Case Information

*1 AUNTIS 11. TEXAR GERALD C. MANN

Hohorable T. H'. Trlmble, First Assistant

State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Austin, Texas _., Deer Sir: OpInIonNo. O-5643

Re: Shall the Amarrfllo College, Amarillo, Texas, receive the State mon'eg allotted to 'unlor colleges 'et the rate of 4 50*00 each 15 semesterhours carried for the students, In the course of Bfble?

We'acknowledge receipt of your letter of-recent date to which you attach a letter from Mr. Ernest C. Shearers. Act- ing President of Amarillo College, which letter reads &I fol- lows:

"For the first time this year we are offer-

ing a non-sectarian course in Bible. It is OUP understanding that no money received from the State can be used to peg a teacher In this course, end we have made other arrangements.

"However, the questfon has arisen as to whether OP not we shall receive the State money allotted to junior colleges et the rate of $50 for each 15,semester hours carried for the stu- d,ents in this Bible course. It has been my understanding that we can lfst any course for which we give college credit and for which we are collecting out regular tuftlon. Is this Bible course an exception to thfs ruling?" In reply to the above we quote from Opini.on O-5037, 8s follows:

"It Is well known that one of the causes of

the Texas Revolution was the enforced ~natlonal religion of the Republic of Mexico. As a conse- quence, certeln provisions were included in OUP Constltut%on to divorce the church from the State and to guarantee absolute rellglous freedom. Sec- tions 6 and 7 of our Bill of Rights..(Article I Trimble, page 2 of the Texas Constitution) reed respectively es follows~

"'Sec. 6 D All men have e natural end in- dependent right to worship Almighty God ec- cording to the dictates of their own con;

sciences. No man'shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worshfp, or to mtlfntein any mInistry agelnst~'hls~~bonsent.

No human authority ought, in any case what- ever, to control or interfere with the-rights of consclence In matters of religion; end no preference shall ever be given by law to

any rellglous'soclety or mode of worship.

But ‘it’ shall be th@ duty of the Legislature to’pass riuch laws es may be necessary to pro- tect equally every rellglous denominetlon In the peaceable enjoyment of Its own mode of pub- lic worship.'

""Set D 7 s No money shell be appropriated, OP drawn from the Treasury for the benefit

of any sect, or religious society', theologl- cal or religious seminary;.nor shell property belonglng to the State be appropriated for

any such purposes.'

"Section 5 of Article VII, Constitution of Texas, provides, in part,as follows:

11 1 0 D 0 And no law shall ever be enacted appropriating any pert of the permanent or available school fund to any other purpose

whatever; nor shell the same, or any part

thereof ever be appropriated to or used for the support of any secterS$la, school; *-..I See also Article 2899, R.C.3.

"The provfsions were before the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Church et al. v'. Bullock et al., log 3.w. 115. In that case It was held In effect that the holding of morning exercises In the public schools which consisted of reading by the t&cFier without comment of non-sectarian extracts from the Bible, end the singing of appropriate songs, In which the pupils wer@ lnvlt,ed but nbt required to join, was not objectionable under the-‘above quoted prbvislons of-'the ConstitutLon. See also Pfelffer v.

Board of Education Vollmar v. Stanley s 77 N.W. 250; People ex rel.

, 255 P, 610; Hackett v. Trlmble, page 3 Brooksvllle Graded School Dlst., (Kya), 87 S.W.

792;.Stevenson v. Heiiyon, 7 Pa. Dist. R. 585. Row- , . .._ ever, tne court empnatlcelly stress'ed the point

that the exercises were non-sectarian in cherec- ter.' We quote the following from the opinion of the court:

tution to forbid the'use of'publlc funds for $1 I ^{[0] [0]} . It was the purpose of the Constl- the support of any pertlcular denomination of religious people, whether they be Christians or of other religions.'

"Theref.ore, exercises which would include any expression representing the peculiar or distinctive view or dogma of any sect or denomlnetion would not be non-sectarian. Such exercises would be in vlo- letion of our Constitution."

We quote the following from the opinion of Judge Brown, of the Supreme Court, in the case of Church v. Bullock, supre:

"There is no difference In the protection given by our Constitution between citizens of this State on account of religious beliefs --all are embraced In Its broad language, and are entitled to the protection guaranteed thereby; but It does not follbw that one or more lndlvlduels have the right to have the courts deny the people the privilege of having their children Instructed in the morel truths of the Bible because such objectors do not desire that their own children shall be partlcl- pants therein. This would be to starve the morel and spiritual natures of the many out of deference to the few, . e . a .'I

Mr, Shearer states that the course offered Is nonsec- tarian, and based on that statement, it is outi opinion that there Is no exception In the law with respect to Bible courses.

Very truly yours ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS By s/C, F. Gibson CFGzs:wc

C. F. Gibson Assistant APPROVED NOV 8,

s/Grover Sellers This Opinion Considered And Approved FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL In Limited Conference.