Uniting Church and State by William Warren Prescott

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Mar 23, 1905

Uniting Church and State

By William Warren Prescott

Religious Instruction Recommended for the Public Schools of Washington

The second and closing session of the conference of clergymen and laymen of this city, called together to consider the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools of the District of Columbia, was held at the New Willard Hotel Wednesday afternoon, March 15. There was quite a full attendance, the number present probably being seventy-five to one hundred.

The committee of fifteen, appointed at the previous meeting to consider the resolutions submitted by Dr. R. H. McKim favoring religious instruction in the schools, submitted the following report:—

Report of Committee

“Your committee appointed to consider the resolutions offered to the Citizens’ Conference at the New Willard Hotel by the Rev. Dr. R. H. McKim, and to report upon the question what further measures, if any, should be taken by this conference looking toward the attainment of the general object expressed in the call for the meeting, wish to state that they have considered carefully and have discussed freely the matters referred to them, in the most amicable spirit, and with the earnest desire to make recommendations in which all should heartily concur. Your committee have spent three full afternoons in conference. At the first meeting of the committee, fourteen of the fifteen members were present, Bishop Cranston alone being absent and out of town. After attending the first meeting, Dr. Edward Everett Hale resigned from the committee because the committee’s work was concerned with the affairs of the District of Columbia, and since he is not a resident of the District, he wrote that he must withdraw from the committee.

“While one member of the committee is connected with a religious body which maintains a system of schools for the children of its own families, and therefore does not feel at liberty to promise the active co-operation of those whom he in a sense represents, he is still heartily in favor of the general purpose of this movement. It is declared to be the wish of every member of this committee to have the utterances of the committee understood as made in a spirit which would absolutely prohibit any teaching or interpretation of the ten commandments which should fail to recognize, and to set before the children of our schools, in the most liberal spirit, the fact that conscientious differences exist as to the day of the week to be observed as a day of rest. The wish of your committee is for action in the most truly catholic spirit, to secure in the public schools the recognition and the inculcation of that morality based upon a common religious belief, which we hold to be the strength and the hope of the American people.

“Of the fourteen who continued members of the committee, eleven have signed the report. Two members of the committee refrained from signing the report for reasons which each wishes to state briefly to the conference.

“Your committee respectfully report that we are heartily in accord with the purpose of the resolutions offered by the Rev. Dr. McKim; and we submit the following:—

“1. The American principle of the entire separation of church and state, we believe to be right. It should be carefully maintained. We advocate nothing that will in any wise compromise it, and nothing which shall interfere with the right of parents to control the religious education of their children. But we do not believe that the maintenance of this principle should be interpreted as necessitating an irreligious state or an atheistic education. We rejoice in the good work already doing in our public schools. We believe that our schools inculcate morality, and we hope to see them teaching it still more effectively. We have no revolutionary changes to suggest; but we do believe that a further development of the work of the schools under the admirable regulations for their government already formulated by the Board of Education of the District of Columbia, would contribute materially to the strengthening of character and the development of good citizenship through our public schools. We heartily commend the regulation long in force which provides for the reading of the Bible and the use of the Lord’s prayer in opening the sessions of our schools. To exclude the teaching of theistic morals and Biblical righteousness from our public schools, would be not simply to ignore the principles on which our fathers founded the republic, but utterly to reverse those principles. Our fathers rightfully incorporated into our statute law the recognition of certain principles of religion and morality, as in the laws against blasphemy, polygamy, and perjury. The state justly retains laws and customs which are rooted in principles of religion common to all civilized nations, and retains them in obedience to the will of the overwhelming majority of our people; and we hold that it is right and fitting for the state, in the public schools which the state maintains, to make provision for the teaching of these common principles of morality and religion.”

“2. As residents of the District of Columbia, we heartily commend that recognition of a common basis of religious belief underlying our common American citizenship, which led to the adoption of Rule 46 for the government of the public schools of the District, which requires each teacher to ‘endeavor to inculcate truthfulness, self-control, temperance, frugality, industry, obedience to parents, . . . and obedience to the laws of God.’ We bear witness to the efficiency and faithfulness of the great body of our public-school teachers in their efforts to inculcate morality in the school life of the young. But we feel that the alarming increase of certain crimes in our country within the past twenty-five years, clearly indicates the

need of more thorough and more definite education in ethics applied to conduct:—in that true morality which has characterized those peoples in the history of the world who have been believers in an almighty, righteous Ruler and Judge of the universe. While we believe that moral and religious training should first of all and chiefly be given in the family and the church, and that the doctrinal teaching which is peculiar to each church or religious body, should be given in that church or in the home, and should be excluded from the public school, we are nevertheless entirely convinced that the first principles of morality, based on the belief in Almighty God, should be carefully and systematically taught in our public schools. We believe that our people generally favor the instruction of their children in the first principles of morality and religion. In our American system, the state has undertaken the maintenance of public schools for the children of all, and has based the right of the state to educate the young on the duty of the state to fit the young to become good citizens. We hold that the only foundation for good citizenship is in morality based upon belief in Almighty God. Therefore it is the duty of the state to incorporate such teaching in its school system.”

“3. We believe that it is entirely practicable to make such a selection of readings from the Old Testament as will prove acceptable alike to Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Hebrews. We urge the taking of steps to provide such a lectionary that by its use the children of our schools may have instilled into their minds the principles of the most exalted morality, together with reverence and love for Almighty God; provided that such a lectionary should be of optional use by the individual teacher, in place of the present method.

“4. We recommend to the conference that it petition the Board of Education of our city to introduce into our schools the systematic study of morals, by making use of those ten commandments which have served as the basis of morals and law for all modern civilized nations, and of the beautiful summary of those commandments in the Law of Love of God and of our Neighbor, and also by the introduction and use of carefully prepared text-books upon morals as applied to conduct. We ask this not only in behalf of the children from homes and churches where moral and religious training is systematically given, but still more earnestly do we ask it for the sake of that great multitude of children in our public schools who have no such training at home or in any church. And of course we ask that from such special moral and religious training in the school, any parent who may conscientiously wish to do so shall have the right to have his child excused.

(Signed) “MERRILL E. GATES, Chairman, “WALLACE H. RADCLIFFE, “RANDOLPH H. McKIM, “FREDERICK D. POWER, “HENRY Y. SATTERLEE, “J. G. BUTLER, “D. J. O’CONNELL, “JOHN JOY EDSON. “CHARLES W. NEEDHAM, “WAYNE MacVEAGH, “JAMES E. GILBERT, “Washington, D. C., March 8.”

Before reading this report Dr. Merrill E. Gates, the chairman of the committee of fifteen, stated that two members of the committee had declined to sign the report, and that it was understood that these dissenting members should have the privilege of stating to the conference their reasons for not joining in this movement. The chairman of the conference accordingly stated, at the conclusion of the reading of the report, that there was opportunity for those who had dissented to state their position.

Rabbi Louis Stern, in behalf of the Jews of Washington, spoke at considerable length. Among other things he said: “I oppose the proposition to make the ten commandments a basis for moral instruction; even as an Israelite, one of the race through which the decalogue became the heritage of the world. I do not favor it, because the decalogue sets forth plain religious teachings, and definite religious instruction has not, and should not have, a place in our public schools. The public school is a part of the machinery of the state; use it for religious propaganda, and you establish a union of church and state.”

The editor of the REVIEW then read the following remonstrance:—

Remonstrance of Seventh-day Adventists

“Having been invited by this conference to represent in its deliberations that body of Christian believers known as Seventh-day Adventists, I herewith submit, as an expression of their attitude toward this movement to secure the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools, the following remonstrance:—

“We respectfully represent that we earnestly love the religion of Jesus Christ, entertain the highest respect for his true church, and sincerely desire the peace and prosperity of the nation; that we believe in the Bible as the Word of God, a book of divine authority, and in the ten commandments as the basis of all genuine morality; that we recognize the present alarming increase of crime, and that we are heartily in favor of any legitimate effort to lessen all forms of wrong-doing; that we believe in a Christian education, the only true basis of which is the Bible as the divine revelation of the principles of righteousness in character and conduct; but in the interest of a pure religion, an uncorrupted church, and the peace of the state, we are compelled to protest most earnestly against any movement which we are convinced violates the principles of Christianity, even though it grows out of a sincere desire to advance the interests of the kingdom of Christ upon the earth.

“We make this remonstrance against the demand for the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools:—

Separation of Church and State

“1. Because we are convinced that it is contrary to the Christian principle of the complete separation of church and state. And we further maintain that there is no difference in principle between a union of religion and the state and a union of church and state. This movement is declared to be an effort to bring to bear upon the Board of Education the influence of the church as represented in a conference composed of representatives of all the various religious denominations. Other citizens equally interested in the public schools, but who do not belong to the church, are not invited to be present or to take part in the deliberations of this conference. This is plainly a church movement. It should not be forgotten, as stated in the United States Senate report adopted Jan. 19, 1829, that ‘all religious despotism commences by combination and influence; and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it; and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequence.’”

A Church Movement

“If this movement is successful, it will devolve upon the representatives of the church to direct in the preparation of the required books and the necessary instruction for the use of the teachers in the schools. The state will then, at the demand of the church and under the guidance of the church, teach such principles of such a religion as the majority of the church may agree upon. This can be nothing else than a union both of religion and the state and of the church and the state. 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. We avoid all the consequences involved in the wrong principle by denying the principle. We hold to the principle enunciated by the divine Author of Christianity, ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.’”

A State Theology

“2. Because religious instruction in the public schools necessarily establishes a state theology. The state, at the demand of the church, must decide what religion, and what tenets of that religion, shall be taught. It must settle differences of opinion not only between religionists and non-religionists, but also between the different sects of the favored religion. ‘Have those who make this demand well considered the fact that they logically ally themselves with all the religious despotisms that have ever existed among men? They in effect accept and advocate a principle which has in all ages been the enemy of religious liberty, against which heroes have fought, on whose cruel altars martyrs have bled, and whose historic enormities are sufficient to startle the world.’”

Compulsory Support

“3. Because religious instruction in the public schools involves the compulsory support of a state theology. All classes of citizens are taxed to support the public schools. All have equal rights in them. The teaching of religion will necessarily interfere with these rights. The only object, purpose, or use for taxation by law in a free country must be exclusively secular. Any other course will inevitably end in religious tyranny.

A Menace to Religious Freedom

“4. Because this movement to introduce religious instruction into the public schools is a menace to religious freedom. In the words of James Madison: ‘It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three-pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?’ Madison was a Christian patriot, and he spoke in the interests of good government, of true Christianity, and of genuine religious liberty.”

“5. Because the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools will infringe upon the sacred rights of conscience, and involves a disregard of the consciences of the minority on the part of the majority. ‘The rights of conscience are individual and personal, and are not to be settled by the arithmetic of putting many consciences on the one side, against a few on the other.’ It has been well said: ‘True Christianity never shields itself behind majorities.’”

Protestant Principles

“6. Because this demand for religious instruction to be given by the state is contrary to the principles of Protestantism as established by the Reformers. They opposed the intrusion of the civil magistrate in matters of faith. ‘Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate.’ They also declared that ‘in matters of conscience the majority has no power.’ These lessons of the Reformation ought never to be forgotten, and these principles ought never to be violated.

An Ineffective Measure

“7. Because we believe that the effort to lessen crime and lawlessness by introducing religious instruction into the public schools, being itself wrong in principle, will not be effective in securing the desired result. We are convinced that the perils which now beset both the church and the state call loudly for the authoritative inculcation of the principles of righteousness,—the principles of the ten commandments,—but we are as firmly convinced that the proper place for giving this instruction is in the home, the church, and the private school supported by voluntary contribution, and not in the public school supported by compulsory taxation.

“For these reasons we enter our most solemn and emphatic protest against this demand for the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools, and in the spirit of love do earnestly ask the members of this conference not to urge their demand any further.” The conference gave the most earnest attention during the presentation of this remonstrance, and it was plain that it made a decided impression upon the minds of many present.

The General Discussion

Dr. Alexander Kent, pastor of the People’s Church, who opened the discussion which followed, said: “To those who accept religion as a supernatural revelation, the propositions presented by Mr. Prescott, are unanswerable.”

Dr. Kent then moved that the report of the committee be given to the press, and that the matter be left open for public discussion before any action should be taken upon it. This motion was voted down.

W. F. Crafts, the head of the National Reform Bureau, spoke in favor of the report, emphasizing the fact that according to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States “this is a Christian nation.”

Several others argued in favor of the report, and then Dr. J. J. Muir, a leading Baptist pastor of this city, spoke strongly against it. He said that the Baptists were a people who had a record in favor of religious liberty; that he was opposed to any step which had the least semblance of an appearance of the union of church and state. He declared that in his opinion not one Baptist minister in the city would agree to the report, and that he should take his stand with the minority.

Dr. R. H. McKim, the promoter of the movement, was the last speaker, and devoted five minutes to a severe arraignment of the Seventh-day Adventists, and then, after a brief argument in favor of the report, he moved the previous question, thus cutting off further debate. His motion prevailed in spite of earnest protest and the raising of several points of order.

To many of those present this course seemed manifestly unfair, and perhaps did more to reveal the real spirit of this movement than anything else connected with the conference. A rising vote was then taken, and the report was adopted by a vote of thirty-nine to twenty-two.

A petition was then presented to the meeting, urging the Board of Education to take action in harmony with the vote of the conference, and an invitation was extended to those present who were willing to do so to sign the petition. The conference then adjourned sine die.

A Church Movement

It will be observed that in the report of the committee of fifteen the conference is referred to as “the citizen’s conference.” This, however, is not a correct representation of the movement. As evidence of this we will state the following facts: Previous to the second meeting of the conference the editor of the REVIEW called upon the chairman, Ex-Secretary-of-the-Navy Hilary A. Herbert, and submitted in writing the proposition that he would be responsible for all expense incurred if the next meeting of the conference would be called in some public hall or theater, with the opportunity for any citizens to attend the meeting and listen to the discussion. In declining to act upon this suggestion the chairman stated that this was distinctly a religious movement, designed simply to give expression to the sentiment of the religious portion of the community, and that if others desired to give expression to their views, they had the same privilege of calling another conference of a different character.

Furthermore, the promoter of the movement, Dr. R. H. McKim, has plainly stated that it would not be expected that members of the conference would invite to its meetings those who were not connected with some of the religious bodies of the city, as this movement was designed to give expression to the religious sentiment of the community. It is thus clear that in no proper sense can this be spoken of as “the citizen’s conference.” It is wholly a church movement.

The Press Report

The Washington Post of Thursday, March 16, contained a full report of this meeting, occupying nearly two and one-half columns of space in a prominent position. From the headings given to this report, and the general treatment of the subject, it is perfectly clear that the Post is not in favor of the movement. In reporting the discussion of the recommendations submitted by the committee of fifteen, it gave over four inches of space to the protest of Rabbi Stern; printed the remonstrance of the Seventh-day Adventists in full, which occupied about three quarters of a column; and gave less than four inches of space to all the rest of the discussion.

The Evening Star of the same date contained a good report of the meeting, including our remonstrance in full. The Times of the same date gave special prominence to this matter. In quite a complete report, with large headings, on the first page of the paper, it gave a fair abstract of our remonstrance. It also printed an editorial upon the subject, inviting a full discussion by the people in its columns, and on the same page there appeared four letters dealing with the question. One writer said, “I am not so sure but that religious instruction in the public schools is an important element in the approach toward a condition inimical to every tradition of our system of government.” Thus this movement and the reasons for our attitude toward it were brought before all the people of this city by the daily papers.

Plans for the Future

A leaflet will be prepared at once, which will contain our remonstrance presented to this conference, and other proper matter, and will be systematically circulated throughout the District of Columbia. A counterpetition has already been prepared, protesting against the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools, to which as many signatures as possible will be obtained, and which will then be presented to the Board of Education.

Further public meetings will be held, and an earnest effort will be made to arouse a right public sentiment upon this question by setting forth the real significance of this un-American and un-Christian movement. W. W. P.