The State as a Teacher of Religion
THERE is no doubt that the enforcement of what is known as the Education act of 1902 in England contributed largely to the overwhelming victory of the Liberal party in the recent general election in Great Britain. It is, of course, expected that there will be some new legislation upon this subject during the present session of Parliament, and the whole question is now under discussion. One method of dealing with this vexed subject is as follows: “It has been proposed by the Liberal leaders, with the support of some Laborites, that the government should, first, abolish all religious tests for teachers, and, second, provide a common form for Christian teaching to be taught in all the schools. The Laborites, who support this plan, are also insistent that the government shall not sanction the compromise urged upon it—namely, to provide facilities for dogmatic instruction for half an hour before the opening of the school proper.” This plan is opposed by the Bishop of Birmingham, who doubtless represents in a general way the attitude of the Church of England. He thus states his view:— Undenominationalism means either that each schoolmaster shall teach what6religious belief he pleases in giving Bible classes, or that the state authority in education shall formulate some sort of standard representing what is believed to be our common Christianity, and cause it to be taught. Neither of these alternatives appears to us as tolerable. I use the word strictly. We believe that there is, in the present condition of religious opinion among us, only one tolerable principle; that is, that the parents shall be invited to determine what kind of religious teaching they wish to be given to their children, and by what teachers they wish it to be given, and that the state should impartially facilitate the teaching of religion chosen by the parents. These different plans are in themselves an emphatic comment upon the folly of attempting to teach religion in the public schools. In the one case it is proposed that the state should “provide a common form for Christian teaching to be taught in all the schools.” This is the natural and logical thing to do, if the state is to teach religion at all. It is within the province of the state to determine the course of study to be pursued in the public schools, and if it is decided that religious instruction is to be a part of that course of study, then the same authority which decides when and to what extent and by the use of what books language, mathematics, or science shall be taught may rightfully decide when and to what extent and by the use of what books religious instruction shall be imparted. To give to parents the privilege of deciding just what should be taught and what should not be taught to their children of the ordinary branches of study would, as every one can readily see, overthrow the whole plan for anything like a common course of study, and make the teacher subject to the caprice of every parent. If it be objected that the kind of religious instruction to be given to children is a matter of conscience with the parents, while the teaching of the common branches does not involve conscientious scruples, the reply may very properly be made that this objection demonstrates the soundness of our contention that the teaching of religion is not a legitimate function of the state. On the other hand, as a solution of the problem, it is proposed that “the state should impartially facilitate the teaching of religion chosen by the parents.” In the actual working of this plan there would inevitably be two distinct governing bodies in the management of the schools: the state would decide upon the secular studies and the manner of teaching them, while in theory the parents, but more likely in practise the ecclesiastical leaders, would decide upon the religious instruction and the manner of imparting it. And those parents who do not wish their children to be taught religion under such a regime would still be compelled to support the system. There can be no satisfactory plan proposed for teaching religion in the public schools, for the simple reason that it is not within the province of the state to give such instruction. This is the only right solution of this troublesome question. The acceptance of this sound principle would settle the matter once and for all; and until this is done, it will be a constant source of friction. Leave religion to the home and to the church. This is the only “tolerable principle.”