_The Bible and the Courts--Law, Constitution and the Judges Are Opposed
to Religion in Our Common Schools._
We will begin with fundamentals by calling attention to the first
amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads:
“_Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof._”
While this does not take away from the states the power to establish
religious observances, it has been repeated, even with stronger
guarantees, in practically all of our state constitutions. The
exceptions are New Hampshire, where the constitution can authorize a
municipality to provide support for Protestant ministers; Pennsylvania
and Tennessee, where a belief in God and future rewards and punishments
is a constitutional qualification for office; Arkansas, whose
constitution declares ineligible to office and incompetent as a witness
any person who denies the existence of God; and Maryland, where belief
in future rewards and punishments is essential to competency as a
witness or juror. Hence, upon the principle of no union of religion
with the state, our fundamental laws are almost unanimous.
This is distinctly an American idea. In Europe every country except
Turkey recognized the Christian religion, and all had a state
church. All the thirteen colonies had the same except Rhode Island,
Pennsylvania and Delaware. The last two granted religious equality only
to Protestants. Only in the first was there absolute religious freedom.
Cobb says: “The history of religion and the church in America, as those
stand related to the civil government, presents features unparalleled
in the rest of Christendom” ... “a peculiarly American production.”
(“The Rise of Religious Liberty in America,” page 1.) The churches,
from the first, opposed the religious liberties of the Constitution,
and either openly defied them or covertly evaded them. They do the
same today. “The practical recognition of entire individual freedom
of thought and action in reference to matters of religion has not,
however, always been conceded” (Illinois Reports, Vol. 245, page
341). The present efforts to place the Bible in the schools are a
manifestation of the old-time evasion and defiance. The orthodox
church, from the very nature of the pretenses that it makes, has never
ceased to seek favors from the state and to demand emoluments in one
form or another.
When a person or an organization lifts a voice in opposition to the
introduction of the Bible in the school room, bibliolaters immediately
raise the hue and cry, “Enemy of the Bible!” They do this as a means
of starting the “odium theologicum.” Their tactics here are intended
not to answer the arguments of their opponents, but to crush them by
opprobrium. The statement that opponents of the Bible in the schools
are necessarily enemies of it is not only untrue, but has no purpose,
except the intent be to blind the eyes of the public. The Bible as
a work of literature no more has “enemies” than have the works of
Shakespeare, Rabelais, Plato, Homer, Milton, or the productions of
other writers, ancient or modern. It is to the position claimed for
the Bible and the unwarranted assertions concerning it made by the
very people who are trying to force it by law into the schools, that
exception is taken. All have the right to view and interpret the Bible
as they choose, but no one interpretation should have the prestige of
the law, considering that there are so many of them and that our law
recognizes no particular form of religion.
Others raise the hue and cry that the opposition to Bible reading
in the schools comes from Catholic sources. Even if this were true,
it would only prove that the Catholic has the right to object to
another religion in which he does not believe, being crammed down his
children’s throats by the civil law. The fact that this church, the
oldest existing Christian church, opposes it, to say nothing of others,
and of people who belong to no church--and these include two-thirds of
our population--only demonstrates the injustice of the proposal. To say
that justice should not be administered, merely because it would be
granted to a certain people, is a poor argument in favor of injustice.
Whenever and wherever Catholics attempt to make use of the public
schools as a place of propaganda for their church, as Protestants are
doing when they force their Bible there, we will then and there oppose
them with the same logic we are now advancing against Protestants.
Among the side issues brought forward to befog the minds of the citizen
is the plea that the Bible should be read in the schools because all
should know something about it. But have we not a millionaire Bible
society to publish it, churches, ministers and Sunday school teachers
numbering into the hundred thousands whose special business is to teach
and preach this book? Are not these at the disposal of all who want
such teaching and preaching? The plea is a subterfuge. They want it
there so that it may be forced, by the authority of law, upon those
who do not want it. Their plea that they are willing that it be read
“without comment,” places them logically and morally in an exceedingly
unenviable position. Those who want the Bible in the school room hold
the book to be the inspired word of God. Do they want it recognized in
the schools as such, or not as such, or are they indifferent to either
position? If either of the last two, would they be so anxious to have
laws forcing it there? The Bible brings forward multitudes of questions
of religion, history, science, ethnology, anthropology, archeology,
morality and so on. In the study of the book are all these to be
neglected? If they are, the Bible would not be studied intelligently.
The “without comment” plea is equivalent to a confession that they do
not want it so studied.
THE OHIO CASE
Where the real merits of the case have been before a court for
consideration as to the legality of the reading of the Bible in the
public schools, the decisions have invariably been that it was illegal,
unconstitutional, and subversive of the rights of those who objected
to such reading. This is so well recognized now that Bible advocates
generally, as a last resort, advocate only the reading of a book of
_extracts_ from the Bible, a proposal to a consideration of which we
shall give our attention later. The first historic case of interest
is the Ohio case. The circumstances were these: In the year 1854 the
school board of the city of Cincinnati adopted a rule requiring that
a chapter from the Bible be read each morning by the teacher on the
opening of a public school session. In 1869, the board, acting on the
protests of citizens who by such reading considered that their rights
were invaded, repealed this rule. Whereupon, the Protestant church
people of Cincinnati applied to the Superior Court for an injunction to
restrain the board from enforcing the repeal. Their plea was, in brief:
The fact that Protestants were in the majority, and therefore their
will should be obeyed; that Christianity was the common law of the
land, and that therefore its teachings could not be denied a place in
the schools; that the constitution of the Northwest Territory provided
for the teaching of “religion, morality, and knowledge”; that to keep
the Bible out of the schools would be to turn the schools over to the
control of “Infidel sects”; that many children would remain in total
ignorance of the Bible did they not study it in the common schools.
The school board was represented by two of the ablest lawyers in Ohio,
Hon. Stanley Matthews, afterwards United States senator, and at the
time of his death a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States;
and the Hon. George Hoadley, afterwards governor of Ohio. We quote
but a part of Judge Matthews’ argument, though all of it is worthy of
reproduction:
“I do say that the reading of the Holy Bible in the manner repealed
by this resolution, is the teaching of a dogma in religion, held by
only a portion of the religious community, objected to by a large
part of the others, and that it is in a just, true and sober sense, a
merely sectarian book.
“But it is asked by some, who by asking betray their want of
comprehension of the real question: Have Protestants no rights?
Cannot the majority of the community insist upon their consciences?
Must the right of minorities alone be consulted? Are we to be ruled
by Catholics, or Jews, or Infidels? The answer is obvious and easy:
_Protestants have no rights_, as such, _which do not at the same
time_ and to the same extent belong to Catholics as such, to Jews and
Infidels. Protestants have a civil right to enjoy their own belief,
to worship in their own way, to read the Bible and teach it as a part
of their religion. But they have _no right in_ this respect _to any
preference from the state_ or any of its institutions. They have _no
right_ to insist upon _Protestant practices at public expense_, or in
public buildings, or to turn public schools into seminaries for the
dissemination of Protestant ideas.
“They can claim nothing on the score of conscience which they cannot
concede equally to all others. It is not a question of majorities
or minorities, for if the conscience of the majority is to be the
standard, then there is no such thing as conscience at all. It is
against the predominance and power of majorities that the right of
conscience are protected: and have need to be.
“For--and that is the gist of the thing--the reading of the Holy
Scriptures in the appropriate commencement of the morning daily
exercises of the public school _is the teaching_ of the _religious
dogma_ that they are the inspired word of God: and if it were not so
held by the Protestant members of this community, there would be no
such lawsuit here today as there is.
“If it were the writings of Epictetus, of Seneca, or of Pliny, or
moral philosophy, or anything of human composition and origin only,
that taught the purest and highest morality, nobody would be found to
pay the expense of filing this bill to compel its daily reading.
“It is because that exercise is intended, and valued only as it
is intended, to teach the Christian doctrine as to the scheme of
salvation offered by Christ, and the Protestant doctrine that the
book without note or comment is the infallible rule of faith and
practice.
“And therefore I say that the practice to be perpetuated by the
power of the civil arm in this suit, is a practice which teaches a
_religious dogma_, and in a sectarian sense. And I say that it is
so indisputable, it is so self-evident--it is written upon every
countenance in this room--that nothing else than that could account
for the extraordinary interest taken in this trial and the efforts
which are made to secure the interposition of this court.”
The case caused great bitterness of feeling, was hotly contested, and
finally carried to the Supreme Court of Ohio. There, in December,
1872, it was decided against the churches and in favor of the school
board. (See Ohio Reports, Vol. 23, pages 211–254.) The real, practical
question was, Had the school board the right to adopt what rules it
pleased, without dictation from the courts? It was held that the Board
had such a right and that any error the board might make must be
corrected by the legislature, and not by the courts. But as the church
people had persisted in lugging in the subject of religion, it was
necessary to deal with that also. Here the court spoke in no uncertain
tone. We quote first an extract from the brief submitted by the legal
representatives of the Board:
“Superficial teaching should be shunned most of all in this
department, for this concerns, not the poor and temporary affairs of
the body, but the eternal welfare of the soul; ... But true and full
religious instruction, to a Catholic, is the teaching of Catholicism;
to a Methodist, of Methodism; to a Presbyterian, of Presbyterianism;
in the sense of Spinoza, of Pantheism; and that of Hume, of Deism;
to the Baptist mind it involves immersion, etc. Religious men differ
at all points, except, perhaps, as to the being of God. Honest
differences prevail even as to what books should be included within
the meaning of the words ‘Holy Bible.’ Witness the Jew, who regards
the Old Testament as alone inspired; the Catholic, who adds the
Apocrypha. And the shades of difference as to the true sense and
correct meaning of the Bibles are endless.” (pages 218–219.)
Speaking of the constitutions of the United States and of the state of
Ohio, the Court said: “They, in a sense, speak to _mankind_, and speak
of the rights of _man_. Neither the words _Christianity_, _Christian_,
nor _Bible_, is to be found therein.... Some of the very men who helped
to frame these constitutions were themselves not Christian men.” (page
246.)
In dilating upon the relations of religion and government, the Court
unanimously held:
“We are told that this word religion must mean Christian religion
because Christianity is a part of the common law of this country,
lying behind and above its constitutions. Those who make this
assertion can hardly be serious, and intend the real import of their
language. If Christianity is a _law_ of the state, like every other
law, it must have a _sanction_. Adequate penalties must be provided
to enforce obedience to all its requirements and precepts. No one
seriously contends for any such doctrine in this country, or, I might
almost say, in this age of the world.” (pages 246–247.)
“_Legal_ Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction of terms. When
Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere _impartial_
protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine, and not human.
Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human
governments. _United with the government, religion never rises above
the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises
above the merest despotism_; and all history shows us that the more
widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.”
(page 248.)
“Religion is not--Much less is Christianity or any other system of
religion--named in the preamble of the Constitution of the United
States as one of the declared _objects_ of government; nor is it
mentioned in the clause in question, in our own constitution, as
being essential to anything _beyond_ mere human government.” (page
248.)
“Properly speaking, there is no such thing as religion of state. What
we mean by that phrase is, the religion of some individual, or set
of individuals, taught and enforced by the state. The state can have
no religious opinions; and if it undertakes to enforce the teaching
of such opinions, they must be the opinions of some natural person,
or class of persons. If it embarks in this business, whose opinions
shall it adopt?” (page 249.)
“But the real question here is, not what is the best religion, but
how shall this best religion be secured? I answer, it can best be
secured by adopting the doctrine of this seventh section in our own
bill of rights, and which I summarize in two words, by calling it the
doctrine of _hands off_. Let the state not only keep its own hands
off, but let it also see to it that religious sects keep their hands
off each other.” (page 250.)
“Government is an organization for particular purposes. It is not
almighty and we are not to look to it for everything. The great bulk
of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government
to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently
one of those interests lying outside the true and legitimate province
of government. Counsel say that to withdraw all religious instruction
from the schools would be to put them under the control of ‘Infidel
sects.’ This is by no means so. To teach the doctrines of Infidelity,
and thereby teach that Christianity is false, is one thing; and to
give no instruction on the subject is quite another thing. The only
fair and impartial method, where serious objection is made, is to
let each sect give its own instructions, elsewhere than in the state
schools, where of necessity all are to meet; and to put disputed
doctrines of religion among other subjects of instruction, for there
are many others, which can more conveniently, satisfactorily, and
safely be taught elsewhere.... The principles expressed here are not
new.... They are as old as Madison, and were his favorite opinions.
Madison, who had more to do with framing the Constitution of the
United States than any other man, and whose purity of life and
orthodoxy of religious belief no one questions, himself says:
“‘Religion is not within the purview of human government.’ And again
he says, ‘Religion is essentially distinct from human government, and
exempt from its cognizance. A connection between them is injurious
to both. There are causes in the human breast which insure the
perpetuity of religion without the aid of law.’”
“In his letter to Gov. Livingston, July 10, 1822, he says: ‘I observe
with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity
of religion from civil government, in every case where it does not
trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been
a favorite doctrine with me.’” (pages 253–254.)
THE WISCONSIN CASE
This case was decided by the supreme court of Wisconsin in March, 1890,
and a report of it will be found in the Northwestern Reporter, Vol.
44, pages 967–982. It was an appeal from Rock county, where, in the
town of Edgerton, a number of citizens had brought action to prevent
the reading of the King James version of the Bible in the schools of
the town, for the following reasons: 1, It violates the rights of
conscience; 2, It compels them to aid in the support of a place of
worship against their consent; 3, It is sectarian instruction. (pages
971–972.)
The body of the decision was rendered by Justice Lyon, and was
concurred in by the entire court. In dealing with the difference
between the Douay and the King James versions, the Justice said:
“It is averred in the return that there is no material difference
between the King James version of the Bible used in the Edgerton
schools, and the Douay version, which is the only one recognized
by the Catholic church as correct and complete. It is universally
known that there are differences between these two versions in many
particulars, which the respective sects regard as material. Hence
the averment is against common knowledge, and therefore not well
pleaded.” (page 972.)
Concerning the reading of the King James version being sectarian
instruction Justice Lyon declared:
“The term ‘sectarian instruction,’ in the constitution, manifestly
refers exclusively to instruction in religious doctrines, and the
prohibition is aimed only at such instruction as is sectarian; that
is to say, instruction in religious doctrines which are believed by
some sects and rejected by others. Hence, to teach the existence
of a supreme being, of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, and
that it is the highest duty of all men to adore, obey, and love
him, is not sectarian, because all religious sects so believe and
teach. The instruction becomes sectarian when it goes further, and
inculcates doctrine and dogma concerning which the religious sects
are in conflict. That the reading from the Bible in the schools,
although unaccompanied by any comment on the part of the teacher, is
‘instruction,’ seems to us too clear for argument. Some of the most
valuable instruction a person can receive may be derived from reading
alone, without any extrinsic aid by way of comment or exposition.
The question, therefore, seems to narrow down to this: Is the
reading of the Bible in the schools--not merely selected passages
therefrom, but the whole of it--sectarian instruction of the pupils?
In view of the fact already mentioned, that the Bible contains
many doctrinal passages, upon some of which the peculiar creed of
almost every sect is based, and that such passages may reasonably
be understood to inculcate the doctrines predicated upon them, an
affirmative answer to the question seems unavoidable. Any pupil of
ordinary intelligence who listens to the reading of the doctrinal
portions of the Bible will be more or less instructed thereby in the
doctrines of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the eternal punishment
of the wicked, the authority of the priesthood, the binding force
and efficacy of the sacraments, and many other conflicting sectarian
doctrines. A most forcible demonstration of the accuracy of this
statement is found in the reports of the American Bible Society of
its work in Catholic countries (referred to in one of the arguments),
in which instances are given of the conversion of several persons
from ‘Romanism’ through the reading of the scriptures alone; that is
to say, the reading of the Protestant or King James version of the
Bible converted Catholics to Protestants without the aid of comment
or exposition. In those cases the reading of the Bible certainly was
sectarian instruction. We do not know how to frame an argument in
support of the proposition that the reading thereof in the district
schools is not also sectarian instruction.” (page 973.)
It having been pleaded by the school board that children were not
required to remain in the room during Bible reading, if it was against
the will of their parents, and therefore did not infringe upon their
rights, the Justice said:
“The answer of the respondent states that the relators’ children are
not compelled to remain in the school room while the Bible is being
read, but are at liberty to withdraw therefrom during the reading
of the same. For this reason it is claimed that the relators have
no good cause for complaint, even though such reading be sectarian
instruction. We cannot give our sanction to this position. When, as
in this case, a small minority of the pupils in the public school is
excluded, for any cause, from a stated school exercise, particularly
when such cause is apparently hostility to the Bible, which the
majority of the pupils have been taught to revere, from that moment
the excluded pupil loses caste with his fellows, and is liable to
be regarded with aversion, and subjected to reproach and insult.
But it is a sufficient refutation of the argument that the practice
in question tends to destroy the equality of the pupils which the
constitution seeks to establish and protect, and puts a portion
of them to serious disadvantage in many ways with respect to the
others.” (page 975.)
Justice Cassody, in concurring, holds that even though no comment is
made it would be very easy for the teacher if he so desired to make of
such reading sectarian instruction:
“Since every translation made by man must be more or less imperfect,
and since the application of particular passages is liable to be made
with partial apprehension and biased or even distorted judgment, it
is easy to perceive how texts of scripture may be read with such
an emphasis and tone as to become excessively sectarian. While the
members of any particular sect may be willing to have one of their
own number read the Bible in the public schools, yet they are not
always willing to concede the same to a member of a sect believing
in an opposite faith or doctrine. But the law is impartial, and has
given no rights to any one sect that is not equally secured to every
other.” (page 977.)
He here quotes Judge Thurman of the Ohio Supreme Court as saying:
“It is not by mere toleration that every individual here is
protected in his belief or disbelief. He reposes not upon the
leniency of the government, or the liberality of any class or sect
of men, but upon his natural, indefeasible rights of conscience,
which, in the language of the constitution, are beyond the control or
interference of any human authority.” (page 978.)
Is the reading of the Bible worship? Justice Cassody upon this issue
speaks without reserve, and handles the question without gloves:
“Certainly, the reading of the holy scriptures, as the eternal
word of God, in obedience to the oft-repeated injunction therein
contained, whether by the individual in private, or in the family,
or in the public assembly, is an essential part of divine worship.
Every sermon is based upon some text of scripture. Most prayers
are preceded by the reading of some passage of scripture, as an
intelligent guide to the thoughts of the worshiper or worshipers. The
Sermon on the Mount contains the prayer taught by the blessed Lord.
Is it possible for any genuine believer in the Christian religion to
read or listen to the reading of that sermon, and especially that
prayer, without being filled with a holy sense of honor, reverence,
adoration, and homage to Almighty God, which is the very essence of
worship? _We must hold that the stated reading of the Bible in the
public schools as a text book may be worship within the meaning of
the clause of the constitution under consideration._ If, then, such
reading of the Bible is worship, can there be any doubt but what the
school room in which it is so statedly read is a ‘place of worship’
within the same clause of the constitution? Counsel seem to argue
that such place of worship should be confined to some church edifice,
or place where the members of a church statedly worship. Some of
the earlier constitutions, having similar clauses, used the words
‘building’ and ‘church.’ Manifestly the words ‘place of worship’
were advisedly used, as applicable to any ‘place’ or structure where
worship is statedly held, and which the citizen is ‘compelled to
attend,’ or the tax payers are compelled to ‘erect or support.’
The mere fact that only a small fraction of the school hours is
devoted to such worship, in no way justifies such use, as against
an objecting tax payer. If the right be conceded, then the length of
time so devoted becomes a matter of discretion. If such right does
not exist, then any length of time, however short, is forbidden.”
(page 979.)
Justice Orton, in concurring, thus speaks of the evils of even in the
slightest manner mixing religion with the government:
“There is no other such source and cause of strife, quarrels, fights,
malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the
state, as religion. Let it once enter into our civil affairs, our
government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter into our common
schools, they would be destroyed. Those who made our constitution
saw this, and used the most apt and comprehensive language in it to
prevent such a catastrophe. It is said that if reading the Protestant
version of the Bible in school is offensive to the parents of some
of the scholars, and antagonistic to their religious views, their
children can retire. They ought not to be compelled to go out of the
school for such a reason for a moment. The suggestion itself concedes
the whole argument. That version of the Bible is hostile to the
belief of many who are taxed to support the common schools and who
have equal rights and privileges in them. It is a source of religious
and sectarian strife. That is enough. It violates the letter and
spirit of the constitution.” (page 981.)
“It requires but little argument to prove that the Protestant version
of the Bible, or any other version of the Bible, is the source of
religious strife and opposition, and opposed to the religious belief
of many of our people. It is a sectarian book. The Protestants were a
very small sect in religion at one time, and they are a sect yet, to
the great Catholic church, against whose usages they protested; and
so is their version of the Bible sectarian as against the Catholic
version. The common school is one of the most indispensable, useful,
and valuable civil institutions this state has. It is democratic and
free to all alike, in perfect equality, where all the children of
our people stand on a common platform, and enjoy the benefits of
an equal and common education. An enemy of our common schools is an
enemy to our state government.
“This case is important and timely. It brings before the courts a
case of plausible, insidious, and apparently innocent entrance of
religion into our civil affairs, and of an assault upon the most
valuable provisions of our constitution. These provisions should be
pondered and heeded by all of our people, of all nationalities and of
all denominations of religion, who desire the perpetuity, and value
the blessings of our free government.” (page 982.)
THE NEBRASKA CASE
This case was decided by the supreme court of the state on October 9,
1902. It was the case of Daniel Freeman vs. School District No. 21,
appealed from Gage county. The teacher, summoned as a witness, admitted
having read the Bible; that she considered the exercises conducted
as religious exercises, held them as such, and believed it to be her
duty to do so. This teacher was evidently honest, and made no false
pretenses, which is more than we can say of many others in her position
and holding her views. Two extracts from the decision of the court are
worthy of our attention:
“But if the system of compulsory education is persevered in, and
religious worship or sectarian instruction in the public schools
is at the same time permitted, parents will be compelled to expose
their children to what they deem spiritual contamination, or else,
while bearing their share of the burden for the support of public
education, provide the means from their own pockets for the training
of their offspring elsewhere. It might be reasonably apprehended that
such a practice, besides being unjust and oppressive to the persons
immediately concerned, would, by its tendency to the multiplication
of parochial and sectarian schools, tend forcibly to the destruction
of one of the most important, if not indispensable, foundation
stones of our form of government. It will be an evil day when
anything happens to lower the public schools in public esteem, or to
discourage attendance upon them by children of any class.” (page 847.)
“For more than three centuries it has been the boast and exultation
of Protestants and a complaint and grievance of the Roman Catholics
that the various translations of the Bible, especially the New
Testament, into the vernacular of different peoples, have been the
chief controversial weapons of the former and the principal cause of
undoing of the latter. For the making of such translations Wickliffe,
Tyndale, Luther, and others have been commended and glorified by
one party and anathematized by the others. Books containing such
translations have been committed to the flames as heretical, and
their translators, printers, publishers, and distributors persecuted,
imprisoned, tortured and put to death for participating in their
production and distribution. The several popular versions differ in
some particulars from each other, and all differ from the Catholic
canon, both in rendition of passages from which sectarian doctrines
are derived by construction and in the number of books or gospels
constituting what is regarded as the written record of divine
revelation. In addition to this, there are persons who are convinced,
upon grounds satisfactory to them, that considerable parts of the
writings accepted by all Protestant denominations are not authentic
while devout Hebrews maintain that the New Testament itself is not
entitled to a place in the true Bible. These diverse opinions have
given rise to a great number of religious sects or denominations.
To some of these sects the reading in public of any portion of any
version of the scriptures unaccompanied by authoritative comment
or explanation, or the reading of it privately by persons not
commissioned by the church to do so, is objectionable, and an offense
to their religious feelings; to some, the utterance of public prayer,
except recitations from the Scripture, is a vain and a wicked act;
and to some the songs and hymns of praise in which others engage
are a stumbling-block and an offense. We do not think it wise or
necessary to prolong a discussion of what appears to us an almost
self-evident fact--that exercises such as are complained of by the
relator in this case both constitute religious worship and are
sectarian in their character, within the meaning of the constitution.
Nor do we feel inclined to make what might be looked upon as a
spurious exhibition of learning by quoting at length from the many
judicial decisions and utterances of eminent men in this country
concerning the subject.” (pages 846–847.)
A motion for a rehearing of this case was denied.
THE ILLINOIS CASE
This was the case of The People _ex rel._ Jeremiah Ring _et al._,
Plaintiffs in Error, vs. the Board of Education of District 24, etc.,
Defendant in Error. It was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in
June, 1910, and is to be found in the Reports of the state, Vol. 245,
pages 334–378.
The situation, briefly stated, was this: Mr. Ring, a Roman Catholic in
belief, was sending his children to a district school in Scott county,
Illinois, there being no Catholic school available within reasonable
distance. Moreover, he was compelled by law to give his children an
education. In this school certain teachers held religious service
which included, during school hours, readings from the King James
version of the Bible, repeating the Lord’s Prayer as written therein,
and the singing of hymns, among them one entitled, “Grace Enough for
Me.” During such religious service the pupils were required to rise in
their seats, fold their hands and bow their heads, and were sometimes
called on to explain the meaning of passages of scripture read. Mr.
Ring had brought suit in the District Court of Scott county, where
it was held that the services were not unjust and not a violation of
the constitution of Illinois. He thereupon appealed to the Supreme
Court of the state. Here four important questions were decided, which
applied not only to Mr. Ring, but to all other citizens not in sympathy
with what is known as Evangelical Protestant Christianity. The first
question decided was that “_free enjoyment of religious worship
includes freedom not to worship_.” This, orthodox religionists have
been slow to concede, and never before has the right _not to worship_
been so clearly stated. On this point the court said:
“The wrong arises, not out of the particular version of the Bible or
form of prayer used--whether that found in the Douay or the King James
version--or the particular songs sung, but out of the _compulsion_ to
join in any form of worship.”
The second point decided was that “_children attending public school
cannot be compelled to join in religious worship_,” and that the
religious exercises as held in the school “constitute worship within
the meaning of the Constitution.” The third point decided was that, the
constitution of Illinois having forbidden the use of school funds for
sectarian instruction, the giving of such instruction in the schools
by the teacher is illegal. Most important of all, the fourth point was
that the reading of the Bible in public schools constitutes sectarian
instruction. Here the court speaks plainly:
“The Bible, in its entirety, is a sectarian book as to the Jew and
every believer in any religion other than the Christian religion and as
to those who are heretical or who hold beliefs that are not regarded as
orthodox. Whether it be called sectarian or not, its use in the schools
necessarily results in sectarian instruction.”
In delivering this decision the court gave forth a number of maxims
worthy of being remembered, among which were:
“All stand equal before the law--the Protestant, the Catholic, the
Mohammedan, the Jew, the Mormon, the Freethinker, the Atheist. Whatever
may be the view of the majority of the people, the court has no right,
and the majority has no right to force that view upon the minority,
however small.”
Regarding the status of a pupil in a school who is permitted by the
objection of himself or his parents to refrain from taking part in
religious exercises, the Court said:
“The exclusion of a pupil from this part of the school exercises in
which the rest of the school joins, separates him from his fellows,
puts him in a class by himself, deprives him of his equality with the
other pupils, subjects him to a religious stigma and places him at a
disadvantage in the school, which the law never contemplated.”
The decision of the judge of the District Court of Scott county was
reversed.
At the Illinois constitutional convention of 1920, an attempt was made
to nullify this decision by inserting the following in the proposed new
constitution: “The reading of selections from any version of the Old
and New Testaments in the public schools without comment shall never be
held to be in conflict with this constitution.”
The object of this was to force the Bible into the schools and to make
opponents of the tyranny helpless in protest. The people of Illinois,
however, took the matter in hand, and on December 12, 1922, defeated
the adoption of the new constitution by a majority of six to one.
THE CALIFORNIA CASE
This case was decided by the Court of Appeals of the state in December,
1922. It was based on a clause of the Constitution of California
reading:
“No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any
sectarian school; ... nor shall any sectarian doctrine be taught
or instruction therein permitted, directly or indirectly, in any
common schools of this state.” The California court held that “while
Protestantism may not be a ‘sect’ in the strict interpretation of
the term, the Protestant Bible contains the precepts of many of the
Protestant denominations, and the ‘denomination’ is merely another term
for ‘sect’.”
As the arguments in this case were very largely those used in the other
cases they are not reproduced here.
The New York Globe, in commenting upon the decision admits that the
“authorized version” is “technically sectarian literature,” while the
Brooklyn Citizen admits: “There can be no doubt as to the facts. The
law is clear.” In California as in Illinois, the churches are going to
try to nullify this decision by a constitutional amendment.
The following points now seem to be established in law:
First: Any _version_ of the Christian Bible is sectarian to those who
do not accept it as the inspired word of God.
Second: One version of the Bible accepted by one denomination of
Christians is sectarian to members of any other denomination which does
not accept it.
Third: The Bible is distinctly a book of religion, and the teaching of
it anywhere cannot fail to be construed as religious teaching.
Fourth: Readings from the Bible, accompanied or unaccompanied by prayer
and the singing of religious hymns, are acts of religious worship.
Fifth: If done in the public school room, during school hours, with the
pupils present, it thereby makes the public school a place of religious
worship.
Sixth: As our citizens are compelled by law either to send their
children to the public schools or by other means provide for them
an education, the use of the Bible in the school room compels the
citizen to support and attend a place of worship, thereby violating the
fundamental American principle of no state religion and no union of
church and state. The attempts of Protestants to place the Bible in the
schools are very astute efforts to evade and nullify this principle.
Seventh: No church, or religion is entitled to any special privileges
at the hands of the government. All the state is bound to do is to
protect them all in their equal rights.
Eighth: Those professing no religion have the same rights as those who
do.