The Situation in Washington
Further Developments in the Campaign to Secure Religious Instruction in the Public Schools
Since presenting their case to the Board of Education, the promoters of the movement to secure the introduction of definite religious instruction into the public schools of the District of Columbia, have made no further special effort to influence public opinion on this question. In the Washington Post of April 8, there appeared an article, written by the editor of the REVIEW, occupying two columns of space. This article is reprinted in our Editorial Department. In its issue of April 10 the same paper contained about three columns of letters upon this subject. One of these was an answer to a previous letter by Dr. W. F. Crafts, in which he attempted to explain to the public why Seventh-day Adventists took such an active part in opposing the efforts to secure Sunday laws and other religio-political movements. This letter, which we give in full, appeared under the heading— “Adventist Answers Crafts”
“Enforcement of Sunday Laws as a Backward Movement”
“EDITOR POST: Wilbur F. Crafts, in his letter to the Post, published in your issue of April 3, stated in regard to the Adventist Church that Rev. 13:11-17, ‘is really the center from which all their activities radiate.’ Now, we are certain that all Christian people will regard this as a very elevated center from which to radiate our activities, and we are grateful for this kind statement of a partial truth; for, not only from the thirteenth chapter of Revelation, and certain verses therein, do the activities of the Adventists radiate, but from every part of the Sacred Scriptures. “There is certainly a warning, however, in this special scripture to which Mr. Crafts has made reference, against the very work which he, Dr. McKim, and other religious leaders in Washington are now doing in seeking to secure the funds and the power of the government to teach and enforce a state religion. The grotesque description which he gives of the symbol by which the United States of America is designated on the Adventists’ chart would be strikingly applicable17to this government should these gentlemen succeed in causing this government to repudiate the noble principles upon which it is founded, and in their place establish and enforce a state religion—a ‘two-horned hog.’ “He tells us in his letter that only certain ‘backward States’ have fined and imprisoned observers of the seventh day for violation of Sunday laws; and yet a large part of his effort is to secure Sunday legislation in States where no Sunday laws exist, or to secure the enforcement of those already in existence. He has established that which he himself calls a ‘Christian lobby’ here in Washington, in which political methods are used to bring about religious ends. According to his statement, Alabama, California, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas are all backward States, for seventh-day observers have been prosecuted in all of the above-named States. “A short time ago the Sunday law in California was repealed. Mr. Crafts and others labored earnestly to have it re-enacted. He has fought long and with the utmost determination to secure a national Sunday law. Why does he seek to secure such a law, if not that those who do not observe Sunday shall be prosecuted, fined, or imprisoned? Has he or his coworkers ever uttered a word of protest against the placing of honest citizens in prison or in the chain-gangs for the non-observance of Sunday in these so-called ‘backward States’?—Not one. On the contrary, in his ‘Sabbath for Man,’ he has said it would be better for them to ‘suffer the loss of one day in seven than for the whole nation to lose its Sabbath’—a parallel to the argument of the high priest, who, favoring the death of Christ, said: ‘It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.’ “If the enforcement of Sunday observance is a step backward, then is he not, by his own confession, in seeking to secure a national Sunday law, and to secure the teaching of religion in the public schools, seeking to turn the wheels of progress of this great and noble government backward into the darkness, the superstition, and the tyranny of the Middle Ages? Thus, before the American people there stands this self-confessed admission that this movement is not forward, but ‘backward.’ How many of the readers of the Post will follow this ‘backward’ movement? Another letter by a Jewish rabbi occupied two columns of space, and was written “to furnish the plain reasons as to why Jews, as citizens and as a religious community, are and should be irrevocably opposed to the proposed measure.” One paragraph which dealt with the practical working of the proposed plan, was as follows:— “A lady school-teacher of the Hebrew faith, in speaking to me of the subject the other day, very wisely remarked: ‘Should religious and Bible study enter the curriculum of instruction, and this task be likewise entrusted to me, I shall read to my pupils the decalogue in its pure and simple meaning, stating that ‘Thou shalt have no other gods’ is absolute and unconditional; that ‘Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,’ as an object of worship, is as binding now as in the old days of heathendom; and that all images of a mediator and ideals of an incarnate God are vestiges of paganism. As to the fourth commandment, I shall peruse it without comment. If questioned as to Sunday observance, the answer will follow that it is a misconception from the very start, and is unwarranted by divine authority.’ To guard against such and similar ‘free thought,’ teachers of the Hebrew persuasion will eventually be thrust out of the American schools. Similar ostracism will be practised against other sections of humanity, who differ in part with the set form of moral duties as propagated by Dr. McKim and his particular church.” The letter closed with a striking summary of the Biblical narrative of the destruction of Sodom because of the treatment of strangers who came within its gates, and the writer concluded with these words: “In order to save this blessed country from a similar fate we shall cry out: ‘Halt! Oppress not the stranger; let no dissension enter the midst of the community, and beware of religion in the public schools.’” Action of a Citizens’ Association
At a meeting of the Northeast Washington Citizens’ Association, held on Monday evening, April 10, and quite fully reported in the daily papers of April 11, a resolution was introduced by the chairman of the committee on schools favoring “the teaching of morals in our public schools—morals founded upon the ethics of the Christian religion, devoid of all dogmas and creeds.” This resolution provoked a lively discussion, during which another resolution was offered by the secretary of the association which set forth that the association “views with alarm the attempt now being made to enforce religious instruction in the public schools,” and further that “the association regards the churches and the homes as the proper channels through which should be given religious training to the rising generation, and that the public schools should be exclusively devoted to mental and physical education.” At the close of the discussion the resolution favoring religious instruction in the schools was by vote laid upon the table, and the resolution opposing the movement was adopted. Before the Board of Education
At the regular weekly meeting of the Board of Education, held on Wednesday evening, April 12, a delegation representing the Seventh-day Adventists appeared, by appointment, and presented petitions and arguments against the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools. The delegation consisted of Elders K. C. Russell, W. A. Colcord, A. T. Jones, W. W. Prescott, J. S. Washburn, and G. B. Thompson. Elder Russell opened the hearing by stating that he presented 126 petitions with 2,562 signatures, including all classes of citizens. He called the attention of the Board to the difference between presenting petitions signed by a few members of a church claiming to represent the whole church, and petitions actually signed by the individuals interested. He declared that upon the petitions which he presented were the names of persons from the various churches whose whole membership had been claimed as in favor of this movement. He also stated that the question was not to be decided by a majority of votes, but that the rights of conscience were individual. The editor of the REVIEW then presented, as expressing the attitude of Seventh-day Adventists in this matter, the following— “Remonstrance Against Teaching Religion in the Public Schools”
“A Protest Based on Christian Principles”
“To the Honorable Board of Education of the District of Columbia:— “We respectfully represent that in our attitude toward this movement to secure the introduction of definite religious instruction into the public schools of the District of Columbia we are seeking to exemplify those principles of Christianity which set forth the proper relations between the church and the state, and to follow the instruction contained in the Holy Scriptures concerning the relation of Christians to the state. Our position is not one of hostility to religion, the church, the state, or the public schools. On the contrary we truly desire the advancement of religion, the growth of the church, the peace of the nation, and the prosperity of the public schools. “Believing that the church and the state are both divinely ordained, but for entirely distinct purposes, the one for spiritual and the other for temporal ends, and that the prosperity of both depends upon the faithfulness with which each one follows the divinely ordained plan of a complete separation the one from the other, we feel constrained as citizens who are also Christians, to oppose any effort, however sincere it may be, to advance the interests of religion and morality by employing methods and agencies which seem to us to involve a union of church and state. Such a movement will beyond question prove ineffective, inasmuch as it is itself a violation of a fundamental principle of the Christian religion. The fruit of it will necessarily be a worse crop of evils than those it seeks to counteract. “We therefore present this most earnest remonstrance against the introduction of religious instruction into the schools under the control of the Board of Education:— *“1. Because we are firmly convinced that it is a violation of the Christian principle of the separation of church and state, and that it will therefore militate against the best interests of true religion. We heartily believe that the principles of Christianity ought to control the conduct of all the servants of the state, but this is far from saying that a concern for religion should become one of the affairs of state. On the contrary, when Christian principles are followed, there will be no attempt to use state funds and state machinery for the propagation of religion. The divine Author of Christianity has established an entirely different method for advancing the interests of his kingdom upon earth. Anything which savors of compulsion in the support of religion or of enforced attention to the teaching of religion is contrary to that spirit of freedom which18is the very essence of genuine Christianity. The interests of Christianity are best served when there is a free church in a free state.* “That the teaching of religion in the public schools would involve a union of church and state is the view of Mr. Justice Orton, of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as expressed in the following extract from one of his opinions upon this very question: ‘Religion needs no support from the state. It is stronger and much purer without it. This case is important and timely. It brings before the courts a case of plausible, insidious, and apparently innocent entrance of religion into our civil affairs. . . . Morality and good conduct may be inculcated in the common schools, and should be. The connection of church and state corrupts religion, and makes the state despotic.’ “The very fact that it is thought necessary to introduce into this recommendation for religious instruction in the public schools a conscience clause, permitting the withdrawal of a certain class of children while the paid servants of the state are giving religious instruction to another class of pupils, demonstrates most clearly that the proposed plan both enters the realm of conscience and violates the true principles of religious liberty. Christian liberty recognizes the right not to believe, as well as the right to believe, and in a public school the children of unbelievers ought not to be exposed to contempt by any exercise which separates them into a distinct class. Furthermore, the right on the part of the state to introduce religious instruction with a conscience clause, involves the right to do it without a conscience clause. “2. Because, being a violation of the divine principle of the proper relation between church and state, it will work injury to the state. Any successful effort to check the spirit of lawlessness which now imperils the stability of government must itself be in harmony with law, or it will encourage the anarchy which it seeks to uproot. We accept as substantially correct the statement of Mr. Justice Story in his commentary on the Constitution of the United States: ‘Half the calamities with which the human race has been scourged, have arisen from the union of church and state.’ In the words of Mr. Justice Welch, of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio: ‘United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.’ ‘When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself.’ We seek to avoid the evils which arise from the violation of the true principle by protesting against the first step in the wrong direction. *“3. Because we regard it as an unchristian act for professed Christians, even though they should be in a large majority, to seize upon the power and resources of the state, a political community of free citizens, in order to use them in teaching their views of religion. Our government, either state or national, was not organized for the purpose of teaching religion, and to employ it for “4. Because, in view of the differences of belief and practise among professed Christians, it would necessarily involve the state in religious controversies, and in taking sides upon disputed questions. This would be true both between the different creeds and also between the believer and the unbeliever. It is not a legitimate function of the state to act as judge in religious matters. “5. Because it both establishes a state theology and makes provision for the teaching of the same at public expense. This is the same as the compulsory support of a state religion, one of the inevitable evils attendant upon a union of church and state. As expressing our views of such a procedure, we adopt the words of Thomas Jefferson: ‘To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.’ This ‘sinful and tyrannical’ thing is just what will be done if this present demand is granted. However far the proposition to teach in the public schools only ‘four brief sentences’ of religion may at first seem from such a thing, this, nevertheless, would be the unavoidable and undesirable result. If the principle be admitted that the state can, to any degree, rightfully teach, direct, or control in matters of religion, a state-established religion is only a question of time. “6. Because it will necessitate a religious test as a qualification for the public trust of teacher in the public schools, which is both impolitic and unconstitutional. To require a teacher to teach a subject with which he himself is not familiar, or which he is incompetent to teach, would be preposterous, and to demand a religious qualification would unquestionably be a violation of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, which says: ‘No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.’ “7. Because, from what has already developed in the present controversy over this subject, it is evident that the instruction to be given in the public schools would be sectarian instruction, and would inevitably stir up religious controversies and provoke sectarian strife and animosities. “8. Because it is a departure from the American principle of government as wrought out in the early struggle for the separation between church and state in this country, and expressed in the Constitution of the United States, a document which introduced a new era and established a new order of things in civil government. The evils resulting from a union of church and state had been demonstrated in all the previous history of the world; and it was in view of this that our fathers acted when, in laying the foundation of this national government, they insisted upon a total separation of religion and the state, as has been so forcibly expressed by Bancroft, in his ‘History of the Formation of the Constitution:— “No one thought of vindicating religion for the conscience of the individual, till a voice in Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the life of humanity, by establishing a pure, spiritual, and universal religion for all mankind, enjoined to render to Caesar only that which is Caesar’s. The rule was upheld during the infancy of the gospel for all men. No sooner was this religion adopted by the chief of the Roman empire, than it was shorn of its character of universality, and enthralled by an unholy connection with the unholy state; and so it continued till a new nation,—the least defiled with the barren scoffings of the eighteenth century, the most general believer in Christianity of any people of that age, and chief heir of the Reformation in its purest forms,—when it came to establish a government for the United States, refused to treat faith as a matter to be regulated by a corporate body, or having a headship in a monarch or a state. “Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely ordained of God in Judea. It left the management of temporal things with the temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the people of the several States, withheld from the federal government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the infinite Spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity and power.’ “With such a beginning for this nation, and with over a century of religious freedom as a beneficent result of this policy, it is the part of wisdom to avoid any measure which presents the least appearance of the union of church and state. “For these reasons we do most respectfully, but most earnestly request the Honorable Board of Education not to grant the petition already before them asking for the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools of the District of Columbia.” After reading this remonstrance the editor of the REVIEW called the attention of the Board of Education to the opportunity which this movement afforded for making a decision which would in itself be a notable example of the right application of the Christian principle of the separation between church and state, urging that such action would command the respect even of those who are indifferent to the claims of religion. Elder Jones made a brief, but impressive argument in favor of such an action on the part of the Board as would preserve the tranquillity of the state. He set forth in a clear light the result which would follow the introduction of religious teaching into the schools, plainly stating the difficulties in which it would involve the Board of Education, and the animosities which it would arouse in the community. He declared also that it would result in more injury to the cause of true religion than could possibly come from leaving the question just where it is. Elder Colcord declared that, “because there are homes in which religion is not taught, it does not follow that the state, or some institution of the state, should undertake to teach it. The home, the church, and the private schools are naturally19the legitimate and proper places for teaching religion.” He also stated that the logical result of teaching religion would be the enforcement of religion, and as an illustration of this principle mentioned a case in the schools of Boston in 1859, when a Catholic boy was severely punished by his teacher for refusing to recite the ten commandments as given in the Protestant Bible. At the conclusion of the hearing, the vice-president of the Board of Education, who presided, assured the delegation that their petitions and remonstrance should receive careful consideration. He stated that it was unusual to grant such a hearing, but that they appreciated the gravity of this issue, and thought it proper that those who desired to wait upon them for the purpose of presenting their views, should have the privilege of doing so. The hearing was very satisfactory throughout, and we can but feel that a good impression was made in favor of right principles. The daily papers of Thursday, April 13, contain favorable reports of the hearing, with a fair summary of the arguments presented. Several individual protests were laid before the Board, but inasmuch as the delegation from the Seventh-day Adventists was the only one present at the meeting, the report of the hearing was given in the Washington Post as the “Voice of Adventists.” The evening Times gave its report under the heading, “Adventists Make Vigorous Protest.” As the whole matter has now been placed before the Board of Education, it is probable that the newspaper discussion will be suspended until some decision has been announced. It is quite likely that the matter may not be passed upon immediately, owing to the sickness of Gen. H. V. Boynton, president of the Board. The future history of the case, however, will be fully reported in the REVIEW.