THIS movement at the national capital, to which we have previously referred, has moved that city as nothing in this line has done before. As recently noted, the convention of ministers had appointed a special committee of fifteen to consider the resolutions presented by Dr. McKim, and make a report. At a subsequent call of the convention, the committee reported as follows:
At the first meeting of the committee, fourteen of the fifteen members were present, Bishop Cranston alone being absent and out of town. After attending the first meeting, Dr. Edward Everett Hale resigned from the committee because the committee's work was concerned with the affairs of the District of Columbia, and since he is not a resident of the District he wrote that he must withdraw from the committee.
Of the fourteen who continued members of the committee, eleven have signed the report. Two members of the committee refrained from signing the report for reasons which each wishes to state briefly to the conference.
Your committee respectfully report: That we are heartily in accord with the purpose of the resolutions offered by the Rev. Dr. McKim; and we submit the following:
1. The American principle of the entire separation of church and state, we believe to be right. It should be carefully maintained. We advocate nothing that will in any wise compromise it; and nothing which shall interfere with the right of parents to control the religious education of their children. But we do not believe that the maintenance of this principle should be interpreted as necessitating an irreligious state or an atheistic education. We rejoice in the good work already done in our public schools. We believe that our schools inculcate morality, and we hope to see them teaching it still more effectively. We have no revolutionary changes to suggest; but we do believe that a further development of the work of the schools under the admirable regulations for their government already formulated by the board of education of the District of Columbia, would contribute materially to the strengthening of character and the development of good citizenship through our public schools. We heartily commend the regulation long in force which provides for the reading of the Bible and the use of the Lord's Prayer in opening the sessions of our schools. To exclude the teaching of theistic morals and Biblical righteousness from our public schools, would be not simply to ignore the principles on which our fathers founded the republic, but utterly to reverse those principles. Our fathers rightfully incorporated into our statute law the recognition of certain principles of religion and morality, as in the laws against blasphemy, polygamy, and perjury. The state justly retains laws and customs which are rooted in principles of religion common to all civilized nations, and retains them in obedience to the will of the overwhelming majority of our people; and we hold that it is right and fitting for the state, in the public schools which the state maintains, to make provision for the teaching of these common principles of morality and religion.
Teaching in Church and Home.
2. As residents of the District of Columbia, we heartily commend that recognition of a common basis of religious belief underlying our common American citizenship, which led to the adoption of rule 46 for the government of the public schools of the District, which requires each teacher to "endeavor to inculcate truthfulness, self-control, temperance, frugality, industry, obedience to parents, . . . and obedience to the laws of God." We bear witness to the efficiency and faithfulness of the great body of our public-school teachers in their efforts to inculcate morality in the school life of the young. But we feel that the alarming increase of certain crimes in our country within the past twenty-five years, clearly indicates the need of more thorough and more definite education in ethics applied to conduct—in that true morality which has characterized those peoples in the history of the world who have been believers in an almighty, righteous Ruler, and Judge of the Universe. While we believe that moral and religious training should first of all and chiefly be given in the family and the church, and that the doctrinal teaching which is peculiar to each church or religious body, should be given in that church or in the home, and should be excluded from the public school—we are, nevertheless, entirely convinced that the first principles of morality, based on the belief in Almighty God, should be carefully and systematically taught in our public schools. We believe that our people generally favor the instruction of their children in the first principles of morality and religion. In our American system, the state has undertaken the maintenance of public schools for the children of all, and has based the right of the state to educate the young on the duty of the state to fit the young to become good citizens. We hold that the only foundation for good citizenship is in morality based on belief in Almighty God. Therefore, it is the duty of the state to incorporate such teaching in its school system.
Acceptable to All Creeds.
3. We believe that it is entirely practicable to make such a selection of readings from the Old and New Testaments as will prove acceptable alike to Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Hebrews. We urge the taking of steps to provide such a lectionary that by its use the children of our schools may have instilled into their minds the principles of the most exalted morality, together with reverence and love for Almighty God; provided that such a lectionary should be of optional use by the individual teacher, in place of the present method.
4. We recommend to the conference that it petition the board of education of our city to introduce into our schools the systematic study of morals by making use of those Ten Commandments which have served as the basis of morals and law for all modern civilized nations, and of the beautiful summary of those commandments in the law of love of God and of our neighbor, and also by the introduction and use of carefully-prepared textbooks upon morals as applied to conduct. We ask this not only in behalf of the children from homes and churches where moral and religious training is systematically given, but still more earnestly do we ask it for the sake of that great multitude of children in our public schools who have no such training at home or in any church. And, of course, we ask that from such special moral and religious training in the school, any parent who may conscientiously wish to do so shall have the right to have his child excused.
MERRILL E. GATES, Chairman,
RANDOLPH H. MCKIM,
HENRY Y. SATTERLEE,
D. J. O'CONNELL,
CHARLES W. NEEDHAM,
WALLACE RADCLIFFE,
FREDERICK D. POWER,
J G. BUTLER,
JOHN JOY EDSON,
WAYNE MACVEAGH,
JAMES E. GILBERT.
Minority Objections.
Two of the committee declined to sign the report, and presented their reasons. From the standpoint of the Jewish people, the following remarks were made by
RABBI STERN:
I am in favor of moral instruction in the nature of applied ethics. Nor am I opposed to the use of a lectionary containing selections from the Bible acceptable to all creeds, to which might be added suitable literature from any source other than sacred for the use of the teachers. But I oppose the proposition to make the Ten Commandments a basis for moral instruction, even as an Israelite, one of the race through which the Decalogue became the heritage of the world. I do not favor it because the Decalogue sets forth plain religious teachings, and definite religious instruction has not, and should not have, a place in our public schools.
It is said that a union of church and state be one thing, a union of religion and state quite another. This is undoubtedly true etymologically considered, but not when put to the practical test. Not the state, but the church, is to propagate religious teachings. The public school is a machinery of the state; use it for religious propaganda and you establish a union of church and state.
Since the promulgation of the Decalogue, 3,000 years ago, its spirit has permeated civilization. The laws of nations are based on its precepts, and even tho they be not taught in our public schools, their influence is constantly in evidence. Great crimes are not committed out of ignorance of the enormity of the offense, but as the result of viciousness and through the absence of self-control. And self-control is taught in our public schools together with other virtues that develop character and good citizenship.
Then the following minority report was presented by a Seventh-day Adventist member,
PROF. W. W. PRESCOTT:
We respectfully represent that we earnestly love the religion of Jesus Christ, entertain the highest respect for His true church, and sincerely desire the peace and prosperity of the nation; that we believe in the Bible as the Word of God, a Book of divine authority, and in the Ten Commandments as the basis of all genuine morality; that we recognize the present alarming increase of crime, and that we are heartily in favor of any legitimate effort to lessen all forms of wrongdoing; that we believe in a Christian education, the only true basis of which is the Bible as the divine revelation of the principles of righteousness in character and conduct; but in the interest of a pure religion, and uncorrupted church, and the peace of the state, we are compelled to protest most earnestly against any movement which we are convinced violates the principles of Christianity, even tho it grows out of a sincere desire to advance the interests of the kingdom of Christ upon the earth.
We make this remonstrance against the demand for the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools:
Separation of Church and State.
1. Because we are convinced that it is contrary to the Christian principle of the complete separation of church and state. And we further maintain that there is no difference in principle between a union of religion and the state and a union of church and state. This movement is declared to be an effort to bring to bear upon the board of education the influence of the church, as represented in a conference composed of representatives of all the various religious denominations. Other citizens equally interested in the public schools, but who do not belong to the church, are not invited to be present or to take part in the deliberations of this conference. This is plainly a church movement. It should not be forgotten, as stated in the United States Senate report adopted January 19, 1829, that "all religious despotism commences by combination and influence, and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it, and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequence."
If this movement is successful, it will devolve upon the representatives of the church to direct in the preparation of the required books and the necessary instruction for the use of the teachers in the schools. The state will then, at the demand of the church and under the guidance of the church, teach such principles of such a religion as the majority of the church may agree upon. This can be nothing else than a union both of religion and the state, and of the church and the state. The very fact that it is thought necessary to introduce into this recommendation for religious instruction in the public schools a conscience clause, permitting the withdrawal of a certain class of children while the paid servants of the state are giving religious instruction to another class of pupils, demonstrates most clearly that the proposed plan both enters the realm of conscience and violates the true principles of religious liberty.
Children of Unbelievers.
Christian liberty recognizes the right not to believe, as well as the right to believe, and in a public school the children of unbelievers ought not to be exposed to contempt by any exercise which separates them into a distinct class. Furthermore, the right on the part of the state to introduce religious instruction with a conscience clause involves the right to do it without a conscience clause. We avoid all the consequences involved in the wrong principle by denying the principle.
2. Because religious instruction in the public schools necessarily establishes a state theology. The state, at the demand of the church, must decide what religion, and what tenets of that religion, shall be taught. It must settle differences of opinion, not only between religionists and non-religionists, but also between the different sects of the favored religion.
3. Because religious instruction in the public schools involves the compulsory support of a state theology. All classes of citizens are taxed to support the public schools. All have equal rights in them. The teaching of religion will necessarily interfere with these rights.
James Madison's Warning.
4. Because this movement to introduce religious instruction into the public schools is a menace to religious freedom. In the words of James Madison: "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?"
5. Because the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools will infringe upon the sacred rights of conscience, and involves a disregard of the conscience of the minority on the part of the majority. "The rights of conscience are individual and personal, and are not to be settled by the arithmetic of putting many consciences on the one side against a few on the other." It has been well said: "True Christianity never shields itself behind majorities."
6. Because this demand for religious instruction to be given by the state is contrary to the principles of Protestantism as established by the reformers. They opposed the intrusion of the civil magistrate in matters of faith. "Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate." They also declared that "in matters of conscience the majority has no power." These lessons of the Reformation ought never to be forgotten, and these principles ought never to be violated.
7. Because we believe that the effort to lessen crime and lawlessness by introducing religious instruction into the public schools, being itself wrong in principle, will not be effective in securing the desired result. We are convinced that the perils which now beset both the church and the state call loudly for the authoritative inculcation of the principles of righteousness—the principles of the Ten Commandments—but we are as firmly convinced that the proper place for giving this instruction is in the home, the church, and the private school supported by voluntary contribution, and not in the public school supported by compulsory taxation.
Other Objections.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Catholic representative, Mgr. D. J. O'Connell, changed his tactics and favored the proposition, as did some other prominent men, there were several men of influence who saw in the move a decided menace to religious liberty. Dr. Muir and other prominent Baptist clergymen stood out against the proposed innovation, and others, while not desiring to be understood as antagonizing religion, saw the danger of its being taught under the auspices of the state.
The positive bias of the advocates of this disguised church-and-state scheme was shown when Dr. McKim, leader of the movement, got the floor, and after a strong statement in favor of his scheme, took advantage of parliamentary tactics to close the7discussion, and this even to the extent of cutting off a gentleman to whom the floor belonged, and who had yielded it to extend Dr. McKim's time. But the vote in favor of the committee report was not by any means unanimous, being 39 ayes to 22 nays—a goodly number present not voting.
Professor Prescott has received many commendations of his position, some prominent gentlemen assuring him that his protest is unanswerable.
