Religious Instruction in Public Schools
By W. W. P.
Continued Agitation of the Question in Washington
The movement for the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools of the District of Columbia has precipitated what has been termed a “raging controversy.” Since the date of our last issue almost every day has developed some new contribution to this agitation. In its issue of April 1 the Washington Post contained a three-column article by Dr. R. H. McKim, the originator of this movement. This article was quite personal and severe in its tone, being directed especially against Rabbi Abram Simon, and the positions taken in his contribution to this discussion mentioned in our last issue. The following brief extracts will indicate the nature and tone of the argument:— “The deliberate and carefully considered judgment of our Supreme Court—men of American blood and American tradition, trained jurists also—is not to be set aside by the superficial reasonings of citizens who are not such by birthright. The equal rights which America gives to her naturalized citizens do not confer upon them the gift of correctly interpreting American Constitutional history. When this clever young rabbi tells us that ‘every religious element’ was ‘eliminated from our scheme of civil government,’ he contradicts the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, which declared that this is a religious nation, citing regulations and laws connected with our civil government.” “It is instructive to note that all the opponents of this movement harp on the same string. They know that the principle of separation of church and state is universally dear to the American people; and so they tell the public that we are proposing to attack that principle, though they know that we repudiate such a thought, and they utterly fail to show that it is involved in what we propose. Will the people allow themselves to be deluded by such assertions in default of proof?” “Let the Christian people of this city take note of Rabbi Simon’s declaration that ‘the reading of the Bible in the public schools, or religious instruction or worship in the same, are relics of the day which we have outgrown.’ This very clearly suggests the next step in the program of the Jews, and their allies, the Judaizers. . . . Next we may expect this new ‘holy alliance’ between the Jews and the Judaizers and the agnostics will attack the law making the Christian Sunday a day of rest. . . . Let the citizens of this District consider well before helping these men to drive a wedge into the heart of our Christian institutions.” This article marked the first instance in this controversy where any writer has based the argument largely upon race prejudice and an appeal to religious bigotry. The whole community seemed to be stirred with the unfairness of this procedure, if we may judge from the fact that in the Washington Post, of Monday, April 3, there appeared six columns of letters dealing with this subject, all except two of which handled Dr. McKim and his argument without gloves. It is, of course, impossible in our limited space to reproduce any considerable portion of these letters; but their intensely personal nature may be understood from the fact that Dr. McKim’s name appeared in them thirty-seven times, in addition to all the phrases and indirect references which kept his personality before the reader. The following extracts from several of these letters will indicate the character of the arguments. Referring to Dr. McKim’s claim that the Constitution provides “that the president of the United States shall be sworn upon the Holy Bible, ‘So help me God,’” one writer said, “It is evident that the good doctor omitted the trifling detail of reading that Constitution before he wrote his Jew-destroying dissertation on it. . . . However doubtful the wisdom of establishing ‘a course of readings from the Bible’ in the public schools, there can be no doubt about the necessity of introducing into the Washington pulpits ‘a course of readings’ from the Constitution of the United States.” “The most convincing argument I’ve yet seen for the secularization of the schools is Dr. McKim’s rejoinder in the Post. Far beyond and much deeper than the reasoning and facts presented is exhibited the attitude, the very state of mind, in its clear and naked manifestation, of the ablest advocate of the religionizing of the schools. His letter is redolent of that intolerance, race prejudice, and dogmatism that liberalism fears most, and against which liberalism has wrested its hardest-won victories. . . . In view of the frank display of spirit with which this change is being advocated, have not the lovers of free thought—the most precious heritage of the ages—the right to take alarm?” One writer urged that “the same clergy should announce the cessation on its part, of the war, waged without success for about fifteen years, to effect the enactment of a law to enable the clergy, through informers and spies, to put Jews, Second Adventists, and others on the chain-gang.” “If lack of appreciation of American ideals is any evidence, it would appear that Dr. McKim’s ancestors were recent immigrants. . . . Not to go outside of the Christian church there is sufficient difference of opinion about the basis of ‘morality’ to render any such text-book either partizan from one point of view or ineffective from another, and the fact that Dr. McKim characterizes those who oppose his proposal as ‘the Jews, and their allies, the Judaizers, and the agnostics,’ shows that he would be contented with nothing short of a certain alleged Christianity which even many Christians repudiate. “Whether Dr. McKim relishes it or not, the evolutionist is the man whom he must deal with, and he is getting to be a numerous quantity both in and out of the church. . . . It is creedalism Dr. McKim wishes to push into the schools in the name of teaching morals. He thinks we ‘fail to show’ wherein there is a union of church and state in his plan. By ‘union’ he means a state-ordered and state-supported church. Steps in the direction of an end are not consummations, it is true; but they are steps all the same. If taxing people to teach his theology to children is not a step toward such union, it would be difficult to conceive what would be.” Resolutions by the Baptists
In all three papers of the following day, April 4, there appeared a report of the action taken by the Baptist ministers of this city, which we give herewith in full:— “The Baptist Ministers’ Conference, at its meeting held in the Calvary Baptist church yesterday, adopted unanimously the report of a committee appointed to draft a statement defining its position relative to the question now pending of religious instruction in the public schools. The committee consisted of Revs. Drs. S. H. Greene, pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church; C. F. Winbighler, pastor of the First Baptist Church, and J. J. Muir, pastor of the Temple Baptist Church. The report is as follows:— “The Baptist Ministers’ Conference deplores the present agitation in reference to the introduction of religious instruction in our public schools as unnecessary, unwise, and impolitic.” “It is unnecessary because there is nothing in the present condition of our public schools in the District of Columbia to warrant it. It certainly can not be said that any increase of crime at the national capital has been due to the neglect of proper instruction in our schools.” “It is unwise because it produces friction among citizens, and between faiths, and arouses prejudices for which there appears no adequate justification.” “It is impolitic because, as it is largely a ministerial movement, the cry of clericalism is in the air, and the charge is made, with some seeming reason, that the church is attempting to regulate educational matters.” “We are of the opinion that the rules adopted by the Board of Education and now in operation confer upon the teachers all that is required to enable them to impart proper moral instruction, and that any further regulation, and particularly any course of study relating to the inculcation of religion, is to be deprecated.” “On the general question involved in the discussion we desire to say:— “1. That the home and the church are the recognized places for religious instruction. If either is derelict, the state is not competent to supply the deficiency; neither is it needed to supplement by any of its agencies the fidelity of either or both.” “2. That it is not the function of the state to teach religion. It has never been conferred on it under our system of government, nor has it the accessories for such instruction.” “3. That whenever the state has assumed that prerogative, it has transcended its legitimate sphere, and some of its citizens have been unjustly discriminated against.” “4. That generally school Boards are so constituted and teachers appointed that their qualifications to determine and direct religious instruction are not favorable thereto. And any attempt to introduce a religious test, either in the election of trustees or in the selection of teachers, would be strongly resented by the American people.” “5. That whenever, even in the most rudimentary manner, religious instruction has been given by the state it has opened the way for further encroachments,18with the result of sectarian strife, bitter animosity, and gross injustice. “6. That the functions of state and church should be kept separate; each should fulfil its own mission and accomplish its own destiny within its duly appointed domain. “7. That while we are in hearty sympathy with moral instruction in the public schools, we see no reason to recede from the position of our fathers or to depart from the traditions of our denominational history, and we therefore, as the representatives of more than six thousand white Baptists in the District of Columbia, place ourselves on record as opposed to any movement which even by implication favors religious instruction in our public schools. And we do this in the interests of the broadest charity and of the highest aims of education under our public-school system. “8. We regret the necessity for this statement, but we feel compelled to make it since our attitude has been misunderstood and misinterpreted.” The Post of the same date contained the following editorial, under the heading— “Timely Word by Baptist Ministers”
“It is gratifying to the Post to observe that the movement for religious instruction in the public schools of the District of Columbia meets with the strong disapproval of church people, as well as the general public. The statement of the Baptist Ministers’ Conference, published to-day, is a clear exposition of the evils that would flow from such an effort. No more certain and speedy method of spreading discord and religious bigotry could be devised than an attempt to introduce religious teaching into schools attended by every class and condition of pupils. “It is pointed out by the Baptist ministers that the teaching of religion is the peculiar province of the church and the home. The wonder is that, in view of the peace and harmony that have followed the absolute separation of the church and state, there could be found advocates of a reversal of the policy of the founders of the republic. The inculcation of morals common to mankind, recognized as right by Christian, Jew, and pagan, is proper in the public schools; but every child should receive his religious training at home and in the church and Sunday-school. It is not the business of government to enter into the realm of theology. It can not pass the border line without confusion and strife. If churches and homes do their duty as thoroughly as the public schools of Washington perform their work, there will be no increase of crime in the District of Columbia. If there is any increase of crime, which we doubt, certainly it can not be traced to the public schools. “The firm stand of the Baptist ministers is commendable in the highest degree. Their statement is broad-spirited and incontrovertible. It is timely, and will have a wholesome influence in the community.” The Post of Wednesday, April 5, contained an article by Rabbi Abram Simon, under the heading— “Personal Reply to Dr. McKim”
This reply was “personal” indeed, and was a very severe arraignment of Dr. McKim’s ill-advised appeal to prejudice. The following extracts are sufficient to indicate this:— “As for the Jews—well! We can consider that later on! But pray, who are the Judaizers? Why not possess the courage to mention them? Surely you did not refer to the Baptists, whose splendid and straight-forward opposition to-day’s papers disclose? Did you mean the Seventh-day Adventists, People’s Church, Unitarians, and probably Catholics, whose leaders have thus far withheld their views? . . . As for our American traditions and inability, therefore, to understand or appreciate American Constitutional liberty, your statement would be ridiculous were it not so tragically pathetic. Personally, I was born in the South, where, in behalf of the divinity of slavery, you bore arms. Wherein are you any the better prepared to appreciate Americanism than I or my parents? . . . Do you remember the reply that Beaconsfield gave an impudent Englishman who upbraided him for his race and religion, as he rose to make a speech? ‘When the ancestors of that gentleman who just spoke were naked and wild savages, roaming wild in the woods, mine were priests and prophets of God.’” Appeal to the Courts Possible
The Washington Evening Times of the same date contained a long article in opposition to this movement, written by Mr. Simon Wolf, a leading representative of the Jews. Mr. Wolf practically served notice that in case the Board of Education granted the petition for religious instruction, the matter would be taken before the courts. He said:— “This principle has been brought to the attention of a large number of our State courts, and has been invariably sustained, and I venture the prediction that if the Board of Education should, through some mistaken idea of their duty, try to enforce the teaching of religion in the public schools, this question will be taken up by the friends of American liberty to the highest court of our land, to be there, once and for all, settled, not in a haphazard way, but through an exhaustive presentation of all the precedents and facts underlying this important and vital question.” Dealing with the personal nature of Dr. McKim’s contribution, Mr. Wolf said, “No one regrets more than I do that Dr. McKim should have placed himself in such an indefensible position, as far as his attack is concerned, with those who differ from him. To arraign any of his opponents on the score of being Jews, Adventists, or Germans, is unworthy of an American or of a Christian minister. It seemed to me that I was back in the ’50’s: when the Plug-uglies were burning and murdering foreigners on the score of their religion. Indeed, one is almost constrained to believe that the good doctor is a worthy descendant of these Know-Nothings.” At the regular weekly meeting of the Board of Education held on Wednesday evening, April 5, a committee representing those who favor the introduction of religious teaching into the public school, presented their petitions and arguments, and the whole matter was fully reported in the daily papers of April 6. One paragraph in the report runs as follows:— “The petitions were signed by leading men of the Presbyterian, Methodist Episcopal, Congregational, Lutheran, German Reformed, Disciples of Christ, Baptist (colored), and Methodist (colored) churches of the District. It was estimated that six of the nine denominations submitting the petitions represented thirty-three thousand church-members.” It will thus be seen that in estimating the number of petitioners the same plan was followed as was adopted by those who presented petitions to Congress in behalf of Sunday laws; namely, counting the whole membership of those churches who were represented on the petitions by a few individual signers. This is simply another indication of the fact that this is a church movement, and that those who favor it are acting as church-members rather than as citizens. No action was taken by the Board of Education upon the petitions presented, and it was announced that an opportunity would be given on Wednesday evening, April 12, for those who oppose the movement to present their petitions and arguments. A report of this meeting and of further experiences in this movement will appear in our next issue.