effect upon me and their interpre-
tation and the meaning of the first amend-
ment language.
The decision of the Court of Appeals in
the Horace Mann case and the Truitt Case
are also most persuasive.
Now, my conclusion is this and I hope
I am stating the view of the Convention,
that it is in light of these cases and their
significance and their meaning that we
have accepted this proposed language. That
is the point that I wish to make and I
wish to have it on record.
Thank you so much.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Groh.
DELEGATE GROH: Mr. Chairman and
fellow delegates, in the light of Mr.
Bennett's closing statement, I do not see
where there is any great need to elaborate
on this. I do not feel that he is seriously
contending that we should eliminate the
"free exercise clause". I do not think he
intends that at all.
All he says is that his whole intention
was to elaborate more fully on the views
|
of the Committee. I think Mr. Kiefer has
very clearly stated our position, that the
First Amendment language did the job in
the best possible manner as could be done
under existing law. The Committee was
satisfied to rely on the decisions and the
developing law in this area as provided by
the Maryland Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court. I respectfully suggest you
defeat this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett,
you probably were not aware of the fact
that in the presentation of this Committee
Recommendation several days ago, a slight
error was corrected in section 2, line 21.
The word "nor" was stated to be "or". I
suppose you want the same correction in
your amendment?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you please, in
line 3, change the word "nor" to "or".
Is there any further discussion?
Are you ready for the question?
Delegate Price.
DELEGATE PRICE: Mr. Chairman and
ladies and gentlemen : I think it is a good
thing that the amendment has been of-
fered, because as Delegate Bennett wants
us to do, we at least can consider what the
Committee meant by this language.
There are many people who believe that
religious liberty in America is unique, that
it is under-valued, and that it may well be
from time to time threatened. The Commit-
tee raked over this issue many times. We
know that the majority of people who
came to this country from the time of the
Mayflower to 1790 came to this country to
escape religious coercion and a church,
sometimes not only established by, but
under the control of the government.
I want to continue with a few notes
speaking against the amendment and for
the language that we have adopted.
There are those who say today that what
Thomas Jefferson meant by his classic
phrase "separation of church and state"
is not important in today's world. How-
ever, a quick glance at many of the prob-
lems that we have will reveal to us that
what Jefferson and Madison led the coun-
try to adopt, why they did it and what
they intended by it can be very helpful to
us as we decide today whether we shall
continue this unique contribution of Ameri-
ca, the separation of church and state.
Now then, if we look at a brief but ac-
curate history of a picture of American
|
