p. 287, para. 1 | Untitled article

Untitled article

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · September 15, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 36

This account of an interview between a Presbyterian clergyman of Stillwater, Minn., and Archbishop Ireland on the public school question is from the New York Herald:—

The Archbishop charged the public schools with being godless, and professed a desire to introduce religious elements into them. I suggested that when I went to school we recited the Lord’s prayer and read from the Scriptures, and asked how they were driven out. He confessed that it was largely owing to Catholic protests.

I again suggested that committees of all religious denominations meet and formulate a ritual to be used as a text book, containing religious instructions that would not be objectionable to any sect and that no persons of good morals could object to.

He objected on the ground that I would not confess to the Catholic idea, admitting that what Catholics wanted was the teaching of the Catholic religion in the schools. He cited an instance in which the State legislated in a matter of religion, requiring the observance of the Sabbath, and remarked that the State didn’t do that for the sake of religion, but to require the observance of Sunday as a day of rest.

He then said: “Why not legislate immediately in that way in the matter of the public schools?” Claiming that by such a plan the State would immediately arrange religion, I objected to the Sabbath as not being a parallel, the Sabbath being common to both Catholics and Protestants, but that the Catholic religion which he was advancing in his plans was not common to both Catholics and Protestants.

The Archbishop frankly admitted that the Protestant’s conscience had good reason to be offended when Sisters of Charity were introduced into the Central Public School buildings and placed over Protestant children. I asked if I might infer from that that the garb of the Sisters of Charity had a teaching force. This he practically admitted.

The Archbishop is an astute and plausible talker; but, as I said to him, his plan involves the impossible condition of putting religious instruction by the State in schools, which is contrary to the laws and conditions of the State.

I suggested that this plan was one that could stand only on its merits, and in the eye of the law this religious element robbed it of all merit. He seemed confident that some compromise would be arrived at by which the difficulties would be met. I gained from him the information that his efforts are by no means considered at an end.

It will be noticed that in antagonizing the Roman Catholic prelate it was necessary for this Presbyterian to acknowledge the impropriety and impossibility of the State teaching religion in the public schools, although this position directly crossed the suggestion which he had previously made as to the formulating of “a ritual to be used as a text book, containing religious instructions that would not be objectionable to any sect.”