The Religious Garb

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 24, 1912

The Religious Garb

It certainly must be cause for regret to President Taft that his earnest endeavor to please both Protestants and Catholics in the settlement of the religious-garb matter, has failed to give satisfaction to either side of the controversy. During the last two or three weeks there has been in religious journals much discussion regarding the President’s decision. It is regarded by practically every one of the journals coming to our desk as a clear compromise of principle, and one that seeks to avoid as far as possible taking a definite and decided stand upon the main issue involved.

Says the Continent (Presbyterian) of Oct. 3, 1912:—

The really weak spot in the government’s solution of the matter is that neither the secretary nor the President is found ready to put these conclusions into the regulations of the Indian school system. The Catholics have already taken down their Roman pictures from school walls, and they have already promised that no more monks or nuns shall apply for positions in the Indian schools. Therefore, say both these eminent statesmen, no order will be entered on these subjects. But why not? If this is to be the policy to which our Roman fellow citizens so willingly agree to conform hereafter, what is the objection to having it “nominated in the bond”? Just a little rule or two added to the regulations now, when the question has been so thoroughly thrashed out, might save a new thrashing of the old straw in a later administration.

The Standard of October 5, a Baptist journal, says:—

The President’s solution of the matter appears to be an impossible effort to please both Catholics and Protestants. Apparently it is owing to this failure to sustain his position that Commissioner Valentine resigned. . . . We shall watch the President’s choice of a successor to the brave and worthy Valentine with interest, not to say solicitude.

The Lutheran Observer of October 4 states:—

The decision straddles the question involved. It attempts to please all parties in interest, and in some ways succeeds in so doing, but the government compromises with principle, as well as with its own dignity, by permitting its approved policy to be modified and changed to meet a purely formal, ceremonial, and artificial requirement which the Roman Church imposes on members of its religious orders.

The United Presbyterian of October 3 states that “the question is not yet settled.” It feels that “the President’s decision gives too much discretionary power to be vested in an individual in a case in which a cardinal principle of our national government is involved.”

The Herald and Presbyter (Presbyterian) of October 2 criticizes the permission of the decision to allow the rooms of government schools to be used for religious instruction outside of school hours, and adds:—

These Romish teachers could ask for nothing more. They can use the buildings themselves for their sectarian purposes. It will be remembered, however, that the order, clear and ringing, went out from the government to Protestant teachers in the Philippines that they were not, even outside of school hours or even in their own homes or anywhere else, to give religious instruction. But Romanists are given the privilege of using the school buildings for their sectarian purposes, and not even the embarrassing condition of a rule or order is to inconvenience them. . . .

With all due respect, we say that all Protestant patriots do well to take due warning.

The Christian Observer of October 2 devotes a two-column article to the discussion of the religious-garb question, concluding with the pertinent question, “Could Mr. Taft have surrendered more completely to Rome?”

But the Catholics themselves do not find the decision altogether to their liking. America, the leading Catholic weekly of the United States, speaks as follows of the religious-garb decision:—

An examination of the official document announcing the decision shows plainly that the triumph really rests not with those who at the time they were “covered into” the government service, wore the religious garb, and who have been in undisputed possession of it ever since, but rather with the Protestant preachers and bigots who questioned the right of the fifty-one out of the two thousand government employees to wear the religious garb, and appealed to the Constitution against the President’s ruling when he revoked the order of the Indian Commissioner. The final decision reduced to its simplest terms means that the religious garb must go. . . . Something had to be done to appease the anti-Catholic element who hate the religious garb and all that it stands for as his satanic majesty hates holy water. . . . It is to the credit of Catholics that they frequently yield their own rights in the interests of peace and harmony, and, as they seem to have done in this instance, to save the government from embarrassment.

The statesman in his great responsibilities, as well as the man of business, the tradesman, the artisan, or the preacher of the gospel, should seek to follow the light as God gives him to know and understand it. In his decisions he should be governed by principle rather than by caprice. Doing this, he has to fear neither friends nor foes, but can look to the great Judge of all for sustaining grace in times when it is his duty to stand for vindication of the right.

We in the humbler walks of life little appreciate the great pressure brought to bear by contending interests upon those who occupy high positions in the state. We need to do more praying for our rulers. Indeed, the Scriptures of truth exhort us to pray for kings and all that are in authority. Let us remember before the throne of grace the rulers of the countries in which we live, and those that occupy high positions in affairs of state, that God may give them discernment to recognize right and truth, and then firmness and decision to take their stand on every question for principle.