Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, DECEMBER 18, 1981
Removal of Church Children (Continued from page 10)
PAGE 14
Church members having children in public schools is, of course, not a sin
nor a violation of God's Law. The majority of Church members have their
children in public school.
Hence it can never be represented that the
Church has a policy against Church children attending public school.
If
local law requires that children attend public or private school, or be
enrolled in some acceptable type correspondence course, then from a Church
standpoint that should be done.
If, however, the parents are of the conclusive conviction that the local
law which might require one or more of the foregoing is unconstitutional,
and it is their intention to raise this constitutional question and attempt
to have it resolved in their favor, then they must be ready to bear the
consequences. Some of the readily foreseeable consequences are as follows:
1. That the state would undoubtedly criminally prosecute the parents for
violation of the compulsory school attendance law, or some other
similar charge.
2. Ultimately the state might appoint a guardian to take custody of the
children.
This does not necessarily mean that it would remove the
children from the parents' possession, although it might. One of the
things the guardian would do is to give consent or see that the
children attend school, or some other alternative, until the legal
questions are all resolved.
3. The parents would then be required to defend the criminal case and the
attempt to appoint a guardian, and to appeal any convictions or ad
verse decision. This would cost a great deal of money and the parents
would have to be able and willing to bear the cost. One possible al
ternative is that the state might appoint an attorney to defend a
criminal charge, if the parents are unable to pay. In other cases, the
parents might be able to obtain the assistance of some private civil
rights group interested in such a case.
4. The Church itself could not become involved in a dispute of this
nature directly in that it is too far removed from its Commission of
preaching the Gospel and feeding the flock. It should be understood
this does not mean that the Church is not concerned for such parents.
It is just that the Church must concentrate on the fulfillment of the
primary commission that God has given to it.
If the Church were to
take a different position in this matter it would be battling
individual states or school boards from one end of the country to the
other and could literally immerse the Church in hundreds of court
battles.
5. An alternative problem that would arise from parents removing their
children from public schools to teach them at home, for no reason
other than the fact that they want to teach them at home, is the impact
it would have upon the overwhelming vast majority of other Church mem
bers. They are willing to have their children in public schools. In
these cases we have been fighting in a few isolated areas for the sim
ple right to remove the children for the Holy Days without having them
denied make up work and arbitrarily failed.
If the Church were to
become involved in advocating a total removal from the public school