Religion in the Public Schools of Washington
By W. W. Prescott
A short time ago there was sent to the writer the following letter, addressed to him as editor of the REVIEW:— “WASHINGTON, D. C., Feb. 14, 1905. “DEAR SIR: The undersigned earnestly invite you to attend a conference to be held at the New Willard, tenth floor (north entrance, F and 14th St.), on Monday, February 20, at 9:30 A. M., for the purpose of considering the question of moral and religious instruction in our public schools. “We are moved to make this effort by considering the ominous and alarming increase of crime in our beloved country, and by the conviction that among the causes leading to this condition of things must be reckoned the absence of definite moral instruction in the schools of the country, both public and private. “All of us, however, are firmly convinced that the principle of complete separation between church and state is sacred and inviolable, and would advocate nothing that could in any wise compromise it, or interfere with the right of a parent to control the religious education of his child.” The signatures to this letter included, in addition to the names of clergymen and laymen well known in this city, the following men of influence: Henry Y. Satterlee, bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church; Earl Cranston, bishop of the Methodist Church; Dr. Randolph H. McKim, who preached the sermon, mentioned in last week’s paper, favoring religious teaching in the public schools; Melville W. Fuller, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court; David J. Brewer, a justice of the Supreme Court; John W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State; Hilary A. Herbert, ex-Secretary of the Navy; and H. B. F. Macfarland, chairman of the Board of Commissioners for the District of Columbia. These names show the strong backing with which this movement started. The meeting was held at the appointed time and place, and was attended by about seventy-five persons representing all, or nearly all, the religious denominations in the city, including Jewish rabbis, Roman Catholic priests, and Seventh-day Adventist ministers. Ex-Secretary-of-the-Navy Hilary A. Herbert presided. Dr. McKim, who was the prime mover in arranging the meeting, stated its object, dwelling with much emphasis upon the increase of lawlessness in this country, and urging religious teaching in the public schools as one means of stemming this tide of evil. He said they did not want a union of church and state, but a union of religion and the state, which he claimed was a very different thing. He said that the religious teaching in the schools should include three things; viz., the ten commandments, morals and religion from text-books especially prepared for this purpose, and selected portions from the Scriptures, such as the sermon on the mount, the parable of the prodigal son, etc. At the close of his remarks he introduced the following resolutions:— “Resolved, That a careful study of the moral life of our people reveals symptoms of decay, which seriously threaten the soundness and stability of the body politic. When we consider the abnormal increase of crime in the last twenty-five years,—it has grown four times as fast as the population,—we can not but feel that we are face to face with a national peril of a most serious character. “Resolved, That one of the obvious and potent causes of this ominous and alarming increase of crime is to be found in the too frequent neglect of moral and religious instruction in our schools—public and private. “Resolved, That though firmly convinced that the principle of complete separation between church and state is sacred and inviolable, we yet believe that to divorce the state from religion would be a fatal error, and a betrayal of the trust we have received from our fathers. “Resolved, That the practical exclusion of the teaching of morals and religion from our state-supported schools is contrary to sound public policy, is a reversal of the principle on which our fathers founded the republic, and is fraught with grave peril to the future of the American people. “Resolved, That as our fathers incorporated into our statute law the principles of religion, as in the laws against blasphemy and polygamy and perjury, so it is our duty to incorporate those same principles into our system of education, so that every child in our schools may be taught the first principles of morality upon the basis of belief in an almighty and righteous Ruler and Judge of the universe. “Resolved, That if the state may justly retain laws and customs which are rooted in religion, in obedience to the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, then there exists an equal right to provide for the teaching in her schools of theistic ethics. If the former is not a violation of religious liberty, neither would the latter be. “Resolved, That inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of our people desire their children to be instructed in the first principles of morals and religion, it is a violation of the broad democratic principle on which our government rests, that the will of this great majority should be defeated, or the plea of not offending the views and convictions of the very small minority who would object to such teaching—especially when, by means of a Conscience Clause, any parent could be guaranteed the right to withdraw his child from any moral or religious teaching distasteful to him. “Resolved, That in the judgment of this conference, composed of ministers and laymen of all the various religious communions in the city of Washington, the code of precepts known as the ten commandments forms incomparably the17best basis for the teaching of morality, and for enforcing the duties of the citizen to the state and to his fellow citizens. “Resolved, That without distinction of creed, we recommend and petition the Board of Education of our city, to introduce the study of these ten commandments into our schools, believing that all the diverse religious elements among us, Jew and Christian, Protestant and Roman Catholic, might find common ground in the inculcation of those sublime utterances of the divine will, and in the beautiful summary of them in the law of love—love to God, and love to our neighbor. Such a regulation would be but the carrying into effect of Rule 46 of the Board which requires that each teacher ‘should endeavor to inculcate obedience to the laws of God.’ “Resolved, That we favor the use of text-books on morals and manners, as a valuable and necessary element in true education. “Resolved, That, believing it entirely possible to make such a selection of readings from both the Old and New Testaments as would be acceptable alike to Protestants and Roman Catholics and Hebrews, we urge that steps be taken to provide such a lectionary, with a view to its being carefully studied in our schools, with the double purpose of familiarizing the children with the finest literature in the world, and instilling into their minds the principles of the most exalted morality together with reverence and love for Almighty God. “Resolved, That while we respect the convictions of all our fellow citizens, and would restrict no man’s religious liberty, or infringe upon the right of every parent to control the religious education of his child, we believe the time has come for the people of this land to insist that in the education of their children shall be included the instruction in the fundamental principles of morality and religion.” The discussion which followed the introduction of these resolutions occupied about two hours, and was both earnest and interesting. Their adoption was strongly urged by men of influence, including Edward Everett Hale, the chaplain of the United States Senate, and they were as earnestly opposed by several Jewish rabbis and by the editor of the REVIEW, who spoke of the system of education established among Seventh-day Adventists, and took strong ground against the proposal of the majority to override the minority in matters of conscience, calling attention to the fact that Protestantism had its birth in the protest of the evangelical princes, a mere minority, at the famous Diet of Spires. From the general atmosphere of the meeting and the confident air of the leaders it seemed evident that they expected the resolutions to be adopted in spite of the opposition; and toward the close of the discussion Dr. McKim urged that a vote be taken, stating that the only opposition was from the Hebrews, who were adopted citizens of this country, while his own ancestors fought in the Revolution to establish this nation. This called out a personal explanation from the editor of the REVIEW, who stated that he was not a Hebrew, and declared that he was descended from a Revolutionary ancestry. Those who were watching the progress of the discussion with some sense of the real significance of this movement recognized that there was an influence present with which these leaders had not reckoned. A divine power stayed their purpose, and after motions and counter-motions had been made, it was finally agreed that a committee of fifteen, representing all shades of religious belief, should be appointed, to which the resolutions were referred for further consideration, and the meeting adjourned to the call of the chair, with the understanding that the second session would be held as soon as the committee was ready to report. The nature of this movement and the influence of the names connected with it, commanded public attention, and the three daily papers of the city printed quite full reports of the meeting, and letters on both sides of the question appeared in the Post on the day of the meeting. A letter from Hon. W. H. Taft, the Secretary of War, was read to the meeting, in which he stated his regret that he could not be present, and expressed his hearty approval of the resolutions to be presented. A letter of similar import was read from Hon. W. T. Harris, the Commissioner of Education. The next day Chairman Herbert announced the committee of fifteen as follows: Dr. Merrill E. Gates (secretary of the board of Indian Commissioners), Chairman; Rev. Wallace Radcliffe (Presbyterian), Dr. James E. Gilbert (secretary of the American Society of Religious Education), Bishop Earl Cranston (Methodist), Dr. Charles W. Needham (president of George Washington University), Rev. Frederick D. Power (Christian), Hon. Wayne MacVeagh (ex-Attorney-General), Rev. J. G. Butler (Lutheran), Rev. Edward Everett Hale (Unitarian and chaplain of the United States Senate), Mr. John Joy Edson, Rabbi Louis Stern, Bishop Henry Y. Satterlee (Episcopal), W. W. Prescott (Seventh-day Adventist), Right Rev. Dennis O’Connell (rector of the Catholic University of America), Rev. Randolph H. McKim (Episcopal). The committee will meet when called by the chairman, and will consider the advisability of establishing a system of religious instruction in the District public schools, and also whether Dr. McKim’s resolutions meet with their sanction. When the committee has arrived at its conclusions, Hon. Hilary A. Herbert will be so informed, and he will call another general public meeting. The further developments of this movement will be reported in succeeding issues of the REVIEW. W. W. P.