p. 1 | Untitled article by C. P. B.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · October 16, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 41

They Agree on the Main Point.

By C. P. B.

WE have several times remarked that the only real difference between Romanists and Protestants on the educational question is, that the former want State aid in teaching Catholicism, while the latter want the State to pay for teaching Protestantism. We now propose to offer a little proof directly on this point.

The Catholic Review, published in this city, is certainly a representative Catholic paper. In its issue of August 30, appeared an article, entitled, “Why Should Not the State Pay for Religious Instruction?” in which strong ground was taken in favor of that very thing. The Review says:—

To make a man truly moral you must reach his conscience, and the conscience can be effectually reached only by the powerful motives and sanctions of religion which looks to the Author of conscience and recognizes the imperative obligation to obey Him. To bring those motives and sanctions to bear upon the life and conduct they must be enforced by definite, thorough and authoritative teaching of the doctrines and precepts of religion. . . . Banish God from your curriculum, or in any degree weaken the ligaments that bind the conscience to the throne of God, and by just so much you let loose the unbridled passions of men, and introduce knavery, insubordination and every evil work. Now, if religion be so essential an element in the formation of good moral citizens, why should the Government be so unwilling to encourage it in its system of education of the rising generation? Why, evidently, the State ought to encourage it. It ought to hold out every inducement in its power and be willing to furnish every facility to the different religious bodies for making religion the foundation and informing spirit of their system of education.

There is no mistaking the meaning of this language. It is a plea for State aid to parochial schools, for no Catholic would admit for a moment that the State can or ought to teach religion; the State should, however, pay the Church for teaching it, is the Catholic theory.

And now let us turn to the Protestants and see what they say. In the Christian Statesman, of August 14, is an article, in which occurs this language:—

Beyond doubt the God of storms is angry. As a Nation we have forgotten him. . . . Him and his word we have ruled out largely from the sphere of Government. We have said, “We will not have this man to rule over us.” This is the declaration of the fundamental law of our land, and the effects are to be seen in all the ramifications of our Government. The secular theory of Government is at the bottom of most of America’s woes. The Bible is ignored. It cannot be taught in the schools where our youth, who are to manage governmental affairs, are trained. Many of these youth get no religious training at home or in any Sabbath school, therefore they grow up practically heathen; unless they absorb some religion or religious convictions by social contact with good people, they will know but little about Christianity.

The meaning of this is also unmistakable; it is that, as a Nation we ought to see to it that our youth receive religious instruction, and that that instruction should be imparted through the medium of the public schools. And herein is the difference, and the only difference on this question between very many Protestants and the whole body of Roman Catholics, namely, the Protestants want the Protestant Bible and Protestant religion taught in the public schools, while the Catholics want the State to give them a portion of the school funds in order that they may the more easily maintain their own schools in which to teach the Roman Catholic religion. In either event the State would

pay for the teaching of religion, and in effect become a partner of the Church in the business of giving religious instruction. It follows that when they reproach one another for endeavoring to secure some advantage by an alliance with the State, it is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. The moral of all this is that there is but one proper course for the State to pursue in the matter of education, namely, to provide facilities for giving not an irreligious, but a purely secular education to all children not otherwise provided for, and leaving to the Church and to the home the teaching of religion. To attempt any other system would be to belittle religion and destroy our common school system. C. P. B.