Untitled article by C. P. B.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · January 15, 1891

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 6, No. 3

Shall the State Teach Morals?

By C. P. B.

The pastor of a church in Bloomington, Illinois, sends us the following letter:—

To the Editor:

Some one has had the goodness to send me three copies of THE SENTINEL. I assure you of my deep interest in the great questions of Sabbath observance, and religion in the common schools; and my convictions are clear and strong that THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is on firm ground touching these questions.

In a sermon preached to my congregation on last Sabbath night on our free schools, I asked the question, which has met with much favorable comment, whether or not the denominational bickerings over religion in the schools could not be hushed if the State Boards of Education were to authorize the publication and use of a text-book for our schools which shall embody the moral sentiments common to all men, and require pupils to pass their examination thereon, not theoretically only, but in character?

The book could take a positive character and embody something as follows, confirmed and illustrated by hundreds of the noblest spirits of our American commonwealth, namely: Thou shalt tell the truth always. Thou shalt deal justly and honestly with thy fellow-men, always. Thou shalt abhor meanness, trickery, and moral and physical pollution. Thou shalt be manly, womanly, generous, upright, forgiving, sweet-tempered, modest in demeanor (decorum), and scores of other kindred sentiments which ennoble society, and act as conservators of that spirit in society and the State which insures safety to our institutions.

The clamor of denominationalism in the name and guise of religion for place and power might be hushed by such a book. Certain it is that, with the Roman Catholics on one side demanding their religion, and the Methodist Church on the other hand demanding theirs, we are likely to come into a boiling and bubbling of our school interests which will leave us without any free schools.

Could you think that the preparation and use of such a book, as named, would be practicable?

Very truly yours,

H. O. HOFFMAN.

We appreciate the good opinion of THE SENTINEL expressed by our correspondent, but fear that he does not fully understand our position. The plan that he proposes, is, in our opinion, impracticable, and we might add that we think, fortunately so. The moral precepts enumerated by Mr. Hoffman are all good. All this, and much more, should be taught to every child; but this should not be done by the State. Moral precepts cannot be taught dogmatically, and would be of little value if so taught.

Morals must have a sanction, that is, moral precepts must be based upon some acknowledged authority. Teach either children or adults that they must always

tell the truth, and must always deal honestly with their fellow-men, and the question immediately arises in their minds, Why must we do this? To answer this question as it should be answered, is to appeal to the law of God, and consequently teach religion. But this is not contemplated in Mr. Hoffman's scheme; neither would it be proper for the State to do this.

It has been repeatedly shown in these columns, and it is admitted by very many, that the State cannot teach religion. It has never been commissioned to teach religion, and it is impossible for it to do so. But on the other hand, to teach children that they must be truthful, and that they must be honest, involves the giving of some reason for these precepts; but as the true reason cannot be given, there remains but one thing to do, that is to quote the familiar maxim that “honesty is the best policy.” But this is to abandon principle and to appeal to selfishness. Everybody would probably admit that as a general rule “honesty is the best policy;” but unless the individual is taught that there is some principle involved, that he is accountable to some superior being, to some authority out of and above himself, higher than his fellow-men, he will be constantly finding what he will deem exceptions to this general rule, and will depart from it whenever in his judgement one of these exceptions will apply, and consequently, for the time being, dishonesty become the best policy.

To undertake to teach morals, while eliminating from them all divine authority, is to teach that policy is the criterion, the standard of rightfulness; not only that it is a standard, but that it is emphatically the standard; and it matters not by how many examples of good men these precepts may be supported, every man is likely to feel that he is as good as his fellows, as well able to judge of rightfulness, as well able to shape a standard of rightdoing; and this standard is sure to be warped and biased by his own selfish interests.

Every man can find a thousand excuses for departing from the straight path of rectitude, of right dealing, in order to advance his own interests. And this is just what men do when they forget God and turn away from him. We have abundant evidence of this in the testimony of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. There he tells how men forget God, and exalt themselves in his stead. And that must always be the effect of teaching the utilitarianism suggested by our correspondent. All these things of which Mr. Hoffman speaks should be taught; but they should be taught in the home, in the church, and in the denominational school, and not in the public school. For when they are taught they should be supported by the moral law; and an appeal to that law cannot properly be made in the public school.

Again, Mr. Hoffman says, that the children should be taught to abhor meanness, and moral and physical pollution. It is easy enough to teach children to abhor physical pollution for sanitary reasons, but without religion how can they know what moral pollution is? How shall they understand moral obligation unless it be defined by religion? Our Saviour taught something of the nature of moral pollution in the Sermon on the Mount, but that is entirely outside of, and beyond, anything which the State can properly teach. It involves an examination of the motives of the heart, and that is beyond the jurisdiction of the State. The Saviour showed that hatred is a violation of the sixth commandment, and that lust is a violation of the seventh; but how shall the teacher in the public school illustrate and emphasize the precept which enjoins the abhorrence of moral pollution? to what shall he appeal to impress upon the mind of the child the fact that he must not entertain evil thoughts? There is absolutely nothing to which he can appeal, without teaching religion. And as before remarked, to attempt anything of the kind must result in one of two things: either the teacher in the public school will teach religion and will appeal to the Scripture to sustain this teaching, or he will establish a human standard, which in the mind of the child, will be the highest authority, and will consequently not only fail in elevating the child and purifying his soul and heart, but will place him in a position that it will be impossible for the teachings of the gospel to reach and elevate him at any subsequent time, because he will be unable to comprehend that there is anything higher or more desirable than his own conceptions of right.

We wish that in some way every child could be taught the true principles of right and wrong, that every child could be taught his accountability to God, not only for his actions, but for his words and thoughts. But it is clear that the State cannot undertake to give this instruction; because it cannot give it without teaching religion, and it cannot teach religion without having a religion, and it can have religion only in the sense of having a creed which it fosters. It matters not how limited that creed might be; it might contain a dozen articles of faith, or it might contain only one; it would be none the less a creed; and in time a church would certainly crystallize around that creed. Such was the origin of the Papal church. State churches have universally grown out of a desire upon the part of religionists to exalt what they deemed to be the truth. Constantine in the fourth century did not make any denomination the State church; he simply made Christianity the State religion and everything else followed as a logical consequence.

The only consistent and safe position for either Christians or non-Christians to assume is that the State shall confine its instruction to the exact sciences, leaving the Church, through its ministers, and through parents, and through church schools, to give religious instruction. The greatest service that the State can render the Church is to let it entirely alone.

Never have churches grown and prospered as they have in this country, and never have they been so entirely separated from the State as here. True, this separation has not been as complete as it should have been, but it has been sufficient to convince the world of the beneficial effects of the divorce of Church and State. It has demonstrated the fact, that a church left to itself, to rely entirely upon its own resources, to provide its own funds, to support its own ministry, has a much greater influence for good, and accomplishes more for the elevation of the race, than it is possible for it to do when connected with civil government.

We trust that every reader of THE SENTINEL, will use his influence, not only to have the separation of Church and State continue in this country, but to make it as complete and perfect as it ought to be everywhere. But to do this we must avoid the adoption of any scheme for the teaching of morals in the public schools. The most we can do is to insist upon correct deportment, and trust to the agencies, so abundant on every hand for giving the necessary moral training to the rising generation. C. P. B.