RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
By C. P. B.
At a recent meeting of the Presbyterian Union of New York City, Rev. Dr. Howard Crosby took strong ground against teaching religion in the public schools. The Doctor said:— “We have got into an educational craze in this matter, and the way to get out of it is to limit the work of the State to where it belongs. We should no more expect to teach religion in the public schools than to teach it in a mechanic's institute for the learning of a technical trade. We have many excellent organizations for benevolent work that are not concerned with the subject of religion. Are these benevolent institutions atheistic or irreligious? I believe it is not the business of the State to teach religion. It is the business of the church. Before the State can teach religion it must get a little religion itself. Of course if we are to have religion taught by the State in this democratic country, we shall have it taught by the local government. What kind of a religion shall we get from the aldermen? The moment we go one step beyond what is the proper limit of a public school, that moment we give each sect a right to claim that its dogma shall be taught. The only safe way is not to teach any.” The idea that because a school is strictly secular it is irreligious is utterly absurd. It is no more so than a paper is infidel simply because it does not devote some space to the discussion of religious doctrines, or to the inculcation of godliness. Nobody8expects secular papers to do anything of that kind, and so nobody thinks of branding an otherwise unobjectionable paper as ungodly simply because it does not teach religion. It would be just the same in the case of the public schools if people could only once get the idea out of their heads that it is the duty of the State to give religious instruction. The question, “What kind of religion shall we get from the aldermen?” is a pertinent one, and is quite as applicable to other cities, and even to many rural districts, as it is to New York. If religion is to be taught in the schools it must be the religion of the party in power. In many places it would be the Roman Catholic religion, pure and simple, and those who did not like it might keep their children at home or send them to private schools. Another suggestion which Dr. Crosby makes is to the point; it is that “before the State can teach religion it must get a little religion itself.” Probably by that he means that only those who have experienced in their own hearts the power of religion are qualified to teach it. But it is quite as true in the sense that before the State can undertake to teach religion it must have a well-defined creed, that is, an established religion, and a State religion means nothing short of a union of Church and State. It is, therefore, not a matter of surprise that Dr. Crosby is opposed to teaching religion in the schools; the wonder is that any minister is in favor of it.