Good Education Requires Biblical Knowledge

The Chicago Tribune printed an editorial about the importance of students knowing the Bible. They said, in part:

"...when they [public schools] decline to impart knowledge about such an important subject [the Bible], they are not doing anything to preserve the separation of church and state. They are merely failing their students."

The editorial is not in any way saying that schools should be promoting religious belief or practice. But how many public schools have the nerve to teach the Bible as a subject?

Also see Schools need to teach religion

Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.

"That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other - hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly...

"Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamation making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths - these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, or public rituals, our ceremonies, would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: God save the United States and this Honorable Court.

"We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being... 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...

"We find no constitutional requirement making it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weighed against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects...

"We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion."

See also the article on the U.S. Supreme Court Center

Justice Potter Stewart on "Separation of Church and State"

Justice Potter Stewart opined about Everson v. Board of Education that the Court's task in resolving complex constitutional controversies:

"...is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."

See Heritage Foundation - Mythical Wall...

New York Supreme Court - Baer v. Kolmorgen (1958)

In his dissent in this case, Judge Gallagher said:

"Much has been written in recent years...to "a wall of separation between church and State." ...It has received so much attention that one would almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere in our Constitution."

See Google Book Search - America's God and Country

New York Supreme Court, 1811 - The People v. Ruggles

In this case, the defendant was charged with saying words that were "...in contempt of the Christian religion..." The opinion was written by Justice Kent, and said in part:

"...the Court... said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths.

"And in the case of Rex vs. Woolston's, on a like conviction, the Court said... that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government... the authorities show that blasphemy against God and... profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, rather uttered by words or writings... because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order.

"Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interest of civil society..."

See University of Chicago Discussion