{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_78962/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_78962","id":"gutenberg_78962","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78962","summary":null,"tags":["Religion in the public schools -- United States"],"text":"LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. =706=\n                      Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius\n\n                       The Bible: Should It Be in\n                            the School Room?\n\n                The Question Considered Legally, Morally\n                            and Religiously\n\n                            Franklin Steiner\n\n\n                        HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY\n                             GIRARD, KANSAS\n\n\n\n\n                            Copyright, 1924,\n                        Haldeman-Julius Company.\n\n                PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n\n              THE BIBLE: SHOULD IT BE IN THE SCHOOL ROOM?\n\n\n\n\n                              INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe fact that certain Protestant churches, strong politically, are\nexerting their efforts to force the teaching of their religion in our\npublic schools against law, constitution, equity and the American\nprinciple of no union of church and state: the further fact that at\nthe present time there is in existence a strong Protestant jesuitical\npolitical secret order trying to put this measure on statute books\nwhether the people want it or not, is the author\u2019s sole apology for\npresenting this little book to the public. He claims for it no literary\nmerit, but hopes that all who are truly Americans, whether native or\nforeign born, will circulate its facts and arguments.\n\n                                                       FRANKLIN STEINER.\n\n\n\n\n              THE BIBLE: SHOULD IT BE IN THE SCHOOL ROOM?\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n\n_The Bible and the Sects--Shall Any Version of the Book Be Placed in\nThis Country\u2019s Common Schools?_\n\n\nA STATEMENT OF THE CASE. A stupendous effort is now being nationally\nmade by a particular and special class of our citizens, to place the\nBible, the text book of the Christian religion, in the curriculum\nof our public schools. From the outset, there arises this curious\nfact: It is that many Christian sects, one of them being the largest\nin number of communicants, to say nothing of individual Christians,\nhave strenuously opposed the measure. The Jews, \u201cunto whom were\ncommitted the oracles of God\u201d (Romans iii, 2) have also expressed their\ndisapprobation. Then add to these about two-thirds of our population\nwho profess no religion, and we find the movement limited to a small\nsection of our people. The fact that advocates of enforced Bible\nreading are so enthusiastic, so intolerant of criticism and opposition,\nand that they would compel the use of the Bible by law causes us to\ninquire seriously into the question. Then the intense opposition of\nreligionists as well as of those professing no religion in particular,\ncauses us to conclude that the _propriety_ of such an inclusion in our\npublic school instruction is the main issue to be considered.\n\nThere arises before us the further fact that one class of people are\nvigorously determined upon the use in the schools of a book of which\nthey are the partisans, while the world contains many more books of\nthe same character. Still another, that those who accept the book as\nan authority are not agreed as to which edition or which version is\nthe correct one. Over this controversies have arisen, resulting in law\nsuits which have finally had to be decided by supreme courts. Here we\nmight surmise the cause of the intense opposition of some to the use\nof the Bible in the schools, and of further discontent and controversy\nshould it be placed there. The advocates of the measure, if they think\nthemselves able to put it over, would make Bible reading compulsory.\nShould they fail in this, they are agreeable that it should be read at\nthe discretion of the teacher. Should they still fail, they will ask\nthat _extracts_ be read. As a last resort, they will plead that it be\nnot _excluded_ and that it be read \u201cwithout comment.\u201d They are even\nwilling to concede that no child shall be compelled to take part in the\nBible reading exercise against the will of its parents.\n\nWhy, unlike any other school book, should it be read \u201cwithout comment\u201d?\nWhy the exception? The Bible from whatever view we take it, above all\nother books, to be understood, must be commented upon and explained.\nThe whole presents a curious medley of circumstances and positions\nwhich could hardly be duplicated when any other book is proposed for\nuse in the school room. All goes to prove that the advocates of the\nproposal are very enthusiastic and determined to force the book in\nthe schools, on the best terms that they can obtain. Should any other\nbook be proposed for a course of public school education, under the\nsame conditions, no one will deny that its use would be unhesitatingly\nrejected.[1]\n\n[1] Religionists in some places are now opposing the use of Wells\u2019\n\u201cOutline of History\u201d in high schools and colleges because some of its\nviews are not orthodox and conventional. Yet they, a minority, would\nforce their Bible by law upon all.\n\n\n              IS THE BIBLE A RELIGIOUS AND SECTARIAN BOOK?\n\nIt is not our purpose to take part in any of the theological\ncontroversies that in the past or at the present have raged around the\nBible. Yet, as the teaching of religion seems to be the desideratum of\nthe advocates of Bible reading in the schools, as we shall later prove;\nand the opposition to such teaching on the part of others the cause\nof the opposition to such reading, we are compelled to ask and answer\nthe query, Is the Bible a religious book? The meaning of the word\n\u201creligion\u201d has been fixed by the best lexicographers and has been so\nutilized by the best writers.\n\n\u201cThe outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the\nexistence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny; to whom\nobedience, service and honor are due.\u201d--Webster\u2019s International.\n\n\u201cAn acknowledgment of our obligation to God as our creator, with a\nfeeling of reverence and love, and consequent duty or obedience to\nhim.\u201d--Worcester.\n\n\u201cA belief in an invisible superhuman power (or powers) conceived of\nafter the analogy of the human spirit on which (or whom) man regards\nhimself as dependent.\u201d--The Standard Dictionary.\n\n\u201cAny system of faith or worship.\u201d--Imperial Dictionary.\n\n\u201cAction or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to\nplease a divine ruling power.\u201d--Oxford Dictionary.\n\nWe are aware that a class of modern thinkers define and understand\nreligion differently, as does R. B. Westbrook in The Eliminator, page\n12: \u201cWe use the word religion as it was used by Cicero, in the sense of\n_Scruple_, implying the consciousness of a natural obligation wholly\nirrespective of what one may believe concerning the gods.\u201d\n\nWe must say that in the face of the five definitions first given, added\nto the understanding and use of the word by religionists themselves, a\nrevolution in human thought and in the meaning of the English language\nmust take place before this can be seriously accepted as the correct,\nunderstood, prevailing definition.\n\nFollowing these guides, the best we can obtain, let us ask, Is the\nBible a religious book? Is its chief object the teaching of religion?\nWe think we need adduce no argument to prove that were those portions\nof the Bible which inculcate religious doctrines eliminated, the\nfly-leaves of the book alone would hold most of what remains. No one,\nand least of all a Christian, will deny that it teaches \u201ca belief in an\ninvisible superhuman power (or powers) conceived of after the analogy\nof the human spirit\u201d; or that it teaches \u201ca divine ruling power,\u201d \u201cto\nwhom obedience, service and honor are due.\u201d\n\nThe first three of the ten commandments are strictly religious and in\nno way concern morality. They teach the absurd doctrine that the God of\nthe ancient Hebrews was the only God worthy of worship.\n\nThe sermon on the mount, which is perhaps more free from strict\nreligious teaching than any other portion of the Bible, yet says,\n\u201cSeek ye _first_ the kingdom of God and _his righteousness_ and all\nthese things shall be added unto you\u201d (Matt. vi, 33). Here, again, the\nJewish God is referred to. The most beautiful of Jesus\u2019 teachings are\nhis eulogy and defense of children. Even here he strictly maintains\nreligious doctrines, as when he says, in Matthew xviii, 6: \u201cBut whoso\nshall offend one of these little ones _which believe in me_,\u201d etc.\n\n\u201cIn thus looking at the Bible from a distinctly religious point of\nview, we are in perfect harmony with its writers; even with such\nof them as adopt the narrative style, and will therefore engage\nthe greatest share of our attention. For when the books of the Old\nTestament were set aside and preserved as a sacred book by the Jews,\nand those of the New Testament were added to them by the Christians, it\nwas with no idea of drawing knowledge of nature or history from them,\nbut because they recognized them as the rule of faith and conduct;\nand in the same way the writers themselves prepared their works and\ngave publicity to them, not simply or chiefly in order to make their\nreaders accurately acquainted with the past, but to promulgate and\nrecommend what seemed to them to be religious truth.\u201d (\u201cBible for\nLearners,\u201d Vol. 1, page 5.) Hence, however much Bible reading advocates\nmay cavil about the book as \u201cliterature\u201d or \u201cthe fountain of morality,\u201d\nthere can be no legitimate question of its object being to teach a\nparticular religion, and that its purpose in the school room is to do\nthe same.\n\nLet us now ask another question, Is the Bible a sectarian book? Let us\nfirst state that there is no such thing as a cosmopolitan or universal\nreligion. Prof. Max M\u00fcller, perhaps the greatest authority upon the\nscience of religion, has said: \u201cReligion is a mental faculty which,\nindependent of, nay, in spite of, sense and reason, enables man to\napprehend the infinite _under different names and disguises_.\u201d\n\nHence, man, in an effort to understand the infinite, has formed not\none but many religions; therefore we have Buddhism, Brahmanism,\nShintoism, Judaism, the mythology of the Greeks and Romans and\nfinally Christianism and Mohammedanism. In recent years there\nhas been developed Agnosticism which holds that the infinite is\nincomprehensible. Religions and Bibles are all sectarian to the\ndevotees of other religions who do not accept them as true or\nauthoritative.\n\nIn the face of this broad truth, those who advocate reading the Bible\nin the public school deny that it is sectarian. They would narrow\ntheir definition of \u201csect\u201d to that of the Standard Dictionary, which\ndefines it as \u201ca body of persons distinguished by peculiarities of\nfaith and practice from other bodies adhering to the same general\nsystem.\u201d But Christianity consists of different bodies distinguished by\nwide \u201cpeculiarities of faith and practice.\u201d Some of these have their\nown versions of the Bible, while others base their peculiarities upon\ndifferent interpretations and particular sections of the same version.\nThe widely divergent forms of Christianity, from Roman Catholicism\nto Unitarianism, have their foundation and different versions and\ninterpretations. Those holding to one set of doctrines and practices\naccept that version which sustains their contentions and reject those\nwhich do not. Those making the nation-wide propaganda to place the\nBible in the schools are the Evangelical Protestants, who accept\nthe King James version. The question, \u201cIs the King James version\nsectarian?\u201d has caused the long controversy which courts have been\ncalled on to settle when opponents of Bible reading have taken legal\naction to keep it out of the schools.\n\nThere is another English version of the Bible called the \u201cDouay\nversion,\u201d which is accepted by Roman Catholics, who not only deny that\nthe King James version is the correct one, but affirm that it teaches\ndangerous and damning errors. Protestants retaliate by making the same\ncharges against the Douay version. Therefore, to either one of these,\nthe principal divisions of Christianity, the Bible of the other is\nsectarian.\n\nLet us give illustrations of the widely variant readings in these two\nprincipal English versions of the Bible. When we have done so our\nreaders can perceive why such a bitter controversy has arisen between\nthe partisans of the different transcripts. He will also see the folly\nand injustice of trying to force a book, which has been the center of\nso much bitter animosity, into public schools supported by citizens\nof all religious beliefs, who are compelled by the law of the land to\nsend their children there. We will take just a few illustrations from\nhundreds.\n\nIn the King James Version 1 Corinthians xv, 51, is translated: \u201cBehold,\nI shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be\nchanged.\u201d The Douay Version renders the same verse, \u201cBehold, I tell\nyou a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: _but we shall not all\nbe changed_.\u201d Luke ii, 14, is translated in the King James, \u201cGlory to\nGod in the highest, and on earth _peace to men of good will_.\u201d The\nProtestant \u201cRevised Version\u201d gives it still different:\n\n    \u201cGlory to God in the highest,\n     And on earth _peace among men in whom he is well pleased_.\u201d\n\nThe King James Version makes Matthew vi, 11, read, \u201cGive us this\nday our daily bread.\u201d The Douay version says, \u201cGive us this day our\n_super-substantial_ bread.\u201d\n\nWe now come to one difference of translation, which perhaps above\nall others is the most startling and would arouse the greatest of\nthe theological controversies. Matthew iii, 1\u20132, reads, in the King\nJames Version: \u201cIn those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the\nwilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven\nis at hand.\u201d The Douay Version gives it an entirely different meaning\nwhen it makes the second verse read: \u201c_Do penance_: for the kingdom of\nheaven is at hand.\u201d This controverted word occurs in the New Testament\nfifty times and is so differently translated in the King James and\nDouay Versions. In the Catholic church penance is one of the seven\nsacraments, while Protestants do not recognize it at all, hence one\nlooks upon the Bible of the other as false and as a teacher of false\ndoctrines.\n\nA more startling fact arises when we discover that not only are\nCatholics and Protestants divided in opinion as to what the Bible\nmeans and as to which version gives the correct meaning, but on this\npoint Protestant Bible scholars differ widely among themselves. This\nwas so notorious that in 1883 a \u201cnew version\u201d was given the world.\nWhile it corrected some mistakes of translation, it was far from being\nacknowledged as satisfactory. We will here give just one illustration,\nselected from many, of differences of translation among Protestant\nBiblical scholars. Job xix, 25\u201327, is rendered in the King James\nVersion: \u201cFor I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand\nat the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms\ndestroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall\nsee for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though\nmy reins be consumed within me.\u201d This passage is to be found in the\nEpiscopal and other orthodox church funeral rituals. The \u201credeemer\u201d\nis supposed to be Christ, and Job is supposed to refer to his soul\nin heaven. This is done in defiance of the fact that Job in other\npassages states that death ends all. (See vii, 7\u201310; xiv, 7\u201312 and\nxxxiv, 15.) Following are the translations of a number of well-known\nBiblical scholars, which give it a different meaning and state an\nentirely different situation:\n\n    \u201cYet I know that my Vindicator liveth\n     And will stand at length upon the earth;\n     And though with my skin this body be wasted away,\n     Yet in my flesh shall I see God.\n     Yea, I shall see him my friend;\n     My eyes shall behold him no longer an adversary;\n     For this my soul panteth within me.\u201d\n\n(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Noyes of Harvard Divinity School.)\n\n    \u201cBut I know that my avenger liveth;\n     Though it be at the end upon my dust,\n     My witness shall avenge these things,\n     And a curse alight upon mine enemies.\u201d\n\n(Translation of Dr. Dillon, in Skeptics of the Old Testament.)\n\n    \u201cFor I know that my Avenger liveth\n     And that hereafter he shall stand upon the earth;\n     And though after my skin this (flesh) be destroyed,\n     Yet even without my flesh shall I see God;\n     Whom I shall see for myself.\n     And mine eyes shall behold, and not another--\n     Though my vitals are wasting away within me.\u201d\n\n(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Albert Barnes, Presbyterian divine and\ncommentator.)\n\n    \u201cAs for me, I know it--my Avenger liveth,\n     And (lying) in the dust I shall receive his pledge;\n     Shaddai will bring to pass my desire,\n     And as my justifier I shall see God.\u201d\n\n(Translation of the Rev. Dr. T. K. Cheyne, Editor of The Encyclopedia\nBiblica.)\n\nThis is one of the many passages in the Bible which in the King James\nVersion has been twisted to meet doctrinal ends. Again we repeat,\nthat were any other book containing so many controversial meanings,\nespecially among those who maintain its efficiency and credibility,\noffered for use in the school room, it would be rejected at once.\n\nLet us be honest with ourselves and with one another, and admit the\ntrue motive of those who prolong this agitation to place the Bible in\nthe public schools. We have said that they represent the Evangelical\nProtestant churches.\n\nThe Catholic church maintains its separate schools for the purpose\nof teaching its children the common branches of knowledge side by\nside with its religious doctrines. Protestants send their children to\nthe public schools, relying upon their churches and Sunday schools\nalone for religious instruction. As their churches and Sunday schools\nhave failed to arouse sufficient interest, they now want to make\nuse of the public schools for religious propaganda. Hence their\nJesuitical attempts to have laws passed forcing their Bible into these\ninstitutions. Quite naturally in a country whose national Constitution,\nas well as practically all its state constitutions, proclaims divorce\nbetween church and state, the Catholic, the Jew, the Agnostic, and\ncitizens of other opposing beliefs protest.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n_The Bible and the Courts--Law, Constitution and the Judges Are Opposed\nto Religion in Our Common Schools._\n\n\nWe will begin with fundamentals by calling attention to the first\namendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads:\n\n\u201c_Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion\nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof._\u201d\n\nWhile this does not take away from the states the power to establish\nreligious observances, it has been repeated, even with stronger\nguarantees, in practically all of our state constitutions. The\nexceptions are New Hampshire, where the constitution can authorize a\nmunicipality to provide support for Protestant ministers; Pennsylvania\nand Tennessee, where a belief in God and future rewards and punishments\nis a constitutional qualification for office; Arkansas, whose\nconstitution declares ineligible to office and incompetent as a witness\nany person who denies the existence of God; and Maryland, where belief\nin future rewards and punishments is essential to competency as a\nwitness or juror. Hence, upon the principle of no union of religion\nwith the state, our fundamental laws are almost unanimous.\n\nThis is distinctly an American idea. In Europe every country except\nTurkey recognized the Christian religion, and all had a state\nchurch. All the thirteen colonies had the same except Rhode Island,\nPennsylvania and Delaware. The last two granted religious equality only\nto Protestants. Only in the first was there absolute religious freedom.\n\nCobb says: \u201cThe history of religion and the church in America, as those\nstand related to the civil government, presents features unparalleled\nin the rest of Christendom\u201d ... \u201ca peculiarly American production.\u201d\n(\u201cThe Rise of Religious Liberty in America,\u201d page 1.) The churches,\nfrom the first, opposed the religious liberties of the Constitution,\nand either openly defied them or covertly evaded them. They do the\nsame today. \u201cThe practical recognition of entire individual freedom\nof thought and action in reference to matters of religion has not,\nhowever, always been conceded\u201d (Illinois Reports, Vol. 245, page\n341). The present efforts to place the Bible in the schools are a\nmanifestation of the old-time evasion and defiance. The orthodox\nchurch, from the very nature of the pretenses that it makes, has never\nceased to seek favors from the state and to demand emoluments in one\nform or another.\n\nWhen a person or an organization lifts a voice in opposition to the\nintroduction of the Bible in the school room, bibliolaters immediately\nraise the hue and cry, \u201cEnemy of the Bible!\u201d They do this as a means\nof starting the \u201codium theologicum.\u201d Their tactics here are intended\nnot to answer the arguments of their opponents, but to crush them by\nopprobrium. The statement that opponents of the Bible in the schools\nare necessarily enemies of it is not only untrue, but has no purpose,\nexcept the intent be to blind the eyes of the public. The Bible as\na work of literature no more has \u201cenemies\u201d than have the works of\nShakespeare, Rabelais, Plato, Homer, Milton, or the productions of\nother writers, ancient or modern. It is to the position claimed for\nthe Bible and the unwarranted assertions concerning it made by the\nvery people who are trying to force it by law into the schools, that\nexception is taken. All have the right to view and interpret the Bible\nas they choose, but no one interpretation should have the prestige of\nthe law, considering that there are so many of them and that our law\nrecognizes no particular form of religion.\n\nOthers raise the hue and cry that the opposition to Bible reading\nin the schools comes from Catholic sources. Even if this were true,\nit would only prove that the Catholic has the right to object to\nanother religion in which he does not believe, being crammed down his\nchildren\u2019s throats by the civil law. The fact that this church, the\noldest existing Christian church, opposes it, to say nothing of others,\nand of people who belong to no church--and these include two-thirds of\nour population--only demonstrates the injustice of the proposal. To say\nthat justice should not be administered, merely because it would be\ngranted to a certain people, is a poor argument in favor of injustice.\nWhenever and wherever Catholics attempt to make use of the public\nschools as a place of propaganda for their church, as Protestants are\ndoing when they force their Bible there, we will then and there oppose\nthem with the same logic we are now advancing against Protestants.\n\nAmong the side issues brought forward to befog the minds of the citizen\nis the plea that the Bible should be read in the schools because all\nshould know something about it. But have we not a millionaire Bible\nsociety to publish it, churches, ministers and Sunday school teachers\nnumbering into the hundred thousands whose special business is to teach\nand preach this book? Are not these at the disposal of all who want\nsuch teaching and preaching? The plea is a subterfuge. They want it\nthere so that it may be forced, by the authority of law, upon those\nwho do not want it. Their plea that they are willing that it be read\n\u201cwithout comment,\u201d places them logically and morally in an exceedingly\nunenviable position. Those who want the Bible in the school room hold\nthe book to be the inspired word of God. Do they want it recognized in\nthe schools as such, or not as such, or are they indifferent to either\nposition? If either of the last two, would they be so anxious to have\nlaws forcing it there? The Bible brings forward multitudes of questions\nof religion, history, science, ethnology, anthropology, archeology,\nmorality and so on. In the study of the book are all these to be\nneglected? If they are, the Bible would not be studied intelligently.\nThe \u201cwithout comment\u201d plea is equivalent to a confession that they do\nnot want it so studied.\n\n\n                             THE OHIO CASE\n\nWhere the real merits of the case have been before a court for\nconsideration as to the legality of the reading of the Bible in the\npublic schools, the decisions have invariably been that it was illegal,\nunconstitutional, and subversive of the rights of those who objected\nto such reading. This is so well recognized now that Bible advocates\ngenerally, as a last resort, advocate only the reading of a book of\n_extracts_ from the Bible, a proposal to a consideration of which we\nshall give our attention later. The first historic case of interest\nis the Ohio case. The circumstances were these: In the year 1854 the\nschool board of the city of Cincinnati adopted a rule requiring that\na chapter from the Bible be read each morning by the teacher on the\nopening of a public school session. In 1869, the board, acting on the\nprotests of citizens who by such reading considered that their rights\nwere invaded, repealed this rule. Whereupon, the Protestant church\npeople of Cincinnati applied to the Superior Court for an injunction to\nrestrain the board from enforcing the repeal. Their plea was, in brief:\nThe fact that Protestants were in the majority, and therefore their\nwill should be obeyed; that Christianity was the common law of the\nland, and that therefore its teachings could not be denied a place in\nthe schools; that the constitution of the Northwest Territory provided\nfor the teaching of \u201creligion, morality, and knowledge\u201d; that to keep\nthe Bible out of the schools would be to turn the schools over to the\ncontrol of \u201cInfidel sects\u201d; that many children would remain in total\nignorance of the Bible did they not study it in the common schools.\n\nThe school board was represented by two of the ablest lawyers in Ohio,\nHon. Stanley Matthews, afterwards United States senator, and at the\ntime of his death a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States;\nand the Hon. George Hoadley, afterwards governor of Ohio. We quote\nbut a part of Judge Matthews\u2019 argument, though all of it is worthy of\nreproduction:\n\n  \u201cI do say that the reading of the Holy Bible in the manner repealed\n  by this resolution, is the teaching of a dogma in religion, held by\n  only a portion of the religious community, objected to by a large\n  part of the others, and that it is in a just, true and sober sense, a\n  merely sectarian book.\n\n  \u201cBut it is asked by some, who by asking betray their want of\n  comprehension of the real question: Have Protestants no rights?\n  Cannot the majority of the community insist upon their consciences?\n  Must the right of minorities alone be consulted? Are we to be ruled\n  by Catholics, or Jews, or Infidels? The answer is obvious and easy:\n  _Protestants have no rights_, as such, _which do not at the same\n  time_ and to the same extent belong to Catholics as such, to Jews and\n  Infidels. Protestants have a civil right to enjoy their own belief,\n  to worship in their own way, to read the Bible and teach it as a part\n  of their religion. But they have _no right in_ this respect _to any\n  preference from the state_ or any of its institutions. They have _no\n  right_ to insist upon _Protestant practices at public expense_, or in\n  public buildings, or to turn public schools into seminaries for the\n  dissemination of Protestant ideas.\n\n  \u201cThey can claim nothing on the score of conscience which they cannot\n  concede equally to all others. It is not a question of majorities\n  or minorities, for if the conscience of the majority is to be the\n  standard, then there is no such thing as conscience at all. It is\n  against the predominance and power of majorities that the right of\n  conscience are protected: and have need to be.\n\n  \u201cFor--and that is the gist of the thing--the reading of the Holy\n  Scriptures in the appropriate commencement of the morning daily\n  exercises of the public school _is the teaching_ of the _religious\n  dogma_ that they are the inspired word of God: and if it were not so\n  held by the Protestant members of this community, there would be no\n  such lawsuit here today as there is.\n\n  \u201cIf it were the writings of Epictetus, of Seneca, or of Pliny, or\n  moral philosophy, or anything of human composition and origin only,\n  that taught the purest and highest morality, nobody would be found to\n  pay the expense of filing this bill to compel its daily reading.\n\n  \u201cIt is because that exercise is intended, and valued only as it\n  is intended, to teach the Christian doctrine as to the scheme of\n  salvation offered by Christ, and the Protestant doctrine that the\n  book without note or comment is the infallible rule of faith and\n  practice.\n\n  \u201cAnd therefore I say that the practice to be perpetuated by the\n  power of the civil arm in this suit, is a practice which teaches a\n  _religious dogma_, and in a sectarian sense. And I say that it is\n  so indisputable, it is so self-evident--it is written upon every\n  countenance in this room--that nothing else than that could account\n  for the extraordinary interest taken in this trial and the efforts\n  which are made to secure the interposition of this court.\u201d\n\nThe case caused great bitterness of feeling, was hotly contested, and\nfinally carried to the Supreme Court of Ohio. There, in December,\n1872, it was decided against the churches and in favor of the school\nboard. (See Ohio Reports, Vol. 23, pages 211\u2013254.) The real, practical\nquestion was, Had the school board the right to adopt what rules it\npleased, without dictation from the courts? It was held that the Board\nhad such a right and that any error the board might make must be\ncorrected by the legislature, and not by the courts. But as the church\npeople had persisted in lugging in the subject of religion, it was\nnecessary to deal with that also. Here the court spoke in no uncertain\ntone. We quote first an extract from the brief submitted by the legal\nrepresentatives of the Board:\n\n  \u201cSuperficial teaching should be shunned most of all in this\n  department, for this concerns, not the poor and temporary affairs of\n  the body, but the eternal welfare of the soul; ... But true and full\n  religious instruction, to a Catholic, is the teaching of Catholicism;\n  to a Methodist, of Methodism; to a Presbyterian, of Presbyterianism;\n  in the sense of Spinoza, of Pantheism; and that of Hume, of Deism;\n  to the Baptist mind it involves immersion, etc. Religious men differ\n  at all points, except, perhaps, as to the being of God. Honest\n  differences prevail even as to what books should be included within\n  the meaning of the words \u2018Holy Bible.\u2019 Witness the Jew, who regards\n  the Old Testament as alone inspired; the Catholic, who adds the\n  Apocrypha. And the shades of difference as to the true sense and\n  correct meaning of the Bibles are endless.\u201d (pages 218\u2013219.)\n\nSpeaking of the constitutions of the United States and of the state of\nOhio, the Court said: \u201cThey, in a sense, speak to _mankind_, and speak\nof the rights of _man_. Neither the words _Christianity_, _Christian_,\nnor _Bible_, is to be found therein.... Some of the very men who helped\nto frame these constitutions were themselves not Christian men.\u201d (page\n246.)\n\nIn dilating upon the relations of religion and government, the Court\nunanimously held:\n\n  \u201cWe are told that this word religion must mean Christian religion\n  because Christianity is a part of the common law of this country,\n  lying behind and above its constitutions. Those who make this\n  assertion can hardly be serious, and intend the real import of their\n  language. If Christianity is a _law_ of the state, like every other\n  law, it must have a _sanction_. Adequate penalties must be provided\n  to enforce obedience to all its requirements and precepts. No one\n  seriously contends for any such doctrine in this country, or, I might\n  almost say, in this age of the world.\u201d (pages 246\u2013247.)\n\n  \u201c_Legal_ Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction of terms. When\n  Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere _impartial_\n  protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine, and not human.\n  Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human\n  governments. _United with the government, religion never rises above\n  the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises\n  above the merest despotism_; and all history shows us that the more\n  widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.\u201d\n  (page 248.)\n\n  \u201cReligion is not--Much less is Christianity or any other system of\n  religion--named in the preamble of the Constitution of the United\n  States as one of the declared _objects_ of government; nor is it\n  mentioned in the clause in question, in our own constitution, as\n  being essential to anything _beyond_ mere human government.\u201d (page\n  248.)\n\n  \u201cProperly speaking, there is no such thing as religion of state. What\n  we mean by that phrase is, the religion of some individual, or set\n  of individuals, taught and enforced by the state. The state can have\n  no religious opinions; and if it undertakes to enforce the teaching\n  of such opinions, they must be the opinions of some natural person,\n  or class of persons. If it embarks in this business, whose opinions\n  shall it adopt?\u201d (page 249.)\n\n  \u201cBut the real question here is, not what is the best religion, but\n  how shall this best religion be secured? I answer, it can best be\n  secured by adopting the doctrine of this seventh section in our own\n  bill of rights, and which I summarize in two words, by calling it the\n  doctrine of _hands off_. Let the state not only keep its own hands\n  off, but let it also see to it that religious sects keep their hands\n  off each other.\u201d (page 250.)\n\n  \u201cGovernment is an organization for particular purposes. It is not\n  almighty and we are not to look to it for everything. The great bulk\n  of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government\n  to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently\n  one of those interests lying outside the true and legitimate province\n  of government. Counsel say that to withdraw all religious instruction\n  from the schools would be to put them under the control of \u2018Infidel\n  sects.\u2019 This is by no means so. To teach the doctrines of Infidelity,\n  and thereby teach that Christianity is false, is one thing; and to\n  give no instruction on the subject is quite another thing. The only\n  fair and impartial method, where serious objection is made, is to\n  let each sect give its own instructions, elsewhere than in the state\n  schools, where of necessity all are to meet; and to put disputed\n  doctrines of religion among other subjects of instruction, for there\n  are many others, which can more conveniently, satisfactorily, and\n  safely be taught elsewhere.... The principles expressed here are not\n  new.... They are as old as Madison, and were his favorite opinions.\n  Madison, who had more to do with framing the Constitution of the\n  United States than any other man, and whose purity of life and\n  orthodoxy of religious belief no one questions, himself says:\n\n  \u201c\u2018Religion is not within the purview of human government.\u2019 And again\n  he says, \u2018Religion is essentially distinct from human government, and\n  exempt from its cognizance. A connection between them is injurious\n  to both. There are causes in the human breast which insure the\n  perpetuity of religion without the aid of law.\u2019\u201d\n\n  \u201cIn his letter to Gov. Livingston, July 10, 1822, he says: \u2018I observe\n  with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity\n  of religion from civil government, in every case where it does not\n  trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been\n  a favorite doctrine with me.\u2019\u201d (pages 253\u2013254.)\n\n\n                           THE WISCONSIN CASE\n\nThis case was decided by the supreme court of Wisconsin in March, 1890,\nand a report of it will be found in the Northwestern Reporter, Vol.\n44, pages 967\u2013982. It was an appeal from Rock county, where, in the\ntown of Edgerton, a number of citizens had brought action to prevent\nthe reading of the King James version of the Bible in the schools of\nthe town, for the following reasons: 1, It violates the rights of\nconscience; 2, It compels them to aid in the support of a place of\nworship against their consent; 3, It is sectarian instruction. (pages\n971\u2013972.)\n\nThe body of the decision was rendered by Justice Lyon, and was\nconcurred in by the entire court. In dealing with the difference\nbetween the Douay and the King James versions, the Justice said:\n\n  \u201cIt is averred in the return that there is no material difference\n  between the King James version of the Bible used in the Edgerton\n  schools, and the Douay version, which is the only one recognized\n  by the Catholic church as correct and complete. It is universally\n  known that there are differences between these two versions in many\n  particulars, which the respective sects regard as material. Hence\n  the averment is against common knowledge, and therefore not well\n  pleaded.\u201d (page 972.)\n\nConcerning the reading of the King James version being sectarian\ninstruction Justice Lyon declared:\n\n  \u201cThe term \u2018sectarian instruction,\u2019 in the constitution, manifestly\n  refers exclusively to instruction in religious doctrines, and the\n  prohibition is aimed only at such instruction as is sectarian; that\n  is to say, instruction in religious doctrines which are believed by\n  some sects and rejected by others. Hence, to teach the existence\n  of a supreme being, of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, and\n  that it is the highest duty of all men to adore, obey, and love\n  him, is not sectarian, because all religious sects so believe and\n  teach. The instruction becomes sectarian when it goes further, and\n  inculcates doctrine and dogma concerning which the religious sects\n  are in conflict. That the reading from the Bible in the schools,\n  although unaccompanied by any comment on the part of the teacher, is\n  \u2018instruction,\u2019 seems to us too clear for argument. Some of the most\n  valuable instruction a person can receive may be derived from reading\n  alone, without any extrinsic aid by way of comment or exposition.\n  The question, therefore, seems to narrow down to this: Is the\n  reading of the Bible in the schools--not merely selected passages\n  therefrom, but the whole of it--sectarian instruction of the pupils?\n  In view of the fact already mentioned, that the Bible contains\n  many doctrinal passages, upon some of which the peculiar creed of\n  almost every sect is based, and that such passages may reasonably\n  be understood to inculcate the doctrines predicated upon them, an\n  affirmative answer to the question seems unavoidable. Any pupil of\n  ordinary intelligence who listens to the reading of the doctrinal\n  portions of the Bible will be more or less instructed thereby in the\n  doctrines of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the eternal punishment\n  of the wicked, the authority of the priesthood, the binding force\n  and efficacy of the sacraments, and many other conflicting sectarian\n  doctrines. A most forcible demonstration of the accuracy of this\n  statement is found in the reports of the American Bible Society of\n  its work in Catholic countries (referred to in one of the arguments),\n  in which instances are given of the conversion of several persons\n  from \u2018Romanism\u2019 through the reading of the scriptures alone; that is\n  to say, the reading of the Protestant or King James version of the\n  Bible converted Catholics to Protestants without the aid of comment\n  or exposition. In those cases the reading of the Bible certainly was\n  sectarian instruction. We do not know how to frame an argument in\n  support of the proposition that the reading thereof in the district\n  schools is not also sectarian instruction.\u201d (page 973.)\n\nIt having been pleaded by the school board that children were not\nrequired to remain in the room during Bible reading, if it was against\nthe will of their parents, and therefore did not infringe upon their\nrights, the Justice said:\n\n  \u201cThe answer of the respondent states that the relators\u2019 children are\n  not compelled to remain in the school room while the Bible is being\n  read, but are at liberty to withdraw therefrom during the reading\n  of the same. For this reason it is claimed that the relators have\n  no good cause for complaint, even though such reading be sectarian\n  instruction. We cannot give our sanction to this position. When, as\n  in this case, a small minority of the pupils in the public school is\n  excluded, for any cause, from a stated school exercise, particularly\n  when such cause is apparently hostility to the Bible, which the\n  majority of the pupils have been taught to revere, from that moment\n  the excluded pupil loses caste with his fellows, and is liable to\n  be regarded with aversion, and subjected to reproach and insult.\n  But it is a sufficient refutation of the argument that the practice\n  in question tends to destroy the equality of the pupils which the\n  constitution seeks to establish and protect, and puts a portion\n  of them to serious disadvantage in many ways with respect to the\n  others.\u201d (page 975.)\n\nJustice Cassody, in concurring, holds that even though no comment is\nmade it would be very easy for the teacher if he so desired to make of\nsuch reading sectarian instruction:\n\n  \u201cSince every translation made by man must be more or less imperfect,\n  and since the application of particular passages is liable to be made\n  with partial apprehension and biased or even distorted judgment, it\n  is easy to perceive how texts of scripture may be read with such\n  an emphasis and tone as to become excessively sectarian. While the\n  members of any particular sect may be willing to have one of their\n  own number read the Bible in the public schools, yet they are not\n  always willing to concede the same to a member of a sect believing\n  in an opposite faith or doctrine. But the law is impartial, and has\n  given no rights to any one sect that is not equally secured to every\n  other.\u201d (page 977.)\n\nHe here quotes Judge Thurman of the Ohio Supreme Court as saying:\n\n  \u201cIt is not by mere toleration that every individual here is\n  protected in his belief or disbelief. He reposes not upon the\n  leniency of the government, or the liberality of any class or sect\n  of men, but upon his natural, indefeasible rights of conscience,\n  which, in the language of the constitution, are beyond the control or\n  interference of any human authority.\u201d (page 978.)\n\nIs the reading of the Bible worship? Justice Cassody upon this issue\nspeaks without reserve, and handles the question without gloves:\n\n  \u201cCertainly, the reading of the holy scriptures, as the eternal\n  word of God, in obedience to the oft-repeated injunction therein\n  contained, whether by the individual in private, or in the family,\n  or in the public assembly, is an essential part of divine worship.\n  Every sermon is based upon some text of scripture. Most prayers\n  are preceded by the reading of some passage of scripture, as an\n  intelligent guide to the thoughts of the worshiper or worshipers. The\n  Sermon on the Mount contains the prayer taught by the blessed Lord.\n  Is it possible for any genuine believer in the Christian religion to\n  read or listen to the reading of that sermon, and especially that\n  prayer, without being filled with a holy sense of honor, reverence,\n  adoration, and homage to Almighty God, which is the very essence of\n  worship? _We must hold that the stated reading of the Bible in the\n  public schools as a text book may be worship within the meaning of\n  the clause of the constitution under consideration._ If, then, such\n  reading of the Bible is worship, can there be any doubt but what the\n  school room in which it is so statedly read is a \u2018place of worship\u2019\n  within the same clause of the constitution? Counsel seem to argue\n  that such place of worship should be confined to some church edifice,\n  or place where the members of a church statedly worship. Some of\n  the earlier constitutions, having similar clauses, used the words\n  \u2018building\u2019 and \u2018church.\u2019 Manifestly the words \u2018place of worship\u2019\n  were advisedly used, as applicable to any \u2018place\u2019 or structure where\n  worship is statedly held, and which the citizen is \u2018compelled to\n  attend,\u2019 or the tax payers are compelled to \u2018erect or support.\u2019\n  The mere fact that only a small fraction of the school hours is\n  devoted to such worship, in no way justifies such use, as against\n  an objecting tax payer. If the right be conceded, then the length of\n  time so devoted becomes a matter of discretion. If such right does\n  not exist, then any length of time, however short, is forbidden.\u201d\n  (page 979.)\n\nJustice Orton, in concurring, thus speaks of the evils of even in the\nslightest manner mixing religion with the government:\n\n  \u201cThere is no other such source and cause of strife, quarrels, fights,\n  malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the\n  state, as religion. Let it once enter into our civil affairs, our\n  government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter into our common\n  schools, they would be destroyed. Those who made our constitution\n  saw this, and used the most apt and comprehensive language in it to\n  prevent such a catastrophe. It is said that if reading the Protestant\n  version of the Bible in school is offensive to the parents of some\n  of the scholars, and antagonistic to their religious views, their\n  children can retire. They ought not to be compelled to go out of the\n  school for such a reason for a moment. The suggestion itself concedes\n  the whole argument. That version of the Bible is hostile to the\n  belief of many who are taxed to support the common schools and who\n  have equal rights and privileges in them. It is a source of religious\n  and sectarian strife. That is enough. It violates the letter and\n  spirit of the constitution.\u201d (page 981.)\n\n  \u201cIt requires but little argument to prove that the Protestant version\n  of the Bible, or any other version of the Bible, is the source of\n  religious strife and opposition, and opposed to the religious belief\n  of many of our people. It is a sectarian book. The Protestants were a\n  very small sect in religion at one time, and they are a sect yet, to\n  the great Catholic church, against whose usages they protested; and\n  so is their version of the Bible sectarian as against the Catholic\n  version. The common school is one of the most indispensable, useful,\n  and valuable civil institutions this state has. It is democratic and\n  free to all alike, in perfect equality, where all the children of\n  our people stand on a common platform, and enjoy the benefits of\n  an equal and common education. An enemy of our common schools is an\n  enemy to our state government.\n\n  \u201cThis case is important and timely. It brings before the courts a\n  case of plausible, insidious, and apparently innocent entrance of\n  religion into our civil affairs, and of an assault upon the most\n  valuable provisions of our constitution. These provisions should be\n  pondered and heeded by all of our people, of all nationalities and of\n  all denominations of religion, who desire the perpetuity, and value\n  the blessings of our free government.\u201d (page 982.)\n\n\n                           THE NEBRASKA CASE\n\nThis case was decided by the supreme court of the state on October 9,\n1902. It was the case of Daniel Freeman vs. School District No. 21,\nappealed from Gage county. The teacher, summoned as a witness, admitted\nhaving read the Bible; that she considered the exercises conducted\nas religious exercises, held them as such, and believed it to be her\nduty to do so. This teacher was evidently honest, and made no false\npretenses, which is more than we can say of many others in her position\nand holding her views. Two extracts from the decision of the court are\nworthy of our attention:\n\n  \u201cBut if the system of compulsory education is persevered in, and\n  religious worship or sectarian instruction in the public schools\n  is at the same time permitted, parents will be compelled to expose\n  their children to what they deem spiritual contamination, or else,\n  while bearing their share of the burden for the support of public\n  education, provide the means from their own pockets for the training\n  of their offspring elsewhere. It might be reasonably apprehended that\n  such a practice, besides being unjust and oppressive to the persons\n  immediately concerned, would, by its tendency to the multiplication\n  of parochial and sectarian schools, tend forcibly to the destruction\n  of one of the most important, if not indispensable, foundation\n  stones of our form of government. It will be an evil day when\n  anything happens to lower the public schools in public esteem, or to\n  discourage attendance upon them by children of any class.\u201d (page 847.)\n\n  \u201cFor more than three centuries it has been the boast and exultation\n  of Protestants and a complaint and grievance of the Roman Catholics\n  that the various translations of the Bible, especially the New\n  Testament, into the vernacular of different peoples, have been the\n  chief controversial weapons of the former and the principal cause of\n  undoing of the latter. For the making of such translations Wickliffe,\n  Tyndale, Luther, and others have been commended and glorified by\n  one party and anathematized by the others. Books containing such\n  translations have been committed to the flames as heretical, and\n  their translators, printers, publishers, and distributors persecuted,\n  imprisoned, tortured and put to death for participating in their\n  production and distribution. The several popular versions differ in\n  some particulars from each other, and all differ from the Catholic\n  canon, both in rendition of passages from which sectarian doctrines\n  are derived by construction and in the number of books or gospels\n  constituting what is regarded as the written record of divine\n  revelation. In addition to this, there are persons who are convinced,\n  upon grounds satisfactory to them, that considerable parts of the\n  writings accepted by all Protestant denominations are not authentic\n  while devout Hebrews maintain that the New Testament itself is not\n  entitled to a place in the true Bible. These diverse opinions have\n  given rise to a great number of religious sects or denominations.\n  To some of these sects the reading in public of any portion of any\n  version of the scriptures unaccompanied by authoritative comment\n  or explanation, or the reading of it privately by persons not\n  commissioned by the church to do so, is objectionable, and an offense\n  to their religious feelings; to some, the utterance of public prayer,\n  except recitations from the Scripture, is a vain and a wicked act;\n  and to some the songs and hymns of praise in which others engage\n  are a stumbling-block and an offense. We do not think it wise or\n  necessary to prolong a discussion of what appears to us an almost\n  self-evident fact--that exercises such as are complained of by the\n  relator in this case both constitute religious worship and are\n  sectarian in their character, within the meaning of the constitution.\n  Nor do we feel inclined to make what might be looked upon as a\n  spurious exhibition of learning by quoting at length from the many\n  judicial decisions and utterances of eminent men in this country\n  concerning the subject.\u201d (pages 846\u2013847.)\n\nA motion for a rehearing of this case was denied.\n\n\n                           THE ILLINOIS CASE\n\nThis was the case of The People _ex rel._ Jeremiah Ring _et al._,\nPlaintiffs in Error, vs. the Board of Education of District 24, etc.,\nDefendant in Error. It was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in\nJune, 1910, and is to be found in the Reports of the state, Vol. 245,\npages 334\u2013378.\n\nThe situation, briefly stated, was this: Mr. Ring, a Roman Catholic in\nbelief, was sending his children to a district school in Scott county,\nIllinois, there being no Catholic school available within reasonable\ndistance. Moreover, he was compelled by law to give his children an\neducation. In this school certain teachers held religious service\nwhich included, during school hours, readings from the King James\nversion of the Bible, repeating the Lord\u2019s Prayer as written therein,\nand the singing of hymns, among them one entitled, \u201cGrace Enough for\nMe.\u201d During such religious service the pupils were required to rise in\ntheir seats, fold their hands and bow their heads, and were sometimes\ncalled on to explain the meaning of passages of scripture read. Mr.\nRing had brought suit in the District Court of Scott county, where\nit was held that the services were not unjust and not a violation of\nthe constitution of Illinois. He thereupon appealed to the Supreme\nCourt of the state. Here four important questions were decided, which\napplied not only to Mr. Ring, but to all other citizens not in sympathy\nwith what is known as Evangelical Protestant Christianity. The first\nquestion decided was that \u201c_free enjoyment of religious worship\nincludes freedom not to worship_.\u201d This, orthodox religionists have\nbeen slow to concede, and never before has the right _not to worship_\nbeen so clearly stated. On this point the court said:\n\n\u201cThe wrong arises, not out of the particular version of the Bible or\nform of prayer used--whether that found in the Douay or the King James\nversion--or the particular songs sung, but out of the _compulsion_ to\njoin in any form of worship.\u201d\n\nThe second point decided was that \u201c_children attending public school\ncannot be compelled to join in religious worship_,\u201d and that the\nreligious exercises as held in the school \u201cconstitute worship within\nthe meaning of the Constitution.\u201d The third point decided was that, the\nconstitution of Illinois having forbidden the use of school funds for\nsectarian instruction, the giving of such instruction in the schools\nby the teacher is illegal. Most important of all, the fourth point was\nthat the reading of the Bible in public schools constitutes sectarian\ninstruction. Here the court speaks plainly:\n\n\u201cThe Bible, in its entirety, is a sectarian book as to the Jew and\nevery believer in any religion other than the Christian religion and as\nto those who are heretical or who hold beliefs that are not regarded as\northodox. Whether it be called sectarian or not, its use in the schools\nnecessarily results in sectarian instruction.\u201d\n\nIn delivering this decision the court gave forth a number of maxims\nworthy of being remembered, among which were:\n\n\u201cAll stand equal before the law--the Protestant, the Catholic, the\nMohammedan, the Jew, the Mormon, the Freethinker, the Atheist. Whatever\nmay be the view of the majority of the people, the court has no right,\nand the majority has no right to force that view upon the minority,\nhowever small.\u201d\n\nRegarding the status of a pupil in a school who is permitted by the\nobjection of himself or his parents to refrain from taking part in\nreligious exercises, the Court said:\n\n\u201cThe exclusion of a pupil from this part of the school exercises in\nwhich the rest of the school joins, separates him from his fellows,\nputs him in a class by himself, deprives him of his equality with the\nother pupils, subjects him to a religious stigma and places him at a\ndisadvantage in the school, which the law never contemplated.\u201d\n\nThe decision of the judge of the District Court of Scott county was\nreversed.\n\nAt the Illinois constitutional convention of 1920, an attempt was made\nto nullify this decision by inserting the following in the proposed new\nconstitution: \u201cThe reading of selections from any version of the Old\nand New Testaments in the public schools without comment shall never be\nheld to be in conflict with this constitution.\u201d\n\nThe object of this was to force the Bible into the schools and to make\nopponents of the tyranny helpless in protest. The people of Illinois,\nhowever, took the matter in hand, and on December 12, 1922, defeated\nthe adoption of the new constitution by a majority of six to one.\n\n\n                          THE CALIFORNIA CASE\n\nThis case was decided by the Court of Appeals of the state in December,\n1922. It was based on a clause of the Constitution of California\nreading:\n\n\u201cNo public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any\nsectarian school; ... nor shall any sectarian doctrine be taught\nor instruction therein permitted, directly or indirectly, in any\ncommon schools of this state.\u201d The California court held that \u201cwhile\nProtestantism may not be a \u2018sect\u2019 in the strict interpretation of\nthe term, the Protestant Bible contains the precepts of many of the\nProtestant denominations, and the \u2018denomination\u2019 is merely another term\nfor \u2018sect\u2019.\u201d\n\nAs the arguments in this case were very largely those used in the other\ncases they are not reproduced here.\n\nThe New York Globe, in commenting upon the decision admits that the\n\u201cauthorized version\u201d is \u201ctechnically sectarian literature,\u201d while the\nBrooklyn Citizen admits: \u201cThere can be no doubt as to the facts. The\nlaw is clear.\u201d In California as in Illinois, the churches are going to\ntry to nullify this decision by a constitutional amendment.\n\nThe following points now seem to be established in law:\n\nFirst: Any _version_ of the Christian Bible is sectarian to those who\ndo not accept it as the inspired word of God.\n\nSecond: One version of the Bible accepted by one denomination of\nChristians is sectarian to members of any other denomination which does\nnot accept it.\n\nThird: The Bible is distinctly a book of religion, and the teaching of\nit anywhere cannot fail to be construed as religious teaching.\n\nFourth: Readings from the Bible, accompanied or unaccompanied by prayer\nand the singing of religious hymns, are acts of religious worship.\n\nFifth: If done in the public school room, during school hours, with the\npupils present, it thereby makes the public school a place of religious\nworship.\n\nSixth: As our citizens are compelled by law either to send their\nchildren to the public schools or by other means provide for them\nan education, the use of the Bible in the school room compels the\ncitizen to support and attend a place of worship, thereby violating the\nfundamental American principle of no state religion and no union of\nchurch and state. The attempts of Protestants to place the Bible in the\nschools are very astute efforts to evade and nullify this principle.\n\nSeventh: No church, or religion is entitled to any special privileges\nat the hands of the government. All the state is bound to do is to\nprotect them all in their equal rights.\n\nEighth: Those professing no religion have the same rights as those who\ndo.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n_Fifteen Reasons Why the Bible Should Not Be in the School Room_\n\n\nI. _The Question of Religion Involved._ Those who want the Bible read\nin the public schools declare it to be the word of God. Now it either\nis such or it is not. If taught as the word of God, such teaching would\nbe religious and therefore, as the courts maintain, unconstitutional.\nIf taught as a human production, would the advocates of its use in the\nschools be so enthusiastic to place it there? As we have previously\nobserved, the subject of religion cannot be eliminated from any\nstudy of the Bible. The result would be the dragging of it into the\npublic school, where of all places it should not be. It would cause\ndissension, disagreement, and bad feeling and bring about the very\nthing we do not want to happen, the dividing of the children into\nreligious groups or sects. The object of our schools above all things\nis to make the forthcoming citizens Americans, not to divide them\ninto religious or national coteries. Let religion be taught in the\nchurches and Sunday schools. If it is of any value its worth will be\ncommunicated from these places in the lives of those who attend them.\nIf the churches, as many of them as we have, as great effort as they\nmake to spread their teachings, and as much wealth as they possess, to\nsay nothing of the power of God behind them, cannot make their good\ninfluence felt without encroaching upon the public secular school,\nwe have a right to assume that they are valueless. The Rev. Joseph\nParker, the eminent English clergyman, who was opposed to thrusting the\nBible into the schools, said that to do so was a reflection upon the\nministry. It implied that ministers are unable to do their own work and\nmust call upon the schoolmaster to help them.\n\nII. _The Age of the Bible._ A book written over two thousand years\nago, in the infancy of the human intelligence, before the birth of\nscientific knowledge, has no place as a text book in the schools of\nthe twentieth century. But, some will urge, are not other works of\nantiquity studied in the schools? True, but under these circumstances:\nThey are used in higher education; they are used for a particular\npurpose, as, for instance, the study of the language, history, or\nhabits of an ancient people; there are not the controversies or other\nobjectionable features connected with their study that would follow\nthe Bible. Why need we go to a book so old as the Bible for our\nideals? Have we not them among ourselves? We think we have. We think\nour Abraham Lincoln a greater and a better man than Abraham of Ur of\nthe Chaldees. We think our Ingersoll and our Webster were greater\norators than Peter and Paul. We think Shakespeare, Byron, Burns, Moore,\nShelley, and our own Longfellow were greater poets than the writers\nof the Psalms. We think Darwin knew more about biology, Herschel more\nabout astronomy, Lyell more about geology, Mill more about logic and\npolitical economy, and almost any physician more about medicine and\nsurgery than were known by Moses or any other man, real or imagined,\nwho it is alleged wrote the Bible. We think that Herbert Spencer was\na greater philosophical genius of all the biblical writers, and that\nBenjamin Franklin was a wiser and a cleaner man morally than was\nSolomon. We think that Edison has done more good in the world than\ndid Ezekiel, and that Isaac Newton proclaimed greater truths than did\nIsaiah. We think that Buddha, Confucius, Manu, and Zoroaster taught as\ngood systems of morals as did Jesus. If Jesus died to save the world,\nthousands have also died in behalf of or on account of Jesus so the\ndebt has many times been repaid. If Jesus died in behalf of principles\nwhich he deemed to be good, so did Bruno, Savonarola, Legate, Wightman,\nFerrer, and others too numerous to mention. Bible virtues of any real\nvalue are strictly human virtues to be found in all ages and climes,\namong all races and religions. Is it possible that for moral teaching\nwe must revert to the book of a people who were so far behind their\nneighbors that except Saul and Jonathan they had \u201cneither sword nor\nspear in the hand of any of the people\u201d? (1 Samuel xiii, 22.) And a\npeople who had no blacksmiths, but who \u201cwent down to the Philistines\nto sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his\nmattock\u201d? (verses 19 and 20). And a people who had no mechanics among\nthem, but when their king wanted to build a house for himself had to\nsend to a \u201cheathen,\u201d Hiram, king of Tyre, for masons and carpenters? (2\nSamuel v, 11.)\n\nIII. _The Bible is not a book_, but a collection of books, written\nhundreds of years apart, and arbitrarily, in the midst of great and\nstormy controversy, gathered together in one volume. There was always a\ndispute as to what books should compose it. The Hebrew Bible contains\nthirty-nine books. The King James, or Protestant English, version\ncontains sixty-six, while the Roman Catholic or Douay version in\naddition to these contains the Apocrypha, making in all seventy-two.\nThese different factions of religionists respectively reject certain\nbooks the others accept. For a history of the controversies over what\nbooks should compose the Bible, see Davidson on \u201cThe Canon,\u201d \u201cAn\nIntroduction to the New Testament,\u201d by the Rev. B. W. Bacon, D.D.,\nof the Yale Divinity School, and the article on the Canon in the\nEncyclopedia Biblica.\n\nIV. Unless used for the purpose of teaching some foreign language, any\nbook studied in the public schools should be written in the English\nlanguage, not in a foreign or a dead language. The Old Testament was\nwritten in the ancient Hebrew, practically a dead language at the\nbeginning of the alleged Christian era. Many translations have been\nmade, of which John E. Remsburg says, after speaking of the English\nversions, Wicliffe\u2019s, Tyndale\u2019s, King James\u2019s, the New Version, and\nthe Douay: \u201cThe foregoing are but a few of the numerous versions of\nthe Bible, ancient and modern, that have appeared. Nearly every nation\nof Europe has had from one to a score. Luther\u2019s version is nearly four\nhundred years old, and yet Germany has seventeen translations and\nconsequently seventeen versions before Luther\u2019s was published. England\nhad many besides those named.\u201d\n\nV. The Bible should not be read in the public schools because so many\nfalse and unfounded claims have been made for it, claims that have\nbeen nullified by the conclusions of modern science and criticism and\nrecent investigations and discoveries. These false claims are embodied\nin the popular teaching of the book. It is claimed, for instance, that\nthe first five books of the Old Testament were written by Moses in the\nthirteenth century B. C.; that the four gospels of the New Testament\nwere written by those whose names appear as the writers; that Paul\nwrote the fourteen epistles that bear his name, and fictitious claims\nare made for other books. In the face of modern scholarship, which has\nsubmitted the Bible to the same scrutiny and criticism to which other\nbooks have been submitted, all these claims have been proved false and\nunfounded. This is so clear that the orthodox churches have split over\nthe situation, one party accepting the old or traditional view, and the\nother the modern or scientific.\n\nVI. As Archdeacon Farrar has said, all parts of the Bible are not of\nequal value. The sixty-six books bound into one represent every variety\nof literature--poetry, fiction, mythology, drama, legend, tradition,\nand some things possibly historical. Yet the popular teaching of the\nbooks makes no distinction between them, and uncritically places all\nupon the same level and gives them the same value.\n\nVII. The Bible should not be read in the schools because it relates\nas facts numerous miracles, wonders, and myths, impossible in the\nnature of things, as the established matter-of-fact experience of\nmankind proves, which bear upon their face the marks of ignorance,\nsuperstition, and fraud. In the ordinary course of life we laugh at\nsuch narratives and regard them only as fairy tales. Why, then, in the\ninstruction of youth should we teach what we ourselves dismiss as the\nfictitious and absurd?\n\nVIII. The history of man proves that he has been enlightened, happy,\nand prosperous to the extent that he has had a knowledge of Nature and\nher laws, and that ignorance, superstition, and misfortune have been\nthe result of a lack of knowledge of, and the violation of, these laws.\nIn other words, science has been the great enlightener and civilizer.\nScience today is the basis for judgment in all matters pertaining to\nthe welfare of the human race. Science has been called classified\nknowledge, or as Professor Clifford has said, it is \u201corganized common\nsense.\u201d \u201cThe subject of science is the human universe; that is to say,\nevery thing that is, or has been, or may be related to man\u201d (Lectures\nand Essays, page 24, R. P. A. Edition). Science is progressive. It\ndepends upon the continued advance of knowledge, is ever alert and\ncritical, calls everything into question and accepts nothing as true\nwithout a preponderance of evidence. The Bible should not be read in\nthe schools because the science it teaches is that of a primitive\nand a barbarous age. It was in accordance with the childhood of the\nworld, when, as Lydia M. Child says, \u201cIn the childhood of the race men\nthought little and believed much, just as children do.\u201d As a book in\nthe schools, the Bible, with its flat earth, its metallic firmament,\nmaking the sun, moon, and stars as lanterns hung out to give light to\nthe day and the night, is a mockery and a distortion in this age of the\nworld. Its story of creation is a fairy tale only believable in an age\nof ignorance. Its story of the origin of man is childish, being on a\npar with similar myths of ancient peoples.\n\nThe Bishop of Oxford (England) has this to say about the teachings of\nthese myths to children: \u201cYou can hardly exaggerate the disaster it\nhas been to the education of children that they have been taught to\nassociate with religion things about the creation, the flood, and the\nbeginning of our race, which it was infallibly certain, when they grew\nup to read the literature of their time, they would find false and\nwould reject as alien to the whole trend of the philosophy, science,\nand history of their time.\u201d This statement, coming from a clergyman of\nsuch high standing, ought to be conclusive. We have neither the space\nnor the time to dilate upon the conflict between the Bible and science\nand the bitter struggle between religionists and the scientists. The\nstory has been written by one of our greatest of historians, Andrew\nDickson White, in his two large volumes entitled \u201cThe Warfare Between\nScience and Theology in Christendom.\u201d It has been written by Draper in\nhis \u201cIntellectual Development of Europe\u201d and in his \u201cConflict Between\nScience and Religion.\u201d Read these works and see clearly the folly and\nthe disaster of placing the Bible in the public schools. You will\nnot then be surprised that religionists of the type of W. J. Bryan\nare now using their efforts to prevent the teaching of Evolution in\nour public educational institutions. It is only a revival of the old\nconflict between education and ignorance, between superstition and\nknowledge. The cause of it all has been the use of the Bible as a book\nof authority and teaching.\n\nIX. The Bible has no place in the school room because it states as\nfacts the grossest absurdities. It speaks of an ax swimming in the\nwater (2 Kings vi, 5); it speaks of \u201can hundred and four score and five\nthousand\u201d men who arose early in the morning only to find that \u201cthey\nwere all dead corpses\u201d (Isaiah xxxvii, 36); while we read in the ninth\nand tenth chapters of 1 Kings that Solomon had more gold and silver\nthan there were in the world at that time; that the spies sent into\nCaanan \u201ccut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and\nthey bare it between two upon a staff\u201d (Numbers xiii, 23); that \u201cwe\nsaw the giants, and the sons of Anak, which came of the giants: and we\nwere in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight\u201d\n(verse 33), and that the rabbit chews its cud like the cow (Lev. ii, 6).\n\nWe will call the reader\u2019s attention to the very absurd story of the\nIsraelites\u2019 exodus from Egypt, as shown by R. B. Westbrook, in his\nwork, \u201cThe Eliminator: or Skeleton Keys to Sacerdotal Mysteries\u201d; \u201cThe\nnumber of fighting men who marched out of Egypt is nowhere estimated\nat less than 600,000, and if this represents only one-fifth of the\npopulation, the latter must have reached 3,000,000. If we cut this down\none-third, so as to be sure of our figure, we make it 2,000,000 souls.\nThe number of the children of Israel who went into Egypt was seventy\n(Ex. i, 5). They sojourned in Egypt 215 years. It could not have been\n430, as would appear from Ex. xii, 40. The marginal chronology makes\nthe period 215 years, and there were only four generations to the\nExodus--namely, Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses (Ex. vi. 16, 18, 20).\nHow could these people increase in 215 years from seventy souls so as\nto number 600,000 warriors? It would have required an average number\nof 46 children to each father. The twelve sons of Jacob had between\nthem only fifty-three sons. At this rate of increase, in the fourth\ngeneration there would have been only 6,311 males (providing they were\nall living at the time of the Exodus), instead of 1,000,000. If we add\nthe fifth generation, who would be mostly children, the total number of\nmales would not have exceeded 28,465.\n\n\u201cAll the first-born males from a month old and upwards, of those that\nwere numbered, were 22,273 (Numbers iii, 43). The lowest computation of\nthe whole number of the people at that time is 2,000,000. The number of\nmales would be 1,000,000. Dividing the latter number by the number of\nfirst born gives 44, which would be the average number of boys in each\nfamily, or about 88 children by each mother. Or, if where the first\nborn were females the males were not counted, the number of children by\neach mother would be reduced to forty-four.\n\n\u201cDan in the first generation had but one son (Gen. xlvi, 23), and\nyet in the fourth generation his descendants had increased to 62,700\nwarriors (Num. ii, 26), or 64,400 (Num. xxvi, 43). Each of his sons and\ngrandsons must have had about eighty children of both sexes. On the\nother hand, the Levites increased the number of \u2018males from a month old\nand upward\u2019 during the thirty-eight years in the wilderness only from\n22,000 to 23,000 (Num. iii, 39; xxvi, 62), and the tribe of Manasseh\nduring the same time increased from 32,200 (Num. i, 35) to 52,700\n(xxvi, 34).\n\n\u201cThe whole population of Israel were instructed in one single day to\nkeep the passover, and actually did keep it (Ex. xii). At the first\nnotice of any such feast Jehovah said, \u2018I will pass through the land of\nEgypt _this night_.\u2019 The passover was to be killed \u2018_at even_\u2019 on the\nsame day that Moses received the command.... After midnight of the same\nday the Israelites received notice to start for the wilderness. No one\nwas to go out of his house till morning, when they were to take their\nhurried flight with their cattle and herds. How could 2,000,000 people,\nscattered over a wide district, as they must have been with their\ncattle and herds, have gotten ready and taken a simultaneous hurried\nflight at twelve hours\u2019 notice?\n\n\u201cThe Israelites, with their flocks and herds, reached the Red Sea, a\ndistance of from fifty to sixty miles over a sandy desert, in three\ndays! Marching fifty abreast the able-bodied warriors alone would have\nfilled up the road for seven miles, and the whole multitude would have\nmade a column twenty-two miles long, so that the last of the body could\nnot have been started until the front had advanced that distance--more\nthan two days\u2019 journey for such a mixed company. Then the sheep and\ncattle must have formed another vast column, covering a much greater\ntract of ground in proportion to their number. Upon what did these two\nmillions of sheep and oxen feed in the journey to the Red Sea over a\ndesert region, sandy, gravelly, and stony alternately? How did the\npeople manage with the sick and infirm, and especially with the seven\nhundred and fifty births that must have taken place in the three days\u2019\nmarch?\u201d (pages 85, 86, 87.)\n\nIn addition to this we need say nothing of the story of the flood or\nother ridiculous Bible tales. The land of Caanan is described in the\nBible as \u201ca land flowing with milk and honey,\u201d as a rich land, where\ngold and silver were as abundant as stones. We turn from this high\nsounding Jewish boast to the description of it as given by General\nFurlong, of the British army, who had marched over every mile of it:\n\n\u201cThe area of Judea and Samaria is, according to the above authority,\n140 \u00d7 40 = 5,600 square miles, which I think is certainly one-fourth\ntoo much, my own triangulation of it giving only 4,500, or a figure of\nabout 130 \u00d7 35. I will, however, concede the allotment of 5,600, but\nwe must remember that, as a rule, the whole is a dismal, rocky, arid\nregion, with only intersecting valleys, watered by springs and heavy\nrain from November to February inclusive, and having scorching heats\nfrom April to September. Even the inhabitable portions of the country\ncould support only the very sparsest population, and I speak after\nhaving marched over it and also a considerable portion of the rest of\nthe world. In India we should look upon it as a very poor province;\nin some respects very like the hilly tracts of Mewar or Odeypoor in\nRajpootana, but in extent, population, and wealth it is less than a\nsmall principality.\u201d\n\nWhy should we place a book in the schools which teaches such falsehoods\nwhen all around us are the grand truths of Nature?\n\nX. The Bible should not be read in the schools because it teaches\noriental tyranny and kingcraft, against which our fathers fought and\noffered their life blood. \u201cFear God, honor the king\u201d (1 Peter ii, 17).\n\u201cSubmit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord\u2019s sake:\nwhether it be to the king, as supreme; or to the governors, as unto\nthem that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the\npraises of them that do well\u201d (verses 13 and 14). \u201cLet every soul be\nsubject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the\npowers that be are ordained of God\u201d (Romans xiii, 1). This is contrary\nto the principles of Americanism as taught by the founders of our\nrepublic, and has no place in the instruction of the young Americans of\ntoday in our public schools.\n\nXI. As one of the most progressive nations in the world we have granted\nwoman equal rights with man. The Bible should not be read in our\nschools because it teaches the subjugation, degradation, and oriental\nslavery of women prevalent in the age and country in which it was\nwritten. \u201cUnto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow\nand thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children: and thy\ndesire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee\u201d (Genesis\niii, 16). \u201cWives, submit yourselves to your own husbands\u201d (Col. iii,\n18). \u201cAs the church is subject unto Christ so let the wives be subject\nto their own husbands in everything\u201d (Eph. v, 24). \u201cLet your women keep\nsilence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak,\nbut they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.\nAnd if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home;\nfor it is a shame for a woman to speak in church\u201d (1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35).\n\u201cYe wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.... For after this\nmanner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned\nthemselves, being in subjection to their own husbands; even as Sarah\nobeyed Abraham calling him lord\u201d (1 Peter iii, 1\u20136). \u201cLet women learn\nin silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach,\nnor to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam\nwas first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman\nbeing deceived was in the transgression\u201d (1 Tim. ii, 11\u201314). Modern\ncivilization has bidden defiance to these words of Paul. We would ask\nthe good W. C. T. U. ladies who are working to place the Bible in the\npublic schools to ponder over these words of the apostle, as well as\nover many other biblical passages. We would call their attention to the\ndespicable idea of marriage taught by Jesus in Matt. xix, 10\u201312, and by\nPaul in the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians. In the Old Testament the\nfather selects a husband for his daughter, and is allowed to sell her\nas a slave (Ex. xxi, 7). Let these ladies, who are the right bower of\nthe priest and parson, read and think over this passage: \u201cWhen a man\nhath taken a wife, and marries her, and it come to pass that she find\nno favor in his eyes, ... then let him write her a bill of divorcement,\nand give it in her hand, and send her out of his house\u201d (Deut. xxiv,\n1). Yet this is not quite so bad as the teaching of Jesus forbidding\ndivorce at all except for the cause of adultery. Let them read and\nthink of the following:\n\n\u201cThus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee in\nthine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give\nthem unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of\nthe sun\u201d (2 Samuel xii, 11).\n\n\u201cTheir children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their\nhouses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished\u201d (Isaiah xiii, 16).\n\n\u201cI will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city\nshall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished\u201d (Zech.\nxiv, 2).\n\n\u201cLet their wives be bereaved of their children and be widows\u201d (Jer.\nxviii, 21).\n\nWherever the Bible speaks of woman, from the first chapter of Genesis\nto the last chapter of Revelation, its ideas are low and vile. Those\nideas have no place in the school room and are unfit for the reading of\nchildren and young people anywhere. The late G. W. Foote once said that\nthe day would come when it would be the proud boast of woman that she\nhad never contributed a line to the Bible.\n\nXII. The best thoughts of the best men, both Christian and\nnon-Christian, at the present day are turned to the question of how\nto avert war, the curse of the world during the past ten years. The\nBible should not be read in the schools because from cover to cover it\nteaches, commends, authorizes, and lauds the practice of men killing\neach other. The best evidence of this is the Bible itself. The word war\noccurs within its lids just two hundred and thirty-five times--threats\nof war, rumors of war, devastations of war. The following are a few of\nthem: \u201cThe Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name\u201d (Exodus xv, 3);\n\u201cHe teacheth my hands to war\u201d (1 Sam. xxii, 35). See also Psalms xviii,\n34, and cxliv. \u201cAnd thou shalt consume all the people, which the Lord\nthy God shall deliver thee, thine eye shall have no pity upon them\u201d\n(Deut. vii, 16); \u201cOf the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God\ndoth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive that\nbreatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them\u201d (Deut. xx, 16, 17);\n\u201cAnd they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses;\nand they slew all the males.... And the children of Israel took all the\nwomen of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil\nof all their cattle, and all their flocks and all their goods. And\nthey burned all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly\ncastles with fire\u201d (Numbers xxxi, 10).\n\nThese passages are typical of the Old Testament. To quote further would\nbe superfluous and wearisome. In the second chapter of Deuteronomy,\nfourth and eighth verses, we find a thorough justification for the\nmarching of the Germans through Belgium in the late European war, an\noutrage against all international law and the established rules of\njustice which govern nations in their intercourse with each other.\n\nRead the fourteenth chapter of Numbers and Deuteronomy ix, 23, and see\nwhy all of the children of Israel twenty years old and over were doomed\nto spend the remainder of their lives in the wilderness. Why? Because\nthey refused to _war_ against the inhabitants of the land of Canaan.\nWhen the people told Jeremiah that they would go into Egypt where they\nwould be free from war (Jeremiah xlii, 14), the Lord replied that war\nwould also follow them there and that the sword \u201cshall overtake you\nthere in the land of Egypt, and the famine, whereof ye were afraid,\nshall follow close after you there in Egypt; and there ye shall die\u201d\n(verse 16). When Israel and Syria were without a war for three years it\nwas considered a matter worthy of special mention (1 Kings xxii, 1);\nand God gave Judah a special dispensation from war. Jesus said: \u201cI came\nnot to send peace but a sword\u201d (Matthew x, 34). He said (Luke xxi, 24),\n\u201cAnd they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away\ncaptive into all nations.\u201d \u201cAnd he that hath no sword, let him sell\nhis garment and buy one\u201d (Luke xxii, 36). But, say some bibliolaters,\nhe meant the \u201csword of the spirit!\u201d Read, however, the fiftieth verse\nof the same chapter; \u201cAnd one of them smote the servant of the high\npriest, and cut off his right ear.\u201d With what did he do this, the sword\nof the spirit? And there still was war, even in heaven (Rev. xii, 7).\n\nAs Archdeacon Farrar well said, \u201cThe Bible is a barbarous book, written\nin a barbarous age for a barbarous people.\u201d Do we want this book read\nin our public schools against the best thought, the highest learning\nand the most humanitarian views of this age? The people who advocate\nits reading there require watching.\n\nXIII. The Bible should not be read in the public schools because\nit contradicts itself nearly two hundred times. We will give a few\nillustrations:\n\n\u201cAnd he said, _Thou shalt not see my face_: for there shall no man see\nme and live\u201d (Ex. xxxiii, 20).\n\n\u201c_And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face_, as a man speaketh unto\nhis friend\u201d (11).\n\n\u201cAnd the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, _hearing a\nvoice_, but seeing no man\u201d (Acts ix, 7).\n\n\u201cAnd they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but\n_they heard not the voice_ of him that spake to me\u201d (xxii, 9).\n\nJesus said, \u201cIf any man hear my words, and believe not, _I judge him\nnot_: for _I came not to judge the world_, but to save the world\u201d (John\nxii, 47).\n\n\u201cFor the Father judgeth no man; _but hath committed all judgment to the\nson_\u201d (v. 22).\n\n\u201cAnd the anger of _the Lord_ was kindled against Israel, and he moved\nDavid against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah\u201d (2 Samuel xxiv,\n1).\n\n\u201cAnd _Satan_ stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number\nIsrael\u201d (1 Chronicles xxi, 1).\n\n\u201cThe Jews therefore said unto him, _It is not lawful for us to put any\nman to death_\u201d (John xviii, 31).\n\n\u201cThe Jews answered him, We have a law, and _by our law he ought to\ndie_\u201d (John xiv, 7).\n\nWhat women visited the tomb on the morning of the resurrection?\n\n\u201cThe first day of the week cometh _Mary Magdalene_, early when it was\nyet dark, unto the sepulchre\u201d (John xx, 1).\n\n\u201cIn the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day\nof the week, came _Mary Magdalene and the other Mary_ to see the\nsepulchre\u201d (Matt. xxviii, 1).\n\n\u201cNow upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they\ncame unto the sepulchre.... It was _Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and\nMary the mother of James, and other women_\u201d (Luke xxiv, 10).\n\nAt what time in the morning did they visit the tomb?\n\n\u201cAt the rising of the sun\u201d (Mark xvi, 2).\n\n\u201cWhen it was yet dark\u201d (John xx, 1).\n\nWhere did Jesus first appear to his disciples?\n\n\u201cThen said Jesus unto them (the women) Be not afraid; go tell my\nbrethren _that they go into Galilee_, into a mountain where Jesus had\nappointed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some\ndoubted (Matt. xxviii, 10, 16, 17).\n\n\u201cAnd they rose up the same hour, and _returned to Jerusalem_, and found\nthe eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The\nLord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.... And as they thus\nspake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them\u201d (Luke xxiv, 33, 34,\n36).\n\nDid the disciples know that Jesus would arise from the dead? According\nto Mark x, 32, 33 and 34, they did:\n\n\u201cAnd he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things\nshould happen unto him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the\nSon of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the\nscribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to\nthe Gentiles; and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall\nspit upon him, and shall kill him; _and the third day he shall rise\nagain_.\u201d Yet John xx, 9 distinctly says, \u201c_For as yet they knew not the\nscripture, that he must rise again from the dead._\u201d\n\nDid John the Baptist know Jesus when he came unto him to be baptized?\nHe did, according to Matt. iii, 13, 14: \u201cThen cometh Jesus from Galilee\nto Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him,\nsaying, _I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?_\u201d\n\nYet John himself admits that he did not know him:\n\n\u201c_And I knew him not_: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the\nsame said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and\nremaining on him, the same is he that baptizes with the holy ghost. And\nI saw, and bare record, that this is the Son of God\u201d (John i, 33).\n\nThere is also another very material contradiction as to what the\ncenturion at the cross said:\n\n\u201cNow when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus,\nsaw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared\ngreatly, saying, \u2018_Truly, this was the Son of God_\u2019\u201d (Matt. xxvii, 54).\n\nLuke gives an entirely different version:\n\n\u201cNow when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying,\n_Certainly this was a righteous man_\u201d (xxiii, 47).\n\nAre works necessary for salvation, or is faith alone sufficient?\n\u201cKnowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by\nthe faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that\nwe might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of\nthe law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified\u201d\n(Galatians ii, 16). \u201cIf righteousness come by the law, then Christ is\ndead in vain\u201d (21). \u201cTherefore, we conclude that a man is justified by\nfaith without the deeds of the law\u201d (Romans iii, 28).\n\n\u201cBut wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead\u201d\n(James ii, 20). \u201cFor as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith\nwithout works is dead also\u201d (26). \u201cYe see then how that by works a man\nis justified, and not by faith only\u201d (24).\n\n\u201cAnd I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of\nGod Almighty, _but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them_\u201d (Exodus\nvi, 3). \u201c_And Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah-jireh_\u201d\n(Genesis xxii, 14).\n\nThese are but a few of the contradictions of the Bible, selected at\nrandom from hundreds.\n\nXIV. The Bible should not be read in the public schools because it\nteaches, by direct commands, by the praise of them, by acknowledgment\nof their habitual use as a matter of custom, the taking of intoxicating\nliquors. Many of us may not believe the eighteenth amendment, as\ninterpreted by the Volstead act, to be the best means of abrogating the\nevils of intemperance. All thinking men, however, believe that the use\nof alcoholic beverages, considering the evils that result therefrom,\nshould be reduced to a minimum. The words \u201cwines\u201d and \u201cstrong drink\u201d\noccur in the Bible about two hundred and forty times. Among these are\nto be found some passages condemning drunkenness. This is of no special\nmoment, as no moral code in the world upholds intoxication, while the\nMohammedan Koran distinctly condemns the use of alcoholic liquors\nand stands for total abstinence. In the Bible, total abstinence is\ncommanded under special circumstances. For illustration, a Nazarite\nmust not drink during the period of his separation. When that period\nis passed he may drink all he wishes. (See Numbers vi, 3, 20.) Jehovah\nsaid unto Aaron, in his official capacity as high-priest: \u201cDo not drink\nwine or strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, _when ye go into\nthe tabernacle of the congregation_, lest ye die\u201d (Leviticus x, 9).\nWhy? \u201cThat ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between\nclean and unclean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the\nstatutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses\u201d\n(10, 11). He wanted his priests to be entirely sober when performing\ntheir priestly functions, and what employer does not? King Lemuel was\ntaught by his mother, \u201cIt is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for\nkings to drink wine nor for princes strong drink: lest they drink and\nforget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted\u201d\n(Proverbs xxxi, 4, 5). Yet in the sixth and seventh verses is this\nimperative command as to other people: \u201cGive strong drink unto him that\nis ready to perish, and wine to those that be of heavy hearts. Let him\ndrink and forget his poverty and remember his misery no more.\u201d\n\nMoses told the children of Israel: \u201cYe have not eaten bread, neither\nhave ye drank wine or strong drink: that ye may know that I am the Lord\nyour God\u201d (Deut. xxix, 6). But this was in the wilderness, where no\nbread or liquors were to be had. But what does he say in the fourteenth\nchapter, twenty-sixth verse, after giving directions as to what is\nlawful to eat? \u201cAnd thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy\nsoul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, _or for wine, or for strong\ndrink_, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth.\u201d Jesus said, \u201cVerily I\nsay unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine\u201d--because\nit was wrong to do so? On the contrary, \u201cuntil that day that I drink\nit new in the kingdom of God\u201d (Mark xiv, 25). We admit such temperance\npassages as are to be found in Proverbs xx, 1, and in Isaiah v, 11.\nThese refer strictly to the abuse, not to the moderate use of alcoholic\nliquors.\n\nLet us now look at other passages where the use of intoxicants is not\nonly commended but commanded. We have space to refer to but a few of\nthem. \u201cDrink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach\u2019s\nsake\u201d (1 Timothy v, 23); \u201cGo thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink\nthy wine with a merry heart, for God now accepteth thy good works\u201d\n(Eccles. ix, 7); \u201cCorn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine\nthe maids\u201d (Zech. ix, 17); \u201cThey shall plant vineyards and drink the\nwine thereof\u201d (Amos ix, 14); \u201cWine maketh glad the heart of man\u201d (Ps.\nxiv, 15); \u201cWine, which cheereth God and man\u201d (Judges iv, 13); \u201cIn the\nholy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the\nLord for a drink offering\u201d (Num. xxviii, 7); \u201cHonor the Lord with thy\nsubstance, and with the first fruits of all thine increase; so shall\nthy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with\nnew wine\u201d (Proverbs iii, 9, 10).\n\nWhen God decided that the human race was so bad that he would have to\ndrown everybody he selected one man and his family to be saved--Noah.\nYet when the flood had subsided, and all returned to dry ground, Noah\ngot drunk (Genesis ix, 20\u201324). When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah,\nhe saved another drunkard, Lot. How this gentleman conducted himself\nwhile under the influence of wine would not make a very edifying\nsubject for a Sunday school lesson (See Genesis xix, 30\u201338). David got\ndrunk himself and danced before the ark in a state of nudity, after\ngiving each of all the people \u201ca flagon of wine\u201d (2 Samuel vi, 14, 16,\n19). Yet God said, \u201cDavid ... a man after mine own heart, which shall\nfulfill all my will\u201d (Acts. xiii, 22). God also gives David two other\nunqualified certificates of character (See 1 Kings xiv, 7, 8; xv, 5).\nWhen Solomon erected the great temple he gave his laborers \u201ctwenty\nthousand baths (nearly 17,500 gallons) of wine\u201d (2 Chronicles ii, 10).\nJeremiah, one of God\u2019s favorite prophets, tempted the Rechabites, who\nwere total abstainers, to drink (See Jeremiah xxxv, 2). Yet this same\nGod on another occasion said, \u201cWoe unto him that giveth his neighbor\ndrink, that puttest thy bottle to him and makest him drunken\u201d (Habakkuk\nii, 15).\n\nThe first miracle of Jesus was the transforming of water into wine\n(John ii, 3\u201311), and in Luke vii, 33, 34, are these words: \u201cFor John\nthe Baptist came neither eating bread, nor drinking wine; and ye say,\nHe hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye\nsay, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine bibber, a friend of publicans\nand sinners.\u201d\n\nBible advocates of temperance sometimes quote the following passages\nfrom Paul, as evidence, to them, of Bible teaching of total abstinence.\n\n\u201cIt is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything\nwhereby thy brother stumbleth, or is made weak.\u201d (Romans xiv:21.)\n\nAlso, \u201cWherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no\nflesh while the word standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.\u201d (1\nCorinthians viii:13).\n\nIt will be noticed in the first that _flesh_ comes before wine,\nwhile in the second, wine is not mentioned at all. When you read the\ncontext in both cases you will find that Paul is merely warning his\nhearers against meat offered to idols and that wine is only mentioned\nincidentally. But when you turn to 1 Timothy, v:23, Paul imperatively\nsays, \u201cDRINK NO LONGER WATER, BUT USE A LITTLE WINE FOR THY STOMACH\u2019S\nSAKE, AND THINE OFTEN INFIRMITIES.\u201d\n\nWhen confronted by these texts and the facts which they carry,\nbibliolaters are driven to the entirely false and fictitious plea that\nBible wine was not intoxicating, that it might drown but could not\nproduce a drunk. We have no space here to discuss this makeshift. If\nthe reader is interested and wishes to pursue the subject, we refer him\nto John E. Remsburg\u2019s book, \u201cThe Bible,\u201d pages 398\u2013399; to the article\non \u201cWine and Strong Drink,\u201d in that monument of scholarship, \u201cThe\nEncyclopedia Biblica\u201d; to that well-known orthodox work, Smith\u2019s \u201cBible\nDictionary,\u201d and to \u201cReligion and Drink,\u201d by Rev. E. A. Wasson.\n\nUnder our liquor laws as at present interpreted a priest, preacher,\nor rabbi is permitted to purchase all the drink he desires for\n\u201csacramental\u201d purposes, while a physician is limited in the amount he\ncan prescribe for his patients. Why this unjust discrimination? If\nliquor is a bad thing, why is it made good in the \u201csacrament\u201d? This is\nmerely a trick common with the church to evade the force of the civil\nlaw, just as is its effort to force the Bible into the public schools.\nWe, as citizens, protest against the unbridled fanaticism or base\nhypocrisy of these people, who deny to others the privileges they claim\nfor themselves, then add insult to injury by trying to force upon the\ncountry by law a book which advocates, teaches, abets, preaches, and\npractices what they want by law forbidden.\n\nXV. The entire idea under which they wish to place the Bible in the\nschools is wrong. Why glorify one book above another? Any book to be\nof service to a reader must be his servant, not his master. The real\nquestion is, not what does a book say, but what does it say in accord\nwith the facts of life, nature, reason and experience? If a book\nanswers that test it is not necessary to praise it eternally, to say\nnothing of asking special laws for its recognition. The idea has been\nwell expressed by the poet Lowell in these words:\n\n    \u201cSlowly the Bible of the race is writ,\n     And not on paper leaves or leaves of stone;\n     Each age, each kindred, adds a verse to it,\n     Texts of despair or hope, of joy or moan;\n     While swings the sea, while mists the mountains shroud,\n     While thunder\u2019s surges burst on cliffs of cloud,\n     Still at the prophet\u2019s feet the nations sit.\u201d\n\nNo volume can be made large enough to contain this BIBLE, yet to it all\nother books must conform.\n\n\n\n\n                           Transcriber\u2019s Note\n\n\nSome inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, and punctuation have\nbeen retained.\n\nThis file uses _underscores_ to indicate italic text and =equals= to\nindicate bold text. Small capitals changed to all capitals.\n\np. 8: added \u201cin\u201d after \u201cbelief\u201d (Action or conduct indicating a belief\nin)\n\np. 12: changed \u201cof\u201d to \u201cto\u201d (on earth peace to men of good will)\n\np. 24: changed \u201cdepotism\u201d to \u201cdespotism\u201d (never rises above the merest\ndespotism)\n\np. 24: changed \u201cin\u201d to \u201cis\u201d (Much less is Christianity or any other\nsystem)\n\np. 24: changed \u201calmightly\u201d to \u201calmighty\u201d (It is not almighty and we are\nnot to look)\n\np. 31: changed \u201csummonded\u201d to \u201csummoned\u201d (The teacher, summoned as a\nwitness)\n\np. 32: changed \u201cther\u201d to \u201ctheir\u201d (put to death for participating in\ntheir production)\n\np. 41: \u201cWicliffe\u2019s\u201d left as-printed; this name has many variant\nspellings.\n\np. 46: changed incorrect citation \u201cxl\u201d to \u201cxlvi\u201d (Gen. xlvi. 23)\n\np. 61: changed \u201cprohpet\u2019s\u201d to \u201cprophet\u2019s\u201d and \u201cnation\u2019s\u201d to \u201cnations\u201d\n(Still at the prophet\u2019s feet the nations sit)","title":"The Bible, should it be in the school room? : $b The question considered legally, morally and religiously","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":17084}