THE CHURCH AND STATE MOVEMENT IN WASHINGTON.
By John D. Bradley
THE regular meeting of the board of education of the District of Columbia, on the evening of April 12, was devoted almost entirely to another hearing on the matter of the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools of the District, which has become so prominent an issue, and been so warmly debated in Washington. One week before, a delegation representing the church conference, and headed by Hon. Hilary A. Herbert and Rev. Randolph H. McKim, appeared before the board in the interest of the demand for definite religious instruction in the schools. A batch of petitions was presented, and about three-quarters of an hour spent in urging upon the board the scheme fathered by Mr. McKim, and approved and recommended to the board by the church conference called at his instance. The second hearing was accorded a delegation representing the Seventh-day Adventists, who have been perhaps foremost in opposition to the scheme advocated at the previous hearing. The delegation, which was composed of seven Adventist ministers, was headed by Mr. K. C. Russell, chairman of the Adventist Religious Liberty Bureau. A formal remonstrance "vigorously protesting against any change in the public school system in the matter of religious training," and a batch of petitions in harmony therewith, were presented, and these were supplemented by addresses by members of the delegation. The hearing lasted just three-quarters of an hour. It was not open to the general public, and the following regarding it is gathered from the newspaper reports. In opening the discussion, Mr. Russell stated that the 126 petitions which were submitted in support of the remonstrance, had been signed by 2,562 persons, gathered from all classes. Many of them, he said, were members of the Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Unitarian, and People's churches, and a number of the signers were Hebrews. The point was made that the signatures were individual, and not representative. Mr. Russell declared that "religion is not a matter of majorities," and that "the conscience of one man is as sacred as the consciences of the many." The formal remonstrance, which was headed "A Protest Based on Christian Principles," was read to the board by Prof. W. W. Prescott. The text of the remonstrance declared that the position of those presenting it was not one of hostility to religion, the church, the state, or the public schools. The church and state, it was contended, are both divinely ordained, but for entirely distinct purposes—one for spiritual and the other for temporal ends, and the prosperity of both depends upon the faithfulness with which each follows "the divinely-ordained plan of complete separation the one from the other." The movement to introduce religious teaching into the schools was designated as a "violation of a fundamental principle of the Christian religion." "The adoption of the proposed plan can result only in friction, dissatisfaction, sectarian strife, and animosity," declared the remonstrance. "It will degrade religion from a matter of conversion and salvation, to a question of contention and courts." Professor Prescott characterized it as an unchristian act for professed Christians, even tho they be in a large majority, to seize upon the power and instrumentalities of the state, for the purpose of propagating religion, and said that the present situation presents a grand opportunity for the board to exemplify Christian principle by holding that there should be liberty, and a complete separation of church and state. Prof. A. T. Jones delivered an address in which he contended that, in the interests of domestic tranquility, the whole question should be excluded, even from consideration, by the board. The matter, he said, was outside the province of the board. He stated that there was already in the schools the reading of the Bible and the teaching of "obedience to the laws of God." "Those who have raised this issue," he said, "have said this is not sufficient, and that there must be the specific teaching of religion. When that shall be gained, how long will it be before the demand will be made for specific sectarian, or even denominational, religious teaching? And it is perfectly plain that before the thing shall have gone that far, the chief question before the city of Washington will be how to maintain domestic tranquility. Another item which adds great emphasis to this point is the fact that, it has been stated in the public prints, if this matter shall be pushed to the limit the leaders have proposed, the issue will be contested even to the Supreme Court of the United States. Can it, then, be to the interest of the schools of the District of Columbia that the school board shall allow itself to be involved in such a course of litigation? And when that shall occur, then again one of the most serious phases of the whole question will be how to maintain domestic tranquility." Mr. W. A. Colcord, who made the final address, said in part: "Because there are homes in which religion is not taught, it does not follow that the state, or some institution of the state, should undertake to teach it. The home, the church, and the private school are the natural, legitimate, and proper places for teaching religion. Because crime, immorality, and irreligion are on the increase, does it follow that religion should be taught in the public schools? If the church teaches religion and the state teaches religion, both are engaged in the same work; there is no distinction between the two. Furthermore, if it is a proper thing for the state to use its money and its instrumentalities to teach religion, it is proper for it to go a step further and use its power in requiring obedience to the religion taught. This is the next logical step, and this means persecution." At this meeting of the board of education, in addition to the protest of the Adventists, petitions protesting against the introduction of religion in the schools, were received from the Brotherhood of Ohav Shulum Hebrew Congregation, the Grace Evangelical Lutheran church, A. S. Solomons, S. S. Burdette, and E. Burdette. A letter of protest from Rabbi Louis Stern was also read. No action was taken by the board of education with reference to the matter, and it is understood that no action will be taken until the president of the board, Gen. H. V. Boynton, who has been quite sick for some weeks, is able to attend. It is desired that "the full membership of the body shall be present when the question is finally disposed of." So the question will remain pending indefinitely.