p. 52 | Untitled article by A. F. Ballenger

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · February 12, 1891

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 6, No. 7

A Review of the Address of the Woman’s Moral and Educational Union to the Chicago Board of Education.

By A. F. Ballenger

It is by no means a pleasant task to criticise a document, emanating from a body of women, who, one believes, are actuated by the purest of motives.

But inasmuch as the principles enunciated in the late Address of the Woman’s Moral and Educational Union, to the Chicago Board of Education, are, in the mind of the writer, fundamentally wrong, and in direct opposition to the principles of our free Government, it becomes a duty to point out some of the vital errors contained in the document.

After commending the faithfulness with which the Board of Education had performed its duties, in which we heartily join, the Address makes known its request to the Board in the following words:—

We wish to have portions of the Holy Bible read at the opening exercises of all departments of the public schools of Chicago.

The reason for asking for portions of the Holy Bible to be read, instead of the Bible as a whole, is, as explained to the writer, that since the patrons of the schools, include a large number of Catholics and Jews, who differ materially in regard to what constitutes the Holy Bible, it was decided that the reading of only portions of the Bible be petitioned for, with the expectation that scriptural selections would be made upon which all could agree.

A committee, representing the Woman’s Moral and Educational Union, called upon Archbishop Feehan, and Rabbi Hersch, with a view to securing their co-operation in the above plan, but were kindly informed, by each of these representative men, they could not favor the proposed compromise. Notwithstanding this information, the Union is still working to secure its object, which cannot be interpreted otherwise than that they proposed to force the reading of portions of the Bible upon the Catholic and Jewish patrons of the public schools, in the face of their expressed protest.

An attempt is made to base the present movement on Article 3, of the territorial law for the great Northwest, enacted in 1787, which reads as follows:—

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind

schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

It is insisted that this article requires the teaching of religion in the public schools of Chicago. This is a forced construction, and was so regarded by the Supreme Court of Ohio, in the decision of the case of the Cincinnati School Board et al. vs. Minor et al., which was based on this same article now incorporated in the Constitution of Ohio.

At the bottom of page 2, is found the following quotation:—

The State demands that the religious and moral sense of the people be educated, such instruction being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, and there can be no right of conscience superior to this prerogative, if it is not abused.

First, it is not true that “the State demands that the religious and moral sense of the people be educated.” The State makes no such demand, and cannot without violating both the State and the Federal Constitutions, and the very foundation principles of justice. The State cannot teach a religion that would not conflict with the views of religion held by some of its citizens, and for it to force a religion upon unwilling subjects, or exact from them money in support of a religion antagonistic to their own, is the very embodiment of tyranny. It will be admitted that religion and morality are necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, but the best service that government can render religion is to keep its secular hands off it.

One of the great mistakes made by these worthy women, and many would-be reformers of our day is that they teach that secular education is antagonistic to religion. The Address makes this error in the following words:—

In seeking to escape from bigoted sectarianism, the schools have fallen into the grasp of illiberal liberalism. Exclusion of all religious instruction is the propagation of irreligion as certainly as darkness reigns where the sun never shines.

Darkness and light are directly opposed to each other and cannot exist together, and by this illustration we are taught that geography, grammar, and reading are antagonistic to religion. This is a humiliating confession, and one which Protestantism is wont to shoulder on the Roman Church but which she usually denies for herself. Our schools are no more irreligious because religion is not taught in them than are schools of telegraphy and phonography in which religion is not taught. The State when it teaches geography, grammar, etc., is simply attending to its legitimate business, which the Sunday school, and the denominational school, and the Church do when they teach religion.

Again, “the right of the State to give secular instruction cannot be admitted if the right to give religious instruction is denied.”

This conclusion is most illogical. When analyzed it means just this: Because the State is rightfully supreme in civil affairs it can therefore dictate in matters of religion. Because the State may compel a man to work his poll tax, it can therefore compel him to do penance. To prove that these principles lead to compulsory attendance upon church services, the following quotation is submitted:—

No church or sect can go out in the highways and by-ways and force children into its Sabbath school or house of worship, hence it is the imperative duty of the public schools to impart to them that instruction without which they are becoming adepts in vice and villainy.

In other words, public sentiment is against forcing attendance upon the Sabbath school and church service, therefore we must turn our public schools into Sabbath schools and churches where we can force attendance upon them. For the State to resolve itself into a great sect and compel attendance upon religious instruction and religious services, is just as inconsistent as for the religious sects to do it.

Another strange-sounding statement, coming as it does from a body of Christian women, is found at the top of page 4. It reads as follows:—

The religion, morality, and knowledge which they (the children) are to be taught is the religion, morality, and knowledge essential to the welfare of the State and to the happiness of mankind, not to the salvation of souls.

Can it be possible that this organization of Christian women proposes to prostitute the Holy Bible and the religion it contains to the mere preservation of the State. The religion of the Bible was revealed to man for the salvation of souls, and any religion which falls short of this is no religion in the sense in which religion is regarded by our orthodox churches, where these ladies hold membership. What is the difference between a “ghostly agnosticism” and a religion which lands a man just outside the heavenly gate,—or in hell? The boy or girl who goes to hell with such a religion is no better off than the one who goes without it. Again, such a religion is of no value to the State. It is a soul-saving religion which exerts an influence upon a nation and adds to its stability. Take from religion its soul-saving power, and you take from it its heart, its purity, and its influence for good upon the individual and upon the nation, and what you have left is a mere form, a religion of hypocritical policy.

On page 7, is found the following quotation:—

Should one say, “The Bible is a sectarian book,” we ask, “To what sect does it belong?” Should he say, “It means a union of Church and State,” we ask, “Of what church with the State?”

The writer of the Address regards the question following the above objections as a complete answer to them, but are they? If the King James version is accepted by one hundred sects and rejected by a single sect, it is sectarian so far as the dissenting sect is concerned, and it is a well-known fact that the Roman Catholics do not accept of the King James version. They have a right therefore to regard it as a sectarian book, though accepted by all Protestant sects.

Neither does the question, “Of what Church with the State?” answer the objection, that it means a union of Church and State. A union of Church and State is just as essentially brought about where several churches unite to force the teaching of doctrines which they hold in common, as where a single sect compels the teaching of a doctrine held by it. The difference is that some of the sects form a religious “trust” by which to control the teaching of religion in the State schools, to the exclusion of views held by the dissenting sects and unbelievers. It is not necessary in order to have an essential union between the Church and the State to have that union to consist of a single church and the State.

For want of space we will notice but one more quotation, as follows:—

But it is urged that the Holy Bible may be abused and misused. So may bread and meat, and water and fire. Shall these agencies be banished for this reason?

Yes, banish them from every place where they do not belong. While bread is good when taken into the stomach, it should be banished immediately if gotten into the eye. Fire should be banished from every place where it will cause a conflagration, although good in its place. The Bible though good in its place should be banished from the public schools where it does not belong and where it creates religious strife which is worse than a conflagration. A. F. BALLENGER.