Letters Upon the Subject
By W. W. P.
The Washington Post of Monday, March 27, devoted two columns and a half of its space to letters upon this subject, every one of which opposed the movement. One of these letters we reprint without abbreviation. It is as follows:— “EDITOR POST: In the Post of March 20 Mr. W. F. Crafts says that for seventeen years he has heard doleful predictions of a union of church and state, with medieval persecution, if Sunday laws were preserved, and religion was taught in the public schools. But he denies that church and state are in any way drawing together, and says there has been no religious persecution as the result of ‘Sunday laws.’ “The very fact that the recent interdenominational conference thought it necessary to preface nearly every pronouncement it made for the introduction of religion into the public schools with a statement disclaiming any intention of uniting church and state is good evidence that they themselves saw that there was, to all intents and purposes, a union of church and state in the thing which they were proposing. “And as to persecution under Sunday laws, it is sufficient to state that from 1885 to 1896, when, through the effort of such organizations as the National Reform Association, the American Sabbath Union, and the International Reform Bureau, with all of which Mr. Crafts has had much to do, there began to be a revival of Sunday legislation and the enforcement of Sunday observance by law, there were over one hundred Seventh-day Adventists in the United States, and about thirty in foreign countries, prosecuted under Sunday laws for quiet work performed on the first day of the week within their own premises, resulting in fines and costs amounting to $2,269.69, imprisonments totaling 1,438 days, and 445 days served in chain-gangs. Among the number were an uncle and an only brother of the writer. “Perhaps Mr. Crafts does not call this persecution, but merely ‘enforcing the law.’ But we regard it as persecution, and we are of the opinion that Mr. Crafts would also if he were in our place, or if Seventh-day Adventists should fine and imprison him and place him in the chain-gang if he refused to observe the seventh day. ‘Enforcing the law’ is all any extensive religious persecution has ever been. This is all Nebuchadnezzar did when he threw the three Hebrews into the fiery furnace. That there has not been more persecutions under Sunday laws of late years is not the fault of Mr. Crafts, for he has been a zealous worker for such measures. We have been doing what we could to prevent him and the religio-political organizations referred to from carrying out their plans. From another letter we make the following extract:— “EDITOR POST: The people of Washington may not realize that there is an organization here which boldly terms itself ‘Christian Lobby,’ with headquarters adjoining the Capitol grounds, which is seeking to introduce the Russian system of church and state into this government. It is quite startling to know that this organization has already so far fastened itself upon the great lawmaking body of this nation that it is able to publish its documents at public expense, and have them sent out under the franking system without postage.” In the same letter a paragraph is quoted from one of the documents entitled “Patriotic Studies,” which the letter states was “prepared by the International Reform Bureau, of Washington, D. C.” It reads thus:— “Most of all, the homes must be made to feel that the family is a divine government, a training-school for citizenship. And wherever children are not being so trained, on their very first petty crime, or better still, before it, they should be turned over to some institution or society which will give them this training, and so a fair chance.” It was stated in the letter that the author of this document (it is well known to our readers that Dr. W. F. Crafts is the head of this Reform Bureau) was one of those who were urging this movement for the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools, and it was shown that the logic of his principles, as stated in the quotation from the Senate document, would result, on the slightest pretext, in taking the children from the control of parents, and placing them wholly under the direction of the state. The letter closed as follows:— “I shall be greatly surprised if the people of Washington are ready to surrender to this intermeddling religious despotism their natural rights to teach and to hold their own children. Are the readers of the Post ready for the Russian system in this great free republic? If not, let them protest by voice and pen against the enforced teaching of religion in the public schools.” An Appeal to Religious Bigotry
Taking the editorials in the Post and the number and character of the communications printed in the papers as any proper indication of the drift of public sentiment, it became evident that there was not a very strong probability of the success of this movement. This evidently aroused the leaders to more aggressive action, and betrayed the originator of the movement into some indiscreet utterances, which were quite fully reported in the daily papers. The Washington Post of March 29 reported an address by Dr. McKim upon this subject, under the heading, in large type, “Scored by Dr. McKim; Pastor Arraigns Opponents of Religion in Schools.” The report of the Evening Star of the same date was headed “Denounced Opponents; Address of Dr. McKim before Churchmen’s League.” The Washington Times of the same date dealt with the address under this heading: “Dr. McKim Criticizes ‘Foes of the Sabbath’; Makes Strong Plea for Moral Instruction on Religious Basis in the Public Schools.” The following paragraphs taken from the reports will indicate the general character of the address:— “Rev. Randolph H. McKim, rector of the Epiphany Church, and a leader of the movement for religious instruction in the public schools, made a stirring address to the members of the Churchmen’s League, and the Brotherhood of St. Andrew of his church last night, in connection with the movement in which he is so deeply interested. He denounced those opposing the movement as seeking to destroy the Sabbath, and called for volunteers to help circulate petitions and stir up the people of the District. . . . Dr. McKim was very much in earnest, and his statements were most severe. He denounced the Jews and members of other denominations who opposed the18adoption of the resolutions at the meeting, and declared that they were attempting to break up the Sabbath. . . . It is his fervent wish, Dr. McKim declared, that the ideas of the Jews and the German Americans as to Sunday should not prevail in this country. The majority of the church-members in the District have been too lukewarm toward this matter. . . . No effort should be spared to arouse interest among the people in the matter of the proposed religious instruction in schools, and to do this properly, earnest, thinking men must come forward and volunteer their services for the work.” “Dr. McKim made an address, in which he scathingly arraigned the Jews and other sects allied with them in what he called an attempt to destroy the Sabbath, and who declared that under the Constitution this is not a religious country. . . . Dr. McKim said that the majority of church-members of the various denominations have been too lukewarm in their efforts, or have made no efforts at all, to arouse sentiment, and to obtain petitions to urge the introduction of religious teaching in the schools.” “The opponents of moral instruction on a religious basis in the public schools were severely criticized last evening in the lecture room of the Epiphany Church, by the Rev. Randolph H. McKim, rector of the church, and author of the resolution which has been the cause of so much discussion. ‘The Jews and other sects allied with them are making a determined effort to destroy the Sabbath,’ said Dr. McKim, and he scored their claim that this is not a religious country. ‘The government officially recognizes the supremacy of God,’ he declared, and pointed to the words, ‘So help me, God,’ contained in the oath taken by the president, and subscribed to thousands of times daily in the courts of the United States, as an illustration.” It will thus be plainly seen that, for lack of sound arguments in behalf of this movement, an appeal is being made to race prejudice and religious bigotry. It ought to be plain to any logical mind that if opposition to this movement to introduce religious instruction into the public schools may fairly be regarded as an attack upon the Sunday institution, it follows inevitably that this movement must in itself be an effort which is expected either directly or indirectly to build up the Sunday institution. The Leaflet and the Petition Work
Much interest has developed both among our own people and also among other friends of religious liberty in the circulation of the leaflet mentioned in our last report, and also in securing signatures to the Remonstrance which was printed in this paper last week. Twenty-five thousand copies of the leaflet have already been printed, and systematic work has been done toward placing a copy in every home in the city. Many copies of the leaflet have been sent through the mail to all those who occupy leading positions in both the national and the local government and courts, to the heads of departments, to the principals of schools, and to other leading citizens. Dr. Alexander Kent, pastor of the People’s Church, has taken an active part both in circulating the leaflet and in securing signers to the Remonstrance. One influential clerk in the Pension Department asked for a copy of the Remonstrance and secured nearly one hundred signatures by his own personal effort. Another man asked for six copies of the Remonstrance, which he wished to use in securing signatures. That this campaign of education is having its effect upon the public mind is indicated from the fact that a leading member of the Board of Education stated to one of our workers that when the proposal was first made to teach religion in the public schools, he favored the movement, but since giving consideration to the discussion of the question, he has come to entertain serious doubts as to the propriety of such a plan. A leading attorney, who is a lecturer in the Law Department of one of the universities, has written us a letter commending in strong terms the logical soundness of the arguments advanced in our Remonstrance. Many other citizens have expressed their approval of the work which we have endeavored to do in behalf of religious freedom. Several interviews have been had with different members of the Board of Education, who have all been supplied with copies of our leaflet and Remonstrance. At their regular meeting last week the question of religious instruction came up for consideration, but it was decided to postpone any action until all parties had time to present their petitions and arguments. We have received official notice from the acting secretary of the Board that should a hearing be granted those who favor the proposition, we shall be notified and given a like opportunity to be heard. In any case, our petitions will be considered. The further progress of this movement will be reported next week.