Religious Instruction in the Public Schools by William Warren Prescott

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Apr 20, 1905

Religious Instruction in the Public Schools

By William Warren Prescott

A Review of the Case—by W. W. Prescott

(Seventh-day Adventist)

UNDER this heading there appeared in the Washington Post of April 8, an article by the editor of the REVIEW, dealing with some of the arguments which had been advanced in favor of the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools. This article is reprinted in these columns without change. The editor said:—

The real question involved in the present demand that definite religious instruction shall be given in the public schools of the District of Columbia, is a very simple one. If it is not obscured by irrelevant statements and arguments, if the attention of the public is not diverted from the real issue to the people who oppose this movement, and if unwarranted assumptions are not accepted as proof, there ought to be little difficulty in arriving at a decision upon this matter.

Preliminary to any serious consideration of the arguments advanced in favor of teaching religion in the public schools, I will briefly refer to the wholesale accusation that those who oppose this movement are “foes of the Sabbath.” Why is this issue raised in this campaign? The only possible ground upon which opposition to the introduction of religious teaching into the public schools can logically be regarded as opposition to the Sabbath (meaning thereby the Sunday sabbath) is plainly that this religious teaching will deal with the Sabbath controversy, and that it is expected to maintain, either directly or indirectly, the Sunday side of the controversy. But this reveals at once the sectarian and controversial character of the instruction which will inevitably be given. This ebullition of religious zeal is certainly a boomerang.

But if by “foes of the Sabbath” those are meant who observe the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth commandment, which it is desired shall be taught in the schools, who are the friends of the Sabbath? It appears to me that another correction would not be out of place.

But leaving appeals to race and religious prejudice unanswered, inasmuch as they carry their own antidote by revealing the spirit which prompts them, let us deal with the real issue. Divested of all irrelevant matters, which, whether so intended or not, are well adapted to confuse the minds of the people, the

real question involved is this: Is it within the legitimate province of the state to give religious instruction in its schools? It is not a question as to how much religious instruction shall be given. Conceding the right to give any such instruction concedes the right to give just as much and just such a kind as is deemed expedient. It logically places the state in control of religion. For this reason those who do not desire a state religion oppose the first step which concedes this principle.

It is constantly urged in favor of this demand for definite religious instruction in the public schools that the Supreme Court has decided that “this is a Christian nation,” or that “this is a religious nation,” and that, therefore, it will be constitutional for the state to teach the Christian religion. To claim that this opinion of the Supreme Court authorizes the teaching of the Christian religion in the schools of the state is to assert that Christianity is already established as the state religion. This, however, is utterly at variance with the plain declaration made in the treaty with Tripoli, negotiated in 1796, seven years after the adoption of the Constitution. It declared that “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This treaty was drafted by an ex-Congregational clergyman, and was signed by George Washington. This is a sufficient answer to all the claims, based upon irrelevant quotations, that Washington believed in a union of religion and the state.

This republic was founded as a Christian nation, in the true sense of the term, and for this reason, quoting the words of George Bancroft, “The new nation dared to set the example of accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely ordained of God in Judea; . . . not from indifference, but that the infinite spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity and power.” When this principle is once discarded, the glory of this country will depart, and it can no longer be legitimately declared that this is a Christian nation. It is a departure from the Christian principle laid down for nations when the state attempts to become the exponent of religion.

It is a perversion of testimony to quote the opinions of those who believe in a Christian education and in the value of the Bible in the education of the young as supporting the plan of religious education by the state. We are soberly assured that Jefferson presented “a copy of the Bible to each of his grandchildren at the age of twelve years.” I commend this practise; but what of it? Why resort to puerile arguments and unfair inferences? Why not quote Jefferson’s own words in his preamble to his “Act for Establishing Religious Freedom”? He said: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” If the fact that Jefferson gave a Bible to each of his grandchildren has any bearing upon the present controversy, it indicates that he believed that religious education should be imparted in the home.

Writing to Edward Everett directly upon the question of religious teaching in state schools, under date of March 19, 1823, James Madison said: “The difficulty of reconciling the Christian mind to the absence of a religious tuition from a university established by law, and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both.” After reading these quotations will any one further urge the claim that Jefferson and Madison were in favor of teaching religion at the expense of the state?

It has been repeatedly urged that “it is a violation of the broad democratic principle on which our government rests” if the majority are not permitted to have their own way in this matter of teaching religion in the public schools. Even if “the great majority” should join in the demand for religion to be taught by the state, it would be a violation of the true principles of civil government to grant it. On this point I will quote the language of Rev. Samuel T. Spear, D. D., a Presbyterian clergyman: “In order to be a democratic state, governed by the rule of equal and impartial justice, it must leave the religionist and his creed to take care of themselves, concerning itself only with the citizen. The moment the state abandons this ground, the elementary law of a democratic government is gone.” “The public school is not a church, or a synagogue, or a theological seminary; but a piece of state machinery, organized and supported for purely temporal ends. It does not propose a complete education; and does not propose a religious education at all, either partial or complete. . . . This we believe to be the true ground on which to place a school system organized and conducted by the authority of an American state. . . . The objections to the doctrine urged by those who dissent from it, when traced to their final application, are simply objections to the system of government which the American people have chosen to adopt, and under which they are now living. Those who are not willing that an American state should occupy this position either do not understand the theory of such a state or are not content to abide by its fundamental doctrine.” May it not be just possible that the very man who denounces what he is pleased to term “the Hebrew-German-American interpretation of our Constitution” may be trying to foist upon us an un-American interpretation of that same document? Some good advice has been given in the past to dwellers in glass houses, and it may be worth remembering.

The American doctrine of the democratic principle of government is this: In all matters properly within its sphere the government should be one of a majority; religion is not within the purview of the state, and the minority are protected by the Constitution from the oppression of the majority, no matter how great that majority may be. It betrays a lack of appreciation of the American idea of government to appeal to the example of other countries in arguing the proper relations between church and state in America. It has been well said by Rev. Sanford H. Cobb, in “The Rise of Religious Liberty in America,” that “the history of religion and the church in America, as they stand related to the civil government, presents features unparalleled in the rest of Christendom, and marks a sharp contrast with the religious and ecclesiastical history of Europe.” If “this is the only English-speaking country on the globe, except the colony of Victoria, where education is purely secular,” it is simply because this is the only country where the American idea of government prevails.

The demand for religious instruction in the public schools is defended on the plea that only a little is now recommended to be introduced—only “four brief sentences.” Only four brief sentences, but enough to involve the whole principle. This professedly slight difference between the promoters and the opposers of this movement is parallel to the slight change which the infidel wished to make in the ten commandments and the Apostles’ Creed before accepting them. He expressed a willingness to subscribe to both if they would simply take all the “not’s” out of the commandments, and insert them in the creed! Only a slight change! It is against just this slight change from a separation of church and state to the union of church and state that “all these formidable batteries have been directed.” And the game is worth the powder. When we have conceded the right of the state to teach “these four brief sentences,” with or without “a brief exposition of the meaning of these four commandments,” we have no further right to protest against a complete state theology.

Here, then, is the real issue: Is it within the legitimate province of the state to teach any religion? If it begins by teaching little, it will soon teach more. In his published sermon upon this subject, the originator of this movement, after recommending the teaching of the ten commandments in the schools, asked the following suggestive question: “But ought not the state to go a step farther than this?” There is every reason to believe that it will “go a step farther,” and then another “step farther,” since the very arguments advanced for taking the first step demand the repeated taking of “a step farther.” The only safe course is to refuse consent to the teaching of even “these four brief sentences,” the first step in the wrong direction.

It shows either a woful ignorance or a total misapprehension of the first principles of religious liberty to assert that this proposal to teach religion in the schools of the state supported by compulsory taxation is not a violation of such principles, inasmuch as it is recommended that the children of parents objecting to such instruction “shall be assigned some secular study in some other room.” Such reasoning as this indicates that the conclusion was accepted first, and the arguments were then thought of little account. It was Gladstone who said: “Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument.” This seems to be an illustration of just such a case. Of this unique application of religious liberty principles it is necessary to say nothing further than to quote again the words of Jefferson: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the

propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” The citizen who has no children in school, but pays his taxes for the support of the school, has the same right to protest against religious teaching in the school as has the father of six. This is the Christian and the American idea of religious liberty.

It is no answer to “the temperate and unanswerable arguments” which have been adduced against an attempted violation of the right principle to make the flippant charge that “all the opponents of this movement harp on the same string;” namely, the union of church and state. Why should they not harp on the string which is stretched before them by the promoters of this movement? If the sound is not pleasant, the harping will cease when the string is withdrawn, but not till then.

I believe that crime is increasing to an alarming extent in this country, and that an earnest effort ought to be made to teach to young and old the ten commandments and obedience to them just as they read, but let this be done by Christian methods. Why should the state and the schools be held responsible for the lack of religious influences in the community? The state was never commissioned by the divine Author of Christianity to preach his gospel, and the public schools, being simply a part of the machinery of the state, are not one of the legitimate agencies for teaching religion. Parents in the home, and not teachers in the public schools, have been directed by God to teach his commandments to the children, and the church, not the state, has received the commission to preach the gospel “to every creature.” Even a sincere effort to employ the resources of the state in doing the work of the church is “a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” The case has been well stated by Rev. Dr. Spear in these words: “Those who demand religious teaching and religious worship in the public schools of this country are justly amenable to the charge of seeking a good end by an unchristian method. We bring this charge not against their motives, but against what they propose.” I have undertaken to oppose this present movement to introduce religious instruction into the public schools because I should greatly regret to see Christianity wounded in the house of its professed friends.