Your ShelfYour Projects

Religion and the State

5%

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Nov 13, 1889

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 4, No. 42.

Read the full edition

Religion and the State.

By Editor

We have several times referred to the famous case of the Cincinnati school board upon religious exercises in the public schools. We have printed a part of the speech of Hon. Stanley Mathews at the trial of the case. In the decision of the court, two of the judges, Hagans and Storer, decided in favor of religion in the schools. The third member of the court, Judge Taft, dissented. The case then went to the Supreme Court of the State, though the question involved in the appeal was not strictly whether religion should be taught in the schools or not, but whether the school board had the right to prohibit it if it chose. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court, deciding that the school board had such power under the constitution and laws of the State of Ohio. This of course was indirectly a decision that religious instruction, or the conducting of religious exercises, is not one of the functions of the State of Ohio. This question being involved, though indirectly, the Supreme Court took occasion to express its views upon the question. The decision was rendered by Chief Justice Welsh. That part of the decision in which the views of the court upon the question are given, we here present to the readers of the SENTINEL. The argument is unanswerable, and we commend it to the careful consideration of the American people:
“BOARD OF EDUCATION, CINCINNATI, vs. MINOR ET AL.
“We are told that the word ‘religion’ must mean ‘Christian religion,’ because Christianity is a part of the common law of this country, lying behind and above its constitutions. Those who make this assertion can hardly be serious, and intend the real import of their language. If Christianity is a law of the State, like every other law it must have a sanction. Adequate penalties must be provided to enforce obedience to all its requirements and precepts. No one seriously contends for any such doctrine in this country, or, I might almost say, in this age of the world. The only foundation—rather, the only excuse—for the proposition that Christianity is a part of the law of this country, is the fact that it is a Christian country, and that its constitutions and laws are made by a Christian people. And is it not the very fact that these laws do not attempt to enforce Christianity, or place it upon exceptional or vantage-ground, itself a strong evidence that they are the laws of a Christian people, and that their religion is the best and purest of religions? It is a strong evidence that their religion is indeed religion ‘without partiality,’ and, therefore, a religion ‘without hypocrisy.’”
“True Christianity asks no aid from the sword of civil authority. It began without the sword,and wherever it has taken the sword it has perished by the sword. To depend on civil authority for its enforcement is to acknowledge its own weakness, which it can never afford to do. It is able to fight its own battles. Its weapons are moral and spiritual, and not carnal. Armed with these, and these alone, it is not afraid nor ashamed to be compared with other religions, and to withstand them single-handed. And the very reason why it is not afraid or ashamed is that it is not the ‘power of men,’ but ‘the power of God,’ on which it depends. True Christianity never shields itself behind majorities. Nero, and the other persecuting Roman emperors, were amply supported by majorities; and yet the pure and peaceable religion of Christ in the end triumphed over them all; and it is only when it attempted itself to enforce religion by the arm of authority, that it began to wane. A form of religion that cannot live under equal and impartial laws ought to die, and sooner or later must die. Legal Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction of terms. When Christianity asks the aid of the government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine, and not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human governments. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.”
“Religion is not—much less is Christianity or any other particular system of religion—named in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States as one of the declared objects of government; nor is it mentioned in the clause in question, in our own constitution, as being essential to anything beyond mere human government. Religion is ‘essential’ to much more than human government. It is essential to man’s spiritual interests, which rise infinitely above, and are to outlive, all human governments. It would have been easy to declare this great truth in the constitution, but its framers would have been quite out of their proper sphere in making the declaration. They contented themselves with declaring that religion is essential to good government, providing for the protection of all in its enjoyment, each in his own way, and providing means for the diffusion of general knowledge among the people. The declaration is, not that government is essential to good religion, but that religion is essential to good government. Both propositions are true, but they are true in quite different senses. Good government is essential to religion for the purpose declared elsewhere in the same section of the constitution, namely, for the purpose of mere protection. But religion, morality, and knowledge are essential to government, in the sense that they have the instrumentalities for producing and perfecting a good form of government. On the other hand, no government is at all adapted for producing, perfecting, or propagating a good religion. Religion, in the widest and best sense, has most, if not all, the instrumentalities for producing best forms of government. Religion is the parent, and not the offspring, of good government. Its kingdom is first to be sought, and added thereto. True religion is the sun which gives to good government all its true lights, while the latter merely acts upon religion by reflection.
“Properly speaking, there is no such thing as ‘religion’ of the State. What we mean by that phrase is, the religion of some individual, or set of individuals, taught and enforced by the State. The State can have no religious opinions; and if it undertakes to enforce the teaching of such opinions, they must be the opinions of some natural person or class of persons. If it embarks in this business, whose opinions shall it adopt? If it adopts the opinions of one man, or one class of men, to what extent may it group together the opinions of all? And where this conflict exists, how thorough will the teaching be? Will it be exhaustive and exact, as it is in the elementary literature and in the sciences usually taught to children? And if not, which of the doctrines or truths claimed by each will be blurred over, and which taught in preference to those in conflict? These are difficulties which we do not have to encounter when teaching the ordinary branches of learning. It is only when we come to teach what lies ‘beyond the scope of sense or reason’—what from its very nature can only be the object of faith—that we encounter these difficulties. Especially is this so when our pupils are children to whom we are compelled to assume a dogmatical method and manner, and whose faith at last is more a faith in us than anything else. Suppose the State should undertake to teach Christianity in the broad sense in which counsel apply the term, or the ‘religion of the Bible,’ so as also to include the Jewish faith, where would it begin? how far would it go? and what points of disagreement would be omitted?
“If it be true that our law enjoins the teaching of the Christian religion in the schools, surely, then, all its teachers should be Christians. Were I such a teacher, while I should instruct the pupils that the Christian religion was true, and all other religions false, I should tell them that the law itself was an unchristian law. One of my first lessons to the pupils would show it to be unchristian. That lesson would be: ‘Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.’ I could not look the veriest infidel or heathen in the face and say that such a law was just, or that it was a fair specimen of Christian republicanism. I should have to tell him that it was an outgrowth of false Christianity, and not one of the ‘lights’ which Christians are commanded to shed upon an unbelieving world. I should feel bound to acknowledge to him, moreover, that it violates the spirit of our constitutional guaranties, and is a State religion in embryo; that if we have no right to tax him to support ‘worship,’ we have no right to tax him to support religious instructions; that to tax a man to put down his own religion is of the very essence of tyranny; that however small the tax, it is the first step in the direction of an ‘establishment of religion;’ and I should add that the first step in the direction involves the fatal step, because it logically involves the last step.
“But it will be asked, How can religion, in this general sense, be essential to good government? Is atheism, is the religion of Buddha, of Zoroaster, of Lao-tse, conducive to good government? Does not the best government require the best religion?—Certainly the best government requires the best religion. It is the child of true religion, or of truth on the subject of religion, as well as on all other subjects. But the real question here is not, What is the best religion? but, How shall this best religion be secured? I answer, It can best be secured by adopting the doctrine of this seventh section in our own bill of rights, and which I summarize in two words, by calling it the doctrine of ‘hands off.’ Let the State not only keep its own hands off, but let it also see to it that religious sects keep their hands off each other. Let religious doctrines have a fair field, and a free, intellectual, moral, and spiritual conflict. The weakest—that is, the intellectually, morally, and spiritually weakest—will go to the wall, and the best will triumph in the end. This is the golden truth which it has taken the world eighteen centuries to learn, and which has at last solved the terrible enigma of Church and State.
“Among the many forms of stating this truth, as a principle of government, to my mind it is nowhere more fairly and beautifully set forth than in our own constitution. Were it in my power, I would not alter a syllable of the form in which it is there put down. It is the true republican doctrine. It is simple and easily understood. It means free conflict of opinions as to things divine. It means masterly inactivity on the part of the State, except for the purpose of keeping the conflict free, and preventing the violation of private rights or of the public peace. Meantime, the State will impartially aid all parties in their struggles after religious truth, by providing means for the increase of general knowledge, which is the handmaid of good government, as well as of true morality. It means that a man’s rights to his own religious convictions, and to impart them to his own children, in harmless acts of worship towards the Almighty, are as sacred in the eye of the law as are the rights of person or property, and that, although in the minority, he shall be protected in the full, unrestricted enjoyment thereof. The ‘protection’ guaranteed by the section in question means protection to the minority. The majority can protect itself. Constitutions are enacted for the purpose of protecting the weak against the strong, the few against the many.
“As with individuals so with governments, the most valuable truths are discovered late in life, and, when discovered, their simplicity and beauty make us wonder that we had not known them before. Such is the character and history of the truth here spoken of. At first sight it seems to lie deep; but, on close examination, we find it to be only a new phase or application of a doctrine with which true religion everywhere abounds. It is the simple doctrine of conquering an enemy by kindness. Let religious sects adopt it toward each other. If you desire people to fall in love with your religion, make it lovely. If you wish to put down a false religion, put it down by kindness, thus heaping coals of fire on its head. You cannot put it down by force; that has been tried. To make the attempt is to put down your own religion, or to abandon it. Moral and spiritual conflicts cannot be profitably waged with carnal weapons. When so carried on, the enemy of truth and right is too apt to triumph. Even heathen writers have learned and taught this golden truth. Buddha says: ‘Let a man overcome anger by love, evil by good, the greedy by liberality, and the slanderer by a true and upright life.’ Christianity is full of this truth, and, as a moral code, might be said to rest upon it. It is in hoc signo, by the use of such weapons, that Christianity must rule, if it rules at all.
“We are all subject to prejudices deeper, more fixed, on the subject of religion than on any other. Each is, of course, unwary of his own prejudices.A change of circumstances often opens our eyes. No Protestant in Spain, and no Catholic in this country, will be found insisting that the government of his residence shall support and teach its own religion to the exclusion of all others, and tax all alike for its support. If it is right for one government to do so, then it is right for all. Were Christians in the minority here, I apprehend no such policy would be thought of by them. This is the existing policy of most nations in the world. Christian countries, however, are fast departing from it. Witness Italy, Prussia, Spain, and England. The true doctrine on the subject is the doctrine of peaceful disagreement, of charitable forbearance, and a perfect impartiality.
“Three men—say a Christian, an infidel, and a Jew—ought to be able to carry on a government for their common benefit, and yet leave the religious doctrines and worship of each unaffected thereby, otherwise than by fairly and impartially protecting each, and aiding each in his searches after truth. If they are sensible and fair men they will so carry on their government, and carry it on successfully and for the benefit of all. If they are not sensible and fair men, they will be apt to quarrel about religion, and, in the end, have a bad government and bad religion, if they do not destroy both. Surely they could well and safely carry on any other business, as that of banking, without involving their religious opinions, or any acts of religious worship. Government is an organization for a particular purpose. It is not almighty, and we are not to look to it for everything. The great bulk of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently one of these interests, lying outside the true and legitimate province of government.
“Counsel say that to withdraw all religious instruction from the schools would be to put them under the control of ‘infidel sects.’ This is by no means so. To teach the doctrines of infidelity, and thereby teach that Christianity is false, is one thing, and to give no instruction on the subject is quite another thing. The only fair and impartial method, where serious objection is made, is to let each sect give its own instructions elsewhere than in the State schools, where, of necessity, among other subjects of instruction, there are many others which can more conveniently, satisfactorily, and safely be taught elsewhere. Our charitable punitive, or disciplinary, instructions stand on an entirely different footing. There the State takes the place of the parent; to him will act the part of a parent or guardian in directing what religious instruction shall be given.
“The principles here expressed are not new. They are the same, so far as applicable, enunciated by this court in Bloom vs. Richards, 2 Ohio Street 387, and in McGatrick vs. Wason, 4 Ib. 566. They are as old as Madison, and were his favorite opinions. Madison, who had more to do with framing the Constitution of the United States than any other man, and whose purity of life and orthodoxy of religious belief no one questions, himself says:—
“‘Religion is not in the purview of human government.’ And again he says: ‘Religion is essentially distinct from human government and exempt from its cognizance. A connection between them is injurious to both. There are causes in the human breast which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law.’
“In his letter to Governor Livingstone, July 10, 1822, he says: ‘I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil government, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite doctrine with me.’
“I have made this opinion exceptionally and laboriously long. I have done so in the hope that I might thereby aid in bringing about a harmony of views, and the fraternity of feeling between different classes of society, who have a common interest in the great public institution of the State, which, if managed as sensible men ought to manage it, I have no doubt will be a principal instrumentality in working out for us what all desire,—the best form of government and the purest system of religion.”
Decision rendered December, 1872.