RELIGION AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
By G.
In ultimate purpose the National Reformers and the Roman Catholics are practically identical. They are alike the opponents of true Protestantism. This is demonstrated by their attitude toward the public schools. They both oppose secular public schools, and both insist on religious teaching in such schools. But their theory on the school question is only a means to an end, namely, church control of the government. There is no antagonism between the Roman Catholics and the National Reformers on basic principle, the contest is simply as to who shall control the government. Practically it would make no difference to the people which party should hold the government reins—whether Catholic, or Covenanter, or Puritan; the result, in the light of past experience, would be persecution of conscientious dissenters. But all of these Church-and-State advocates would fain make the public schools a stepping-stone to religious control of the government; and they would fain make the government bear the expense of their schemes. They all want the government to furnish schools wherein shall be taught religion, and each wants that religion to be in harmony with the religion of his church. Hence we repeat that there is no difference in principle between the Roman Catholic and the National Reformer; their controversy is only as to which party shall have the privilege of dictating what religion shall have the pre-eminence in government support. Parents may very consistently prefer not to send their children to the public schools; but to oppose these schools is a different thing. The ideas of different people regarding proper religious teaching are so different that agreement upon a religious curriculum would be an impossibility. Anything even approaching fairness never could be reached, for the reason that majority rule never can be properly applied in deciding what should or should not be taught as religious doctrine. Therefore the only proper work of a public school is to teach such branches as will give the children a preliminary fitting for the ordinary pursuits of life, and for the further pursuit of learning in any desired line. The public schools should teach the branches of learning concerning which there is no question among the people. This is the only fair method, where all are called upon to support the schools. Those who clamor for religious teaching in the public schools, have always a desire to have their own religion taught at public expense. Asking the government to take the burden and bear the expense of one's home work or church work or missionary work, is trusting entirely too much to the government; besides, it is a selfish, unreasonable shirking of individual or church responsibility. It is always asking a great many people to support what they do not believe and do not want. When the State teaches religion, the State must decide what is religion. When the State undertakes9to teach the Christian religion, the State must decide what is the Christian religion; and the result will just as surely be political controversy as to what is the Christian religion. In the fourth century there was a controversy over church property, which involved a State decision as to what sect of the professed Christian Church was the church, and the decision was in favor of the Catholics. Now a controversy over the question of teaching religion by the government would be of the same nature. The trouble is not that the decision might possibly be favorable to the Catholics directly, but that it would be a government manipulation of religion, a consummation which no true Protestant could favor.