RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL.
[From our correspondent at Washington, D. C.] A MOVEMENT for religious instruction in the public schools is on in Washington. So far as the information of the public extends it had its inception in a sermon on February 5, by the prominent Episcopalian clergyman, Rev. Randolph H. McKim, which was prominently and fully reported in the press. In this discourse, the subject of which was "Morality and Religion in the Public Schools," attention was called "to the abnormal increase of crime of every sort, and especially that which violates honesty, chastity, and respect for law." As a remedy it was urged that "the youth of the land be given in the public schools, under the authority of the state, such moral and religious instruction as shall give assurance of the restoration of the public and private virtue which was ever the boast of the Republic." Specifically and at some length the speaker advocated the "inculcation of the Ten Commandments" in the public schools, and declared that "it is the duty of the state to provide for the teaching of the Decalogue to every child in the public schools." This discourse was followed shortly by a public call, signed by Dr. McKim and other prominent clergymen, and several prominent citizens, including District Commissioner McFarland, for a public meeting of clergymen and representatives of all denominations in Washington to consider the matter. This meeting was held on the morning of February 20, and was quite extensively noticed in the daily papers. Hon. H. A. Herbert, former secretary of the navy, presided at the meeting. Following is the text of the resolutions introduced by Dr. McKim: Resolved, That a careful study of the moral life of our people reveals symptoms of decay, which seriously threaten the soundness and stability of the body politic. When we consider the abnormal increase of crime in the last twenty-five years—it has grown four times as fast as the population—we can not but feel that we are face to face with a national peril of a most serious character.
Resolved, That one of the obvious and potent causes of this ominous and alarming increase of crime is to be found in the too frequent neglect of moral and religious instruction in our schools—public and private.
Resolved, That, tho firmly convinced that the principle of complete separation between church and state is sacred and inviolable, we yet believe that to divorce the state from religion would be a fatal error and a betrayal of the trust we have received from our fathers.
Resolved, That the practical exclusion of the teaching of morals and religion from our state-supported schools is contrary to sound public policy, is a reversal of the principle on which our fathers founded the Republic, and is fraught with grave peril to the future of the American people.
Resolved, That, as our fathers incorporated into our statute law the principles of religion, as in the laws against blasphemy and polygamy and perjury, so it is our duty to incorporate those same principles into our system of education, so that every child in our schools may be taught the first principles of morality upon the basis of belief in an almighty and righteous Ruler and Judge of the universe.
Resolved, That, if the state may justly retain laws and customs which are rooted in religion, in obedience to the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, then there exists an equal right to provide for the teaching in her schools of theistic ethics. If the former is not a violation of religious liberty, neither would the latter be.
Resolved, That, inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of our people desire their children to be instructed in the first principles of morals and religion, it is a violation of the broad democratic principle on which our government rests, that the will of this great majority should be defeated, on the plea of not offending the views and convictions of the very small minority who would object to such teaching—especially when, by means of a conscience clause, any parent could be guaranteed the right to withdraw his child from any moral or religious teaching distasteful to him.
Resolved, That, in the judgment of this conference, composed of ministers and laymen of all the various religious communions in the city of Washington, the code of precepts known as the Ten Commandments forms incomparably the best basis for the teaching of morality, and for enforcing the duties of the citizen to the state and to his fellow citizens.
Resolved, That, without distinction of creed, we recommend and petition the board of education of our city to introduce the study of these Ten Commandments into our schools, believing that all the diverse religious elements among us—Jew and Christian, Protestant and Roman Catholic—might find common ground in the inculcation of those sublime utterances of the Divine Will, and in the beautiful summary of them in the law of love—love to God and love to our neighbor. Such a regulation would be but the carrying into effect of Rule 46 of the board, which requires that each teacher "should endeavor to inculcate obedience to the laws of God."
Resolved, That we favor the use of text-books on morals and manners, as a valuable and necessary element in true education.
Resolved, That, believing it entirely possible to make such a selection of readings from both the Old and New Testaments as would be acceptable alike to Protestants and Roman Catholics and Hebrews, we urge that steps be taken to provide such a lectionary, with a view to its being carefully studied in our schools, with the double purpose of familiarizing the children with the finest literature in the world, and instilling into their minds the principles of the most exalted morality, together with reverence and love for Almighty God.
Resolved, That, while we respect the convictions of all our fellow citizens, and would restrict no man's religious liberty, or infringe upon the right of any parent to control the religious education of his child, we believe the time has come for the people of this land to insist that in the education of their children shall be included the instruction in the fundamental principles of morality and religion. The Post says that "practically every religious denomination in the city was represented at the meeting. Among the several scores of ministers present were Bishop Henry Y. Satterlee, of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington; Rabbis Stern and Simon, of the Washington Hebrew Congregation; Mr. W. W. Prescott, editor of the Review and Herald, the church paper of the Seventh-day Adventists, and vice-president of the General Conference of that denomination; the Right Rev. Dennis O'Connell, rector of the Catholic University; Rev. Thomas Simms Lee, Rev. Chas. W. Currier, and Rev. Father McCarthy, all of the Catholic Church; Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Greene and Rev. E. Hez Swem, both of the Baptist Church; and Rev. Dr. J. G. Butler and Rev. Charles H. Butler, both of the Lutheran Church." The Star says that "speeches were made by Rev. Dr. Edward Everett Hale, Chaplain of the Senate, and Rev. Dr. J. E. Gilbert, secretary of the American Society of Religious Education, both of whom favored the institution of such a system as had been proposed. The president of the District Board of Education, General Boynton, who stated that he spoke for himself only, said that it was his opinion that all of the members of the board would acquiesce in any plan determined upon by the meeting." Dr. McKim's resolutions were seconded by District Commissioner Henry B. F. Macfarland, after they had been received with applause by the major portion of those present. Mr. Macfarland stated that, while he did not favor any union of church and state, he believed that the District schools, which are as good as those anywhere in the country, should have a system of religious moral education. Letters, cordially favoring the resolutions, were read at the meeting from the Secretary of War; Hon. John W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State; Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Brewer, and Mr. W. J. Boardman. The only sentiment expressed by the Catholics was that of Rev. Charles W. Currier, of St. Mary's Church, that the matter should be given further consideration before any action was taken. Rabbi Simon, of the Washington Hebrew Congregation, is reported to have made an earnest address, in which he spoke most courteously and kindly of all denominations of the Christian belief, but objected to the form of the resolutions, and to the recommendation of the adoption of such a system in the public schools. He expressed the belief that the school is not the proper place for such instruction, and objected to the fact that some of those present had referred to the United States as a Christian country. That this is a religious, but not a Christian, country, he continued, was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1902. The adoption of such resolutions, he concluded, would be an admission that both the churches and the schools have failed in their duty. He did believe in the text-book method of teaching morals. It was noted that W. W. Prescott, editor of the Review and Herald, the Seventh-day Adventist paper published in that city, asked whether the fact that there were so many intelligently-expressed arguments on opposite sides of this question did not signify that delay should be resorted to? This fact, he thought, ought also to suggest the question whether or not the proposed course was the wisest one. He then opposed the resolutions on the ground that they were not American in spirit. He thought such a movement would result in trampling on rights of conscience, which was a matter of liberty to a minority as well as a majority body. He said even the agnostic believes, and has his rights. Mr. Prescott read a decision upon the matter of religious education of children that was handed down by Judge Stanley Matthews in Cincinnati about 1867, and said there could be no question of minority or majority in matters of conscience. Individual opinion must always be respected, he said, no matter how many are on the other side. The Post stated that "it is on the ground of patriotism that the proposition is chiefly opposed by the Seventh-day Adventists, who are always opposed to anything that savors in the least degree of governmental control of religion." It was finally decided to refer the resolutions to a committee of fifteen, that they might have more deliberate and extended consideration. From the Times we take the personnel of the committee as follows: Dr. Merrill E. Gates, former president of Amherst College and now secretary of the Board of Indian Commissioners, is appointed chairman of the committee. The other members appointed are Rev. Wallace Radcliffe, Rev. Dr. James E. Gilbert, Bishop Earl Cranston, Dr. Charles W. Needham, Rev. Frederick D. Power, Hon. Wayne MacVeagh, Rev. Dr. J. G. Butler, Rev. Dr. Edward Everett Hale, John Joy Edson, Rabbi Louis Stern, Rt. Rev. H. Y. Satterlee, W. W. Prescott, editor of the Review and Herald; Monsignor O'Connell, of the Catholic University, and Rev. Dr. Randolph H. McKim. Of these, three may be said to be laymen, Dr. Charles W. Needham, Hon. Wayne MacVeagh, and John Joy Edson. When this committee shall have come to some agreement, and made a report to President Herbert, he will call another general meeting to discuss the matter. A Pertinent Letter on the Subject.
EDITOR Post: I read with much interest the report of the sermon by Rev. Randolph H. McKim, in which he suggests as a remedy for the moral decadence of the nation the teaching of the Ten Commandments in the public schools. It is refreshing, indeed, in this age of lawless teaching, when many from the pulpits are teaching that the Decalogue has been either abolished or changed, to hear so venerable and influential a clergyman as Dr. McKim exalt the downtrodden law of God so highly. Evidently the learned rector of the Church of the Epiphany believes that the Ten Commandments are still binding, and constitute the very essence of morality, and should be taught to the children from infancy. The Lord anciently enjoined this responsibility upon all parents. See Deut. 6: 7-9. But, suppose this suggestion is carried into effect. What about the fourth commandment? This says very plainly that the "seventh day is the Sabbath." Dr. McKim says this should be taught the children in the schools. Shall it be taught as God gave it, or as the church practices it? The seventh day is not Sunday. There is no law in the Bible that says anything about keeping Sunday. Shall the children be taught during the week a law which says, "the seventh day is the Sabbath," and on Sunday be taught in the churches to disregard the very day this law commands, and keep instead a pagan holiday, nowhere commanded in the Scripture? Would it not help the youth to a higher regard for the Decalogue for the church of the living God to keep this precept with the other nine? How can the youth be taught7to highly regard this moral code, when every week the church, as a body, disregards one of its plainest precepts? It seems that the position of Dr. McKim concerning the perpetuity and unchangeable character of the law is the same as that of the Seventh-day Adventists. They teach that the Ten Commandments are binding, and should be taught to the children as well as to those who are older, and then put their teaching into practise by observing the day enjoined in the law—the seventh day. The rector of the Church of the Epiphany teaches that this law is also binding, and should be taught the youth. The difference between the doctor and the Adventists seems to be in practise rather than teaching.
G. B. THOMPSON.