Suggestive Current History
An effort more wide-spread and determined than ever is being made in this country to reverse the policy which has distinguished the United States from all the old-world nations, and to bring about such a union of church and state as will make it possible to employ the machinery and power of the government in the teaching and the enforcement of such dogmas, whether Biblical or not, as a majority of the church leaders may agree upon. Some of those who are aiding and abetting this tendency may not fully realize what is involved in it. Others are strongly stirred by the alarming conditions to which they can not close their eyes, and as the churches and the homes are failing to provide any adequate remedy for the peril of the hour, they feel almost compelled to seek an alliance with the state, in the hope of bringing about a better condition of things. They do not seem to appreciate the fact that in doing this they are flying from ills they know to those they know not. The recent movement to introduce religious instruction into the public schools of the city of Washington, and the discussions which have attended it, have been full of interest and suggestion to those who have some perception of the meaning of the present drift of things. It is especially significant to note how much emphasis is placed in every such discussion upon the alleged decision of the United States Supreme Court that “this is a Christian nation.” It is plainly the purpose to interpret both the Constitution and all the utterances of legislatures and courts during the past century in the light of this declaration. In this way only can any shadow of support be found for introducing the old-world program into America. And this means to substitute government by the Supreme Court for government by the people as expressed during more than a century of history. An interesting parallel to this situation, and a warning of what the future has in store for this country if the state becomes allied with the church, is found in a recent experience in Austria. From an article in the Northwestern Christian Advocate of March 15 we learn that Rev. Felice Dardi, pastor of the Methodist Church at Trieste, Austria, who is himself an Austrian citizen,4has been officially notified that he has violated the law of the country concerning the privileges accorded to dissenters from the state religion, and his future conduct has been very definitely defined for him. Note the following extracts from the official communication:— The XVI article of the laws of the state concedes to the followers of a religious confession not recognized by the state simply the domestic practise of their religion, if this is not contrary to the common law or to good customs. By domestic practise we must understand simply the exercise of divine worship within the circle of your own intimate acquaintances. The Supreme Court has decided that divine worship practised by adherents of a religious confession not recognized by the state, who do not belong to the same family, is not “domestic,” in the sense of Article XVI. In harmony with this decision of the Austrian Supreme Court this Methodist pastor, although he is an Austrian citizen, is forbidden to exercise certain privileges enumerated in eight different paragraphs, among which are the following:— You are forbidden to assemble for religious worship persons not known to you and not already belonging to the Methodist Church. You are forbidden to give religious instruction to any children under fourteen years of age. Finally, you are forbidden to perform any act, either directly or indirectly, which might be in opposition to the clear interpretation of the law. In Austria there is a union of church and state. In Austria the Roman Catholics are in a majority, and they believe in the doctrine, advocated in Washington, that “the majority have some rights which the minority are bound to respect.” But there is one feature of this whole question which is worthy of special attention: in Washington, where the Roman Catholics are in the minority, the rector of the Catholic University of America joins in the movement to introduce religious instruction into the public schools, well knowing that it will be Protestant religious instruction; but in Austria, where the Roman Catholics are in the majority, a Protestant minister is forbidden “to give religious instruction to any children under fourteen years of age.” Is there any significance in these facts? This case in Austria and the educational troubles now existing in France, in England, and in Canada ought to be sufficient to deter thoughtful men from clamoring for, or consenting to, any partnership between the church and the state in the matter of education. The lessons of current history, as well as of all past history, are a protest against such a program.