IS SECULARISM NECESSARILY INFIDELITY?
By Alonzo T. Jones
IS secularism infidelity? Is a secular institution necessarily a godless and dangerous institution? That such is the case is the impression conveyed by some who urge that religion should be taught in the state schools. But these attach a very erroneous meaning to the word "secular." They use the word in a bad sense, as though it meant only what is godless, and as though it were utterly opposed to, and at war with, religion. They make little or no distinction between secularism and atheism. But as a matter of fact, there is not necessarily any relation between the words "secularism" and "atheism." The word "secular" is defined thus: "Pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to things not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly." It is true that that which is secular does not pertain directly to that which is spiritual. But it is also true that it is not essentially opposed to the spiritual, nor does it inevitably lead away from that which is religious. Instruction in the sciences, in music, poetry, and art, is secular instruction. Schools that give such instruction only, are secular schools. But they need not by any means be wicked institutions. Nor can they be classed as infidel and godless institutions simply because religion is not made a part of the daily instruction. A secular school is no more opposed to religion than is a mercantile store, a boot shop, a bank, or any other lawful place of business. And it would be as reasonable for parents to insist on having prayer and religious services in all government offices and places of business with which their sons and daughters are connected, as to demand that the state shall teach their children religion in the public schools. All are alike secular. The state is not a religious institution. It is not ordained for the promotion of religion. In entering the domain of the spiritual, it leaves its natural realm. In attempting to impart religious instruction, it attempts to do more than it ought, more than it is ordained to do. The result of such attempts is thus forcibly and truthfully stated by Lord Macaulay: "It may be laid down as a universal rule that a government which attempts more than it ought will perform less." "Governments which attempt things beyond their reach are likely not only to fail, but to produce an effect directly the opposite of that which they contemplate as desirable."—Review of Leigh Hunt. Let none, then, attempt to force the state to do this sort of work.