LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. =706=
Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius
The Bible: Should It Be in
the School Room?
The Question Considered Legally, Morally
and Religiously
Franklin Steiner
HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY
GIRARD, KANSAS
Copyright, 1924,
Haldeman-Julius Company.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE BIBLE: SHOULD IT BE IN THE SCHOOL ROOM?
INTRODUCTION
The fact that certain Protestant churches, strong politically, are
exerting their efforts to force the teaching of their religion in our
public schools against law, constitution, equity and the American
principle of no union of church and state: the further fact that at
the present time there is in existence a strong Protestant jesuitical
political secret order trying to put this measure on statute books
whether the people want it or not, is the author’s sole apology for
presenting this little book to the public. He claims for it no literary
merit, but hopes that all who are truly Americans, whether native or
foreign born, will circulate its facts and arguments.
FRANKLIN STEINER.
THE BIBLE: SHOULD IT BE IN THE SCHOOL ROOM?
CHAPTER I
_The Bible and the Sects--Shall Any Version of the Book Be Placed in
This Country’s Common Schools?_
A STATEMENT OF THE CASE. A stupendous effort is now being nationally
made by a particular and special class of our citizens, to place the
Bible, the text book of the Christian religion, in the curriculum
of our public schools. From the outset, there arises this curious
fact: It is that many Christian sects, one of them being the largest
in number of communicants, to say nothing of individual Christians,
have strenuously opposed the measure. The Jews, “unto whom were
committed the oracles of God” (Romans iii, 2) have also expressed their
disapprobation. Then add to these about two-thirds of our population
who profess no religion, and we find the movement limited to a small
section of our people. The fact that advocates of enforced Bible
reading are so enthusiastic, so intolerant of criticism and opposition,
and that they would compel the use of the Bible by law causes us to
inquire seriously into the question. Then the intense opposition of
religionists as well as of those professing no religion in particular,
causes us to conclude that the _propriety_ of such an inclusion in our
public school instruction is the main issue to be considered.
There arises before us the further fact that one class of people are
vigorously determined upon the use in the schools of a book of which
they are the partisans, while the world contains many more books of
the same character. Still another, that those who accept the book as
an authority are not agreed as to which edition or which version is
the correct one. Over this controversies have arisen, resulting in law
suits which have finally had to be decided by supreme courts. Here we
might surmise the cause of the intense opposition of some to the use
of the Bible in the schools, and of further discontent and controversy
should it be placed there. The advocates of the measure, if they think
themselves able to put it over, would make Bible reading compulsory.
Should they fail in this, they are agreeable that it should be read at
the discretion of the teacher. Should they still fail, they will ask
that _extracts_ be read. As a last resort, they will plead that it be
not _excluded_ and that it be read “without comment.” They are even
willing to concede that no child shall be compelled to take part in the
Bible reading exercise against the will of its parents.
Why, unlike any other school book, should it be read “without comment”?
Why the exception? The Bible from whatever view we take it, above all
other books, to be understood, must be commented upon and explained.
The whole presents a curious medley of circumstances and positions
which could hardly be duplicated when any other book is proposed for
use in the school room. All goes to prove that the advocates of the
proposal are very enthusiastic and determined to force the book in
the schools, on the best terms that they can obtain. Should any other
book be proposed for a course of public school education, under the
same conditions, no one will deny that its use would be unhesitatingly
rejected.[1]
[1] Religionists in some places are now opposing the use of Wells’
“Outline of History” in high schools and colleges because some of its
views are not orthodox and conventional. Yet they, a minority, would
force their Bible by law upon all.
IS THE BIBLE A RELIGIOUS AND SECTARIAN BOOK?
It is not our purpose to take part in any of the theological
controversies that in the past or at the present have raged around the
Bible. Yet, as the teaching of religion seems to be the desideratum of
the advocates of Bible reading in the schools, as we shall later prove;
and the opposition to such teaching on the part of others the cause
of the opposition to such reading, we are compelled to ask and answer
the query, Is the Bible a religious book? The meaning of the word
“religion” has been fixed by the best lexicographers and has been so
utilized by the best writers.
“The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the
existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny; to whom
obedience, service and honor are due.”--Webster’s International.
“An acknowledgment of our obligation to God as our creator, with a
feeling of reverence and love, and consequent duty or obedience to
him.”--Worcester.
“A belief in an invisible superhuman power (or powers) conceived of
after the analogy of the human spirit on which (or whom) man regards
himself as dependent.”--The Standard Dictionary.
“Any system of faith or worship.”--Imperial Dictionary.
“Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to
please a divine ruling power.”--Oxford Dictionary.
We are aware that a class of modern thinkers define and understand
religion differently, as does R. B. Westbrook in The Eliminator, page
12: “We use the word religion as it was used by Cicero, in the sense of
_Scruple_, implying the consciousness of a natural obligation wholly
irrespective of what one may believe concerning the gods.”
We must say that in the face of the five definitions first given, added
to the understanding and use of the word by religionists themselves, a
revolution in human thought and in the meaning of the English language
must take place before this can be seriously accepted as the correct,
understood, prevailing definition.
Following these guides, the best we can obtain, let us ask, Is the
Bible a religious book? Is its chief object the teaching of religion?
We think we need adduce no argument to prove that were those portions
of the Bible which inculcate religious doctrines eliminated, the
fly-leaves of the book alone would hold most of what remains. No one,
and least of all a Christian, will deny that it teaches “a belief in an
invisible superhuman power (or powers) conceived of after the analogy
of the human spirit”; or that it teaches “a divine ruling power,” “to
whom obedience, service and honor are due.”
The first three of the ten commandments are strictly religious and in
no way concern morality. They teach the absurd doctrine that the God of
the ancient Hebrews was the only God worthy of worship.
The sermon on the mount, which is perhaps more free from strict
religious teaching than any other portion of the Bible, yet says,
“Seek ye _first_ the kingdom of God and _his righteousness_ and all
these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. vi, 33). Here, again, the
Jewish God is referred to. The most beautiful of Jesus’ teachings are
his eulogy and defense of children. Even here he strictly maintains
religious doctrines, as when he says, in Matthew xviii, 6: “But whoso
shall offend one of these little ones _which believe in me_,” etc.
“In thus looking at the Bible from a distinctly religious point of
view, we are in perfect harmony with its writers; even with such
of them as adopt the narrative style, and will therefore engage
the greatest share of our attention. For when the books of the Old
Testament were set aside and preserved as a sacred book by the Jews,
and those of the New Testament were added to them by the Christians, it
was with no idea of drawing knowledge of nature or history from them,
but because they recognized them as the rule of faith and conduct;
and in the same way the writers themselves prepared their works and
gave publicity to them, not simply or chiefly in order to make their
readers accurately acquainted with the past, but to promulgate and
recommend what seemed to them to be religious truth.” (“Bible for
Learners,” Vol. 1, page 5.) Hence, however much Bible reading advocates
may cavil about the book as “literature” or “the fountain of morality,”
there can be no legitimate question of its object being to teach a
particular religion, and that its purpose in the school room is to do
the same.
Let us now ask another question, Is the Bible a sectarian book? Let us
first state that there is no such thing as a cosmopolitan or universal
religion. Prof. Max Müller, perhaps the greatest authority upon the
science of religion, has said: “Religion is a mental faculty which,
independent of, nay, in spite of, sense and reason, enables man to
apprehend the infinite _under different names and disguises_.”
Hence, man, in an effort to understand the infinite, has formed not
one but many religions; therefore we have Buddhism, Brahmanism,
Shintoism, Judaism, the mythology of the Greeks and Romans and
finally Christianism and Mohammedanism. In recent years there
has been developed Agnosticism which holds that the infinite is
incomprehensible. Religions and Bibles are all sectarian to the
devotees of other religions who do not accept them as true or
authoritative.
In the face of this broad truth, those who advocate reading the Bible
in the public school deny that it is sectarian. They would narrow
their definition of “sect” to that of the Standard Dictionary, which
defines it as “a body of persons distinguished by peculiarities of
faith and practice from other bodies adhering to the same general
system.” But Christianity consists of different bodies distinguished by
wide “peculiarities of faith and practice.” Some of these have their
own versions of the Bible, while others base their peculiarities upon
different interpretations and particular sections of the same version.
The widely divergent forms of Christianity, from Roman Catholicism
to Unitarianism, have their foundation and different versions and
interpretations. Those holding to one set of doctrines and practices
accept that version which sustains their contentions and reject those
which do not. Those making the nation-wide propaganda to place the
Bible in the schools are the Evangelical Protestants, who accept
the King James version. The question, “Is the King James version
sectarian?” has caused the long controversy which courts have been
called on to settle when opponents of Bible reading have taken legal
action to keep it out of the schools.
There is another English version of the Bible called the “Douay
version,” which is accepted by Roman Catholics, who not only deny that
the King James version is the correct one, but affirm that it teaches
dangerous and damning errors. Protestants retaliate by making the same
charges against the Douay version. Therefore, to either one of these,
the principal divisions of Christianity, the Bible of the other is
sectarian.
Let us give illustrations of the widely variant readings in these two
principal English versions of the Bible. When we have done so our
readers can perceive why such a bitter controversy has arisen between
the partisans of the different transcripts. He will also see the folly
and injustice of trying to force a book, which has been the center of
so much bitter animosity, into public schools supported by citizens
of all religious beliefs, who are compelled by the law of the land to
send their children there. We will take just a few illustrations from
hundreds.
In the King James Version 1 Corinthians xv, 51, is translated: “Behold,
I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed.” The Douay Version renders the same verse, “Behold, I tell
you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: _but we shall not all
be changed_.” Luke ii, 14, is translated in the King James, “Glory to
God in the highest, and on earth _peace to men of good will_.” The
Protestant “Revised Version” gives it still different:
“Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth _peace among men in whom he is well pleased_.”
The King James Version makes Matthew vi, 11, read, “Give us this
day our daily bread.” The Douay version says, “Give us this day our
_super-substantial_ bread.”
We now come to one difference of translation, which perhaps above
all others is the most startling and would arouse the greatest of
the theological controversies. Matthew iii, 1–2, reads, in the King
James Version: “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the
wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand.” The Douay Version gives it an entirely different meaning
when it makes the second verse read: “_Do penance_: for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand.” This controverted word occurs in the New Testament
fifty times and is so differently translated in the King James and
Douay Versions. In the Catholic church penance is one of the seven
sacraments, while Protestants do not recognize it at all, hence one
looks upon the Bible of the other as false and as a teacher of false
doctrines.
A more startling fact arises when we discover that not only are
Catholics and Protestants divided in opinion as to what the Bible
means and as to which version gives the correct meaning, but on this
point Protestant Bible scholars differ widely among themselves. This
was so notorious that in 1883 a “new version” was given the world.
While it corrected some mistakes of translation, it was far from being
acknowledged as satisfactory. We will here give just one illustration,
selected from many, of differences of translation among Protestant
Biblical scholars. Job xix, 25–27, is rendered in the King James
Version: “For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand
at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms
destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall
see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though
my reins be consumed within me.” This passage is to be found in the
Episcopal and other orthodox church funeral rituals. The “redeemer”
is supposed to be Christ, and Job is supposed to refer to his soul
in heaven. This is done in defiance of the fact that Job in other
passages states that death ends all. (See vii, 7–10; xiv, 7–12 and
xxxiv, 15.) Following are the translations of a number of well-known
Biblical scholars, which give it a different meaning and state an
entirely different situation:
“Yet I know that my Vindicator liveth
And will stand at length upon the earth;
And though with my skin this body be wasted away,
Yet in my flesh shall I see God.
Yea, I shall see him my friend;
My eyes shall behold him no longer an adversary;
For this my soul panteth within me.”
(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Noyes of Harvard Divinity School.)
“But I know that my avenger liveth;
Though it be at the end upon my dust,
My witness shall avenge these things,
And a curse alight upon mine enemies.”
(Translation of Dr. Dillon, in Skeptics of the Old Testament.)
“For I know that my Avenger liveth
And that hereafter he shall stand upon the earth;
And though after my skin this (flesh) be destroyed,
Yet even without my flesh shall I see God;
Whom I shall see for myself.
And mine eyes shall behold, and not another--
Though my vitals are wasting away within me.”
(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Albert Barnes, Presbyterian divine and
commentator.)
“As for me, I know it--my Avenger liveth,
And (lying) in the dust I shall receive his pledge;
Shaddai will bring to pass my desire,
And as my justifier I shall see God.”
(Translation of the Rev. Dr. T. K. Cheyne, Editor of The Encyclopedia
Biblica.)
This is one of the many passages in the Bible which in the King James
Version has been twisted to meet doctrinal ends. Again we repeat,
that were any other book containing so many controversial meanings,
especially among those who maintain its efficiency and credibility,
offered for use in the school room, it would be rejected at once.
Let us be honest with ourselves and with one another, and admit the
true motive of those who prolong this agitation to place the Bible in
the public schools. We have said that they represent the Evangelical
Protestant churches.
The Catholic church maintains its separate schools for the purpose
of teaching its children the common branches of knowledge side by
side with its religious doctrines. Protestants send their children to
the public schools, relying upon their churches and Sunday schools
alone for religious instruction. As their churches and Sunday schools
have failed to arouse sufficient interest, they now want to make
use of the public schools for religious propaganda. Hence their
Jesuitical attempts to have laws passed forcing their Bible into these
institutions. Quite naturally in a country whose national Constitution,
as well as practically all its state constitutions, proclaims divorce
between church and state, the Catholic, the Jew, the Agnostic, and
citizens of other opposing beliefs protest.