Religion in the Public Schools
By W. W. P.
Further Agitation of the Question in Washington
THE attention of the public has again been called in a special manner, the past week, to the question of teaching religion in the public schools of the District of Columbia. In the Washington Times of Sunday, April 23, there appeared interviews with “Four Representative Washington Women,” who expressed their views upon this much-discussed subject. The following headings will indicate in a general way the positions taken: “Mrs. J. F. Linscott: Prominent Christian Scientist points out the necessity for moral and spiritual education;” “Mrs. A. L. Barber: Well-known philanthropist thinks something more than Bible instruction is needed;” “Mrs. John A. Logan: Widow of the famous American general, supports attitude taken by Rev. Dr. McKim;” “Mrs. Fred T. DuBois: Wife of the Idaho Senator recommends a plan similar to the Froebel system.” These interviews, with a large illustrated heading, occupied about three-fourths of a page. That so much space was given to this subject plainly showed that in the opinion of the editor there was much public interest in this matter. At a meeting of the Secular League of this city, held on Sunday afternoon, April 23, the question of religious instruction in the public schools was considered, and resolutions were adopted opposing the plan. These resolutions applauded the efforts of the Jews and those Christian denominations who have taken a stand against the movement for religious teaching in the schools, but in the nature of the case the League based its action upon reasons to which Christian believers could not consent. The members of this organization seek to defeat the effort to teach religion in the public schools, not simply because they regard it as a union of church and state, but also because they are opposed to the Christian religion. This, of course, makes it impossible for believers in Christianity to unite closely with them, even though all do aim at a common result. In addition to the report of the meeting of the Secular League, the Washington Post in its issue of Monday, April 24, contained a long letter concerning religious teaching in the public schools, signed by Herman E. Kittredge, M. D., the associate editor of the Arena. Dr. Kittredge argued against teaching religion in the public schools, but he treated the subject from the standpoint of a secularist, who believes that “this is a natural universe, and man is a part of it,” and the universe being under natural law, it is useless to attempt to teach moral precepts. This letter was not convincing, and we are far from consenting to the line of argument as being a satisfactory basis for his conclusion. On Tuesday evening, April 25, the Board of Education listened to remonstrances and arguments upon the subject presented by four different parties. From the report as printed in the Post of the next day, we quote the following paragraphs:— “Nearly three hours were devoted by the Board of Education last night to hearing objections to the proposed plan for improved moral training in the local public schools. Six separate declarations against the scheme were presented to the Board, Hon. Simon Wolf, as chairman of the committee on civil and religious rights of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, being the principal protestant. Others who appeared to register their sentiments against the innovations of the committee of fifteen were President David Eccles and Dr. J. J. Shirley, of the Secular League; representatives of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and Rev. Alexander Kent, pastor of the People’s Church. Petitions opposing religious instruction in the schools were received from Mrs. M. M. Turner and from the Knights of Labor.” “At the conclusion of the hearing the Board took the matter under advisement, as it has done on previous occasions. Nothing will be done in the way of final action until a full attendance of the Board can be had, and on account of the indisposition of Gen. H. V. Boynton, president of the Board, this will probably be, it is understood, about two weeks hence.” “Mr. Wolf’s protest against the teaching of religion in the schools was a voluminous typewritten document. It was read to the Board, at his request, by Rev. Dr. Kent, who afterward read his own statement on the subject. Mr. Wolf disavows any intention to act as a sectarian, and he asserts that the advocates of the proposition to legislate, by rule, religion into the public schools, ‘claim that they have no desire to unite church and state,’ but, he says, he supposes ‘they do not consider the step at this time wise or opportune; that would naturally come later if they are successful in the innovation now proposed.’ Continuing, he declares, ‘while already suffering from innovations and infractions, which never should be made by the Board of Education of our city, worse conditions would ensue, and from what is now simply tolerated, we would be compelled to endure—unless legal steps were taken to bring the matter to the highest tribunal of our land, as to the right of any appointed or elected board to invade the privileges of the individual citizen, in the matter of conscience or the teaching of religion in the public schools.’” “‘This demand on the part of the church,’ asserts Mr. Wolf, ‘is not a new one. It has, like Banquo’s ghost, risen continuously in various parts of the United States, and, fortunately for the good of the public, has been continuously crushed and denied.’ The document submitted by Mr. Wolf reviews previous efforts on the part of religionists to secure recognition of their institutions. He insists that his opposition is not founded on opposition to any religious faith.” “The paper includes a number of citations to the Federal Constitution, among which is the form of oath prescribed for the president of the United States. Mr. Wolf refers to the fact that the words, ‘So help me God,’ in that obligation imply a recognition of religion, and he calls attention to the fact that the form of oath prescribed by the Constitution reads: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States,’ etc. “It is extremely doubtful,” the protest says, “whether certain practises now in existence in the public schools of the District of Columbia are legal; such as the singing of hymns, the celebration of certain religious holidays, the recitation of certain prayers.”18 “Reference is made to the opinion that has been expressed by some persons that the United States Supreme Court has declared that this is a Christian nation, and Mr. Wolf devotes some space to a refutation of the idea that the Supreme Court ever made such a ruling.” “The protest of the Methodist Episcopal Church South was presented by Rev. Drs. Brooks and Blakemore, on behalf of the preachers representing that denomination in the District. It deplores the present ‘unseemly agitation over the question of the proposed introduction of religious instruction into the public schools of the District.’ The protest was signed by Rev. John Lee Brooks, pastor of Emery Church; Rev. William F. Locke, pastor of Mount Vernon Place Church; Rev. D. L. Blakemore, pastor of Epworth Church; Rev. W. H. Ballenger, pastor of West Washington Church, and Rev. J. C. Hawk, pastor of Marvin Church. The document sets out a number of specific grounds of objection to the system contemplated by the committee of fifteen, and ‘while sympathizing with the purpose of the movement for better morals and citizenship, protests against the means proposed, as unwise, futile, subversive, and impossible.’” It is understood that no further hearings will be granted by the Board of Education, and the matter will now be left with the Board for consideration. From present indications the decision will probably be announced during the session of the General Conference. The continued delay in the settlement of this question may afford an opportunity for the conference itself to take an action which would have some influence in determining the result. W. W. P.