Stirring Times in Washington
By W. W. P.
The Religious Education Movement
PUBLIC interest has been greatly aroused in the city of Washington over the question of the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools. Each day since the meeting of the conference reported in our last issue, this matter has been discussed in the daily press both by correspondence and in editorials. Interviews with some of the leading men of the city have been printed, giving all shades of opinion upon the subject. The following quotations from headings in the daily papers, from interviews, and from letters will show something of the degree of interest aroused, and the general drift of opinion:— “Washington is stirred on religious training. Much divergence of opinion. Parents and citizens express themselves frankly and forcibly on such teaching.” “I am heartily in accord with the movement to have moral teaching in the public schools.”—Gen. H. V. Boynton, Pres. Board of Education. “Would it not be to add gross insult to material injury to make of every grammar school a Sunday-school annex without any regard to the wishes of the people who pay the taxes?”—Dr. W. A. Croffutt, of the Secular League and the Agnostic Society. “In Russia they have religious education in the schools. I am glad I live in the United States.”—J. Edgar Smith, Attorney at Law. The same paper in which these expressions of opinions were printed contained about six columns of matter bearing upon this subject, introduced with the following statement:— “Never in recent years has Washington been so stirred over a question of public interest as it is now over the proposition to introduce into the public schools moral teachings on a distinct religious foundation.” A parent writes: “The proposition to introduce religion in the public schools is absolutely contrary to the teachings of Christ, and is also unconstitutional. Surely the good people of the District have not lost their minds, and will not allow themselves to be led in a way that will end in trouble, persecution, and death.” From a letter by Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts, of the International Reform Bureau, we take the following: “Majorities have some rights that minorities are bound to respect, and one of those rights is to take such steps as will prevent the increase of vice and crime. It is idle to say parents should teach morals. The state in its own defense must see to it that common morals are taught to all future citizens.” Another correspondent gives expression to his views in the following remarkable language: “If religious morality should be taught to children by those most interested, and they will not do it, the state should do it. Admitting the advisability of such instruction, the state may not avoid its duty by the assertion that some one else has failed in his. The state can and does do what no church may do. The state collects all the children in schools by laws which may not be disobeyed. The churches can only persuade whether the effort be more or less. Many parents neglect16the morals of their children; but the state, interested in the welfare of these children, collecting them by its authority in its schools, recognizing the necessity of religious morality, is in the best position, and has, and should, exercise the power of training the children in religious morality.” These statements savor so strongly of the arguments and practises of the Dark Ages that it would seem as if they would carry their own antidote. Another heading with which the discussion of the subject was introduced was as follows:— “Religion in schools still hotly discussed. This is the question which is uppermost in the Washington mind today, and the interest in it seems constantly on the increase.” Another instalment of interviews and letters was preceded by this heading in bold type: “Public interest grows in school question. Religious instruction topic of much discussion by citizens of Washington. Petitions circulated by Seventh-day Adventists.” Then followed the petition which we have prepared, and which has been placed in a large number of stores, offices, etc., for signatures. The petition reads as follows:— A Remonstrance Against the Teaching of Religion in the Public Schools of the District of Columbia
“Inasmuch as the recent Interdenominational Conference has adopted an action, by a majority vote, urging that religious instruction be made part of the courses of study in the public schools of the District of Columbia, and a petition is now being circulated to make this action effective, we, the undersigned, adult residents of this District, do most respectfully petition the Honorable Board of Education not to introduce the teaching of religion into the public schools:— “1. Because it is a violation of the Christian principle of the separation of church and state. “2. Because it will necessarily infringe upon the rights of certain classes of citizens. “3. Because it is a menace to religious freedom, and a departure from that generous policy which has made this nation great. “4. Because the use of money, raised by compulsory taxation of all classes of citizens, for the purpose of teaching religion, is contrary to the just principles of civil government. “5. Because it will necessarily establish a state theology, and make a religious test necessary for the holding of the office of public trust as a teacher, which is a violation of one of the provisions of the Constitution. “6. Because religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, is a matter of individual conscience, and can only be directed by reason and conviction. “7. Because the teaching of religion does not come within the purview of the state, but belongs to the home, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contribution.” On Sunday, March 19, this subject was discussed in several public meetings. Dr. F. M. Bristol (Methodist), one of the leading pastors of the city, spoke in favor of the movement. Dr. Alexander Kent (non-sectarian), Dr. John Lee Brooks (M. E., South), and Rev. C. F. Winbिगler (Baptist), spoke against it. In the evening the subject was considered at a large meeting in the Lafayette Opera House, addressed by the editor of the REVIEW and Elder A. T. Jones. Reports of this meeting were given in the city papers the following day. The Washington Post of Monday, March 20, in addition to reports of the meetings of the previous day, devoted two columns and a half of space to letters on this subject. One writer, with whom we have no personal acquaintance, said:— “I would like to be one to subscribe whatever may be necessary to put the temperate and unanswerable argument against religious teaching in the public schools, by Seventh-day Adventists, published in your paper of the sixteenth, in the hands of everybody in the District. It appears to me that the gentlemen of the committee have been met on their own ground, and completely routed. . . . The Adventists are right in saying that this attempt is a menace to religious freedom, and infringes upon the rights of conscience.” The leaflet mentioned in our last issue has been prepared, and many thousands of them have been circulated. In addition to the remonstrance presented at the conference, which was printed in last week’s REVIEW, the leaflet contains the following matter, which is a very brief summary of the addresses given at the opera house at the Sunday evening meeting:— The State Neither Religious Nor Irreligious
“In the report adopted by the conference, loyalty to the principle of the separation of church and state is declared; but, says the conference: ‘We do not believe that the maintenance of this principle should be interpreted as necessitating an irreligious state or an atheistic education.’ The inference plainly intended to be drawn is that if the state does not teach religion, it is itself irreligious, and its education is atheistic. Such an inference is unwarranted. The state is, of right, neither religious nor irreligious, and should give neither a religious nor an atheistic education. The state should neither propagate nor oppose religion. Dr. David H. Greer, Coadjutor Bishop of New York, has well said: ‘The introduction of religion into the public schools is the introduction of the church into the public schools, and is therefore a union of church and state.’ “The report further says: ‘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 into its school system.’ By such logic ‘the old world idea’ of the union of church and state was established, and it was the logic of the colonial period in America; but it was abandoned when the American nation was founded, and ‘a new order of things’ was established. Here is the argument of the Middle Ages, as given by the Rev. Sanford H. Cobb, in his ‘Rise of Religious Liberty,’ page 48: ‘Religion and morality were understood to lie at the foundation of the state, while of morality, religion was the base. Therefore it became the first duty of the princes and magistrates to take order for the support of religion and the defense of its purity.’ The Washington conference has simply adopted the old-time argument for the union of church and state, and it means now, as it did then, a union of church and state. An Occasion for Religious Controversy
“The conference recommends the teaching of the ten commandments in the public schools, with the understanding that the teacher should set before the children ‘the fact that conscientious differences exist as to the day of the week to be observed as a day of rest.’ That is to say, the children will be taught that the fourth commandment says that ‘the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,’ but that, in the face of this statement, many people observe another day. Reasons must naturally be given for such an anomaly. The result will inevitably be that not the Lord’s commandment, but tradition and the commandment of the church will be taught as having superseded it. Will this inculcate morality, respect for God’s Word, and ‘obedience to the laws of God’? Will this lay the foundation for ‘good citizenship’? If the children are taught that men may thus set aside the law of God, what is to hinder their applying the same principle to the laws of the land? “This example is itself sufficient to show not only that the ten commandments, as God gave them, would not be taught in the schools, but that the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools would open the way for endless religious controversies, in which the state would become involved. The fourth commandment is not the only precept of the decalogue respecting men’s relations and duties to God, concerning which there are differences of religious belief and practise. Tolerance and Intolerance
“It is also recommended 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.’ This statement shows clearly that in attempting to give such instruction the state would be dealing with matters of conscience—a field entirely outside its proper sphere. In the words of Justice Orton of the Wisconsin Supreme Court: ‘The suggestion itself concedes the whole argument.’ When analyzed, this conscience clause is simply the language of toleration. The right to permit a child to be absent from religious instruction implies the right to compel his attendance. Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance, but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms; the one assumes the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it. The principle of toleration in religion is neither a Christian nor an American principle. A Lesson From Colonial Times
“There is a lesson in American history which is strictly pertinent to this case. From 1778 to 1789 this very issue was fought to a finish in this country. By the fathers and founders of this gov-ernment, the English, or Episcopalian, Church, after a fierce struggle, was disestablished in Virginia, in 1779. “This establishment failing, a proposition, originating with the Presbyterians, was made, that the state, ‘instead of selecting one denomination, as the Episcopalian, and establishing that as the religion of the state, and giving to that alone its support, should establish all the denominations—Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, as well as Episcopalians—and make them all equally alike the religion of the state and to be supported by the state.’—Howell’s ‘Early Baptists of Virginia,’ page 165. “Another plan very similar to this, which was proposed, was that there should be a ‘general assessment’ for the support of all the churches.’ This took the form of ‘A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.’ “But, all credit to Jefferson, Madison, and the Baptists, these measures failed; Jefferson’s ‘Bill for Religious Freedom’ was passed; and the principles of religious freedom there wrought out were incorporated into the national government, and were expressed in the Constitution of the United States. “The present movement violates these principles, and is a step toward undoing all this. The same churches which fought against disestablishment and the separation of church and state then, are now seeking to unite church and state and establish religion by law again. They affirm they do not intend to establish any one church, but simply the religion common to all the churches. This the state must teach, and support men and women in teaching it. There can be no difference in principle between supporting school-teachers to teach religion, and supporting ministers to do the same thing. The proposition is parallel to the ‘general establishment’ and the ‘general assessment’ of the time of Jefferson and Madison. But this done, who that has ever read history, or that knows anything of human nature, thinks the matter would stop there? “Some declare that there is ‘no danger’ in this thing. ‘We have had no religious persecution in this country for over a hundred years,’ they say. But why has there been little or no persecution here during the past century?—Simply because religion has been disestablished in this country, and civil government has not intruded itself into religious matters. But just as surely as either the national government or the States begin to deal with religion, just so surely will religious persecution be revived. In the interests of peace, therefore, and for the welfare of religion, every citizen should oppose this unchristian, un-American movement. Where and by Whom Should Religion Be Taught?
“Religion, to be effective, must be positive and explicit. A religion so broad as to be acceptable to all shades and to no shades of belief would be worthless. If taught at all, enough should be taught to save men. Manifestly, this is not within the province of civil government. “Moreover, to teach religion successfully, the teacher must himself be religious. No unconverted person is qualified to teach the spiritual principles of the divine Word and of a holy, spiritual law. But for the state to require its teachers to be religious is to make a religious test a qualification for a position of trust under it, which is unconstitutional. “Who, then, should teach religion? The divine Author of religion has answered this question. To the church he has given the commission to ‘go into all the world’ and ‘preach the gospel to every creature.’ To fathers and mothers the injunction is given to bring up their children ‘in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;’ to teach them diligently the commandments of the Lord, ‘speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.’ “Therefore, for either parents or preachers to appeal to the state to perform this most important of all duties—the imparting of religious instruction to the young—is an attempt to shift untransferable responsibilities, and a confession of neglect and failure on the part of both. “True religious educational reform must begin in the home. It can not be brought about through the state. If the evils resulting from irreligion are to be eradicated, the ax must be laid at the root of the tree; the springs of life must be purified; the family, the cradle and foundation of society, must be restored to its place, and do its appointed work. “Parents, failing to walk in God’s statutes, do not command their households to keep the way of the Lord. The law of God is not made the rule of life. The children, as they go out to make homes of their own, feel under no obligation to teach their children what they themselves have never been taught. This is why there are so many godless families; this is why depravity is so deep and wide-spread. “Not until parents themselves walk in the law of the Lord with perfect hearts will they be prepared to command their children after them. Not until religion is brought into the home will it spring up in the rising generation. A reformation in this respect is needed—a reformation which shall be deep and broad. If men would see a different state of things, they must bring God’s Word into their families, and make it their counselor. They must teach their children that it is the voice of God addressed to them, and that it is to be implicitly obeyed. In every home the family altar should be erected. Time should be taken for morning and evening worship. If ever there was a time when every house should be a house of prayer, it is now. “Instead of asking the state to perform this work, let a mighty movement be set on foot for the revival of religion in the home, and let the church arise and fulfil her mission, and carry religion into the homes where now it is not. Let God’s Word, pure and unchanged, be given to those who are perishing for want of it. This would quickly turn the tide of evil, and bring about a better state of things.” By a systematic canvass of the whole city it is proposed to place a copy of this leaflet in every home if possible. The discussion in the daily papers is now practically closed, and no serious effort has been made to answer our remonstrance. The people will now have an opportunity to consider the principles set forth in the leaflet. A committee of our brethren has waited upon the superintendent of schools (the chairman and secretary of the Board of Education both being ill and unable to meet them), and has received from him the assurance that plenty of time will be given to us for circulating our petition before the subject is considered by the Board of Education. His attitude was very friendly, although he did not openly commit himself on the subject. Earnest work is now being done in circulating the leaflet, and in securing signatures to the petition. Those who are engaged in this work report that they find among all classes of people a woeful ignorance of the principles involved in this movement, while the local situation creates an interest to discuss the subject. The way is thus open for a splendid campaign of education in the presentation of right principles. The free thinkers, the agnostics, and the secularists oppose this movement, generally speaking, because they are opposed to the Christian religion, but we have made it very clear, both in our published arguments and in our public addresses, that we oppose this demand for religious instruction by the state because we believe in, and desire to practise, the principles of Christianity as revealed in the Scriptures. This has made our attitude entirely distinct, and our arguments wholly different from the position and reasons of others. This has necessarily made the name of the denomination, “The Seventh-day Adventists,” a common expression in the papers and in the public discussions of this question, and the very name suggests the Sabbath truth. This fact and the questions involved in the attempt to teach the fourth commandment in the public schools have repeatedly called attention to the message in behalf of God’s down-trodden law. We hope this will cause many people to think and to investigate. In our next issue we shall report the further progress of this effort to unite church and state by introducing religious instruction into the public schools.