The opinion
GERALD C. MANN AUNTIS 11.TEXAR
Hohorable T. H'.Trlmble, First Assistant
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Austin,
_., Texas
Deer Sir: OpInIonNo. O-5643
Re: Shall the AmarrflloCollege,
Amarillo, Texas, receive the
State mon'egallotted to 'unlor
colleges 'et the rate of 450*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,entsin 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.onO-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..(ArticleI
3
Honorable T. M. Trimble, page 2 O-5643
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
mtlfnteinany 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 riuchlaws es may be necessary to pro-
tect equally every rellglous denominetlon In
the peaceable enjoyment of Its own mode of pub-
lic worship.'
""SetD 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
10 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,edbut nbt required to
join, was not objectionable under the-‘abovequoted
prbvislons of-'theConstitutLon. See also Pfelffer v.
Board of Education s 77 N.W. 250; People ex rel.
Vollmar v. Stanley , 255 P, 610; Hackett v.
Honorable T. M. Trlmble, page 3 O-5643
Brooksvllle Graded School Dlst., (Kya), 87 S.W.
792;.Stevenson,v. Heiiyon,
. .._ 7 Pa. Dist. R. 585. Row-
ever, tne court empnatlcelly stress'edthe point
that the exercises were non-sectarian in cherec-
ter.' We quote the following from the opinion of
the court:
$1 I
0It was the purpose of the Constl-
0 .
tution to forbid the'use of'publlc funds for
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 outiopinion 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
APPROVED NOV 8, 1943 Assistant
s/Grover Sellers
FIRST ASSISTANT This Opinion Considered And Approved
ATTORNEY GENERAL In Limited Conference.