LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. =706=
Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius
The Bible: Should It Be in
the School Room?
The Question Considered Legally, Morally
and Religiously
Franklin Steiner
HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY
GIRARD, KANSAS
Copyright, 1924,
Haldeman-Julius Company.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE BIBLE: SHOULD IT BE IN THE SCHOOL ROOM?
INTRODUCTION
The fact that certain Protestant churches, strong politically, are
exerting their efforts to force the teaching of their religion in our
public schools against law, constitution, equity and the American
principle of no union of church and state: the further fact that at
the present time there is in existence a strong Protestant jesuitical
political secret order trying to put this measure on statute books
whether the people want it or not, is the author’s sole apology for
presenting this little book to the public. He claims for it no literary
merit, but hopes that all who are truly Americans, whether native or
foreign born, will circulate its facts and arguments.
FRANKLIN STEINER.
THE BIBLE: SHOULD IT BE IN THE SCHOOL ROOM?
CHAPTER I
_The Bible and the Sects--Shall Any Version of the Book Be Placed in
This Country’s Common Schools?_
A STATEMENT OF THE CASE. A stupendous effort is now being nationally
made by a particular and special class of our citizens, to place the
Bible, the text book of the Christian religion, in the curriculum
of our public schools. From the outset, there arises this curious
fact: It is that many Christian sects, one of them being the largest
in number of communicants, to say nothing of individual Christians,
have strenuously opposed the measure. The Jews, “unto whom were
committed the oracles of God” (Romans iii, 2) have also expressed their
disapprobation. Then add to these about two-thirds of our population
who profess no religion, and we find the movement limited to a small
section of our people. The fact that advocates of enforced Bible
reading are so enthusiastic, so intolerant of criticism and opposition,
and that they would compel the use of the Bible by law causes us to
inquire seriously into the question. Then the intense opposition of
religionists as well as of those professing no religion in particular,
causes us to conclude that the _propriety_ of such an inclusion in our
public school instruction is the main issue to be considered.
There arises before us the further fact that one class of people are
vigorously determined upon the use in the schools of a book of which
they are the partisans, while the world contains many more books of
the same character. Still another, that those who accept the book as
an authority are not agreed as to which edition or which version is
the correct one. Over this controversies have arisen, resulting in law
suits which have finally had to be decided by supreme courts. Here we
might surmise the cause of the intense opposition of some to the use
of the Bible in the schools, and of further discontent and controversy
should it be placed there. The advocates of the measure, if they think
themselves able to put it over, would make Bible reading compulsory.
Should they fail in this, they are agreeable that it should be read at
the discretion of the teacher. Should they still fail, they will ask
that _extracts_ be read. As a last resort, they will plead that it be
not _excluded_ and that it be read “without comment.” They are even
willing to concede that no child shall be compelled to take part in the
Bible reading exercise against the will of its parents.
Why, unlike any other school book, should it be read “without comment”?
Why the exception? The Bible from whatever view we take it, above all
other books, to be understood, must be commented upon and explained.
The whole presents a curious medley of circumstances and positions
which could hardly be duplicated when any other book is proposed for
use in the school room. All goes to prove that the advocates of the
proposal are very enthusiastic and determined to force the book in
the schools, on the best terms that they can obtain. Should any other
book be proposed for a course of public school education, under the
same conditions, no one will deny that its use would be unhesitatingly
rejected.[1]
[1] Religionists in some places are now opposing the use of Wells’
“Outline of History” in high schools and colleges because some of its
views are not orthodox and conventional. Yet they, a minority, would
force their Bible by law upon all.
IS THE BIBLE A RELIGIOUS AND SECTARIAN BOOK?
It is not our purpose to take part in any of the theological
controversies that in the past or at the present have raged around the
Bible. Yet, as the teaching of religion seems to be the desideratum of
the advocates of Bible reading in the schools, as we shall later prove;
and the opposition to such teaching on the part of others the cause
of the opposition to such reading, we are compelled to ask and answer
the query, Is the Bible a religious book? The meaning of the word
“religion” has been fixed by the best lexicographers and has been so
utilized by the best writers.
“The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the
existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny; to whom
obedience, service and honor are due.”--Webster’s International.
“An acknowledgment of our obligation to God as our creator, with a
feeling of reverence and love, and consequent duty or obedience to
him.”--Worcester.
“A belief in an invisible superhuman power (or powers) conceived of
after the analogy of the human spirit on which (or whom) man regards
himself as dependent.”--The Standard Dictionary.
“Any system of faith or worship.”--Imperial Dictionary.
“Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to
please a divine ruling power.”--Oxford Dictionary.
We are aware that a class of modern thinkers define and understand
religion differently, as does R. B. Westbrook in The Eliminator, page
12: “We use the word religion as it was used by Cicero, in the sense of
_Scruple_, implying the consciousness of a natural obligation wholly
irrespective of what one may believe concerning the gods.”
We must say that in the face of the five definitions first given, added
to the understanding and use of the word by religionists themselves, a
revolution in human thought and in the meaning of the English language
must take place before this can be seriously accepted as the correct,
understood, prevailing definition.
Following these guides, the best we can obtain, let us ask, Is the
Bible a religious book? Is its chief object the teaching of religion?
We think we need adduce no argument to prove that were those portions
of the Bible which inculcate religious doctrines eliminated, the
fly-leaves of the book alone would hold most of what remains. No one,
and least of all a Christian, will deny that it teaches “a belief in an
invisible superhuman power (or powers) conceived of after the analogy
of the human spirit”; or that it teaches “a divine ruling power,” “to
whom obedience, service and honor are due.”
The first three of the ten commandments are strictly religious and in
no way concern morality. They teach the absurd doctrine that the God of
the ancient Hebrews was the only God worthy of worship.
The sermon on the mount, which is perhaps more free from strict
religious teaching than any other portion of the Bible, yet says,
“Seek ye _first_ the kingdom of God and _his righteousness_ and all
these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. vi, 33). Here, again, the
Jewish God is referred to. The most beautiful of Jesus’ teachings are
his eulogy and defense of children. Even here he strictly maintains
religious doctrines, as when he says, in Matthew xviii, 6: “But whoso
shall offend one of these little ones _which believe in me_,” etc.
“In thus looking at the Bible from a distinctly religious point of
view, we are in perfect harmony with its writers; even with such
of them as adopt the narrative style, and will therefore engage
the greatest share of our attention. For when the books of the Old
Testament were set aside and preserved as a sacred book by the Jews,
and those of the New Testament were added to them by the Christians, it
was with no idea of drawing knowledge of nature or history from them,
but because they recognized them as the rule of faith and conduct;
and in the same way the writers themselves prepared their works and
gave publicity to them, not simply or chiefly in order to make their
readers accurately acquainted with the past, but to promulgate and
recommend what seemed to them to be religious truth.” (“Bible for
Learners,” Vol. 1, page 5.) Hence, however much Bible reading advocates
may cavil about the book as “literature” or “the fountain of morality,”
there can be no legitimate question of its object being to teach a
particular religion, and that its purpose in the school room is to do
the same.
Let us now ask another question, Is the Bible a sectarian book? Let us
first state that there is no such thing as a cosmopolitan or universal
religion. Prof. Max Müller, perhaps the greatest authority upon the
science of religion, has said: “Religion is a mental faculty which,
independent of, nay, in spite of, sense and reason, enables man to
apprehend the infinite _under different names and disguises_.”
Hence, man, in an effort to understand the infinite, has formed not
one but many religions; therefore we have Buddhism, Brahmanism,
Shintoism, Judaism, the mythology of the Greeks and Romans and
finally Christianism and Mohammedanism. In recent years there
has been developed Agnosticism which holds that the infinite is
incomprehensible. Religions and Bibles are all sectarian to the
devotees of other religions who do not accept them as true or
authoritative.
In the face of this broad truth, those who advocate reading the Bible
in the public school deny that it is sectarian. They would narrow
their definition of “sect” to that of the Standard Dictionary, which
defines it as “a body of persons distinguished by peculiarities of
faith and practice from other bodies adhering to the same general
system.” But Christianity consists of different bodies distinguished by
wide “peculiarities of faith and practice.” Some of these have their
own versions of the Bible, while others base their peculiarities upon
different interpretations and particular sections of the same version.
The widely divergent forms of Christianity, from Roman Catholicism
to Unitarianism, have their foundation and different versions and
interpretations. Those holding to one set of doctrines and practices
accept that version which sustains their contentions and reject those
which do not. Those making the nation-wide propaganda to place the
Bible in the schools are the Evangelical Protestants, who accept
the King James version. The question, “Is the King James version
sectarian?” has caused the long controversy which courts have been
called on to settle when opponents of Bible reading have taken legal
action to keep it out of the schools.
There is another English version of the Bible called the “Douay
version,” which is accepted by Roman Catholics, who not only deny that
the King James version is the correct one, but affirm that it teaches
dangerous and damning errors. Protestants retaliate by making the same
charges against the Douay version. Therefore, to either one of these,
the principal divisions of Christianity, the Bible of the other is
sectarian.
Let us give illustrations of the widely variant readings in these two
principal English versions of the Bible. When we have done so our
readers can perceive why such a bitter controversy has arisen between
the partisans of the different transcripts. He will also see the folly
and injustice of trying to force a book, which has been the center of
so much bitter animosity, into public schools supported by citizens
of all religious beliefs, who are compelled by the law of the land to
send their children there. We will take just a few illustrations from
hundreds.
In the King James Version 1 Corinthians xv, 51, is translated: “Behold,
I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed.” The Douay Version renders the same verse, “Behold, I tell
you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: _but we shall not all
be changed_.” Luke ii, 14, is translated in the King James, “Glory to
God in the highest, and on earth _peace to men of good will_.” The
Protestant “Revised Version” gives it still different:
“Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth _peace among men in whom he is well pleased_.”
The King James Version makes Matthew vi, 11, read, “Give us this
day our daily bread.” The Douay version says, “Give us this day our
_super-substantial_ bread.”
We now come to one difference of translation, which perhaps above
all others is the most startling and would arouse the greatest of
the theological controversies. Matthew iii, 1–2, reads, in the King
James Version: “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the
wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand.” The Douay Version gives it an entirely different meaning
when it makes the second verse read: “_Do penance_: for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand.” This controverted word occurs in the New Testament
fifty times and is so differently translated in the King James and
Douay Versions. In the Catholic church penance is one of the seven
sacraments, while Protestants do not recognize it at all, hence one
looks upon the Bible of the other as false and as a teacher of false
doctrines.
A more startling fact arises when we discover that not only are
Catholics and Protestants divided in opinion as to what the Bible
means and as to which version gives the correct meaning, but on this
point Protestant Bible scholars differ widely among themselves. This
was so notorious that in 1883 a “new version” was given the world.
While it corrected some mistakes of translation, it was far from being
acknowledged as satisfactory. We will here give just one illustration,
selected from many, of differences of translation among Protestant
Biblical scholars. Job xix, 25–27, is rendered in the King James
Version: “For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand
at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms
destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall
see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though
my reins be consumed within me.” This passage is to be found in the
Episcopal and other orthodox church funeral rituals. The “redeemer”
is supposed to be Christ, and Job is supposed to refer to his soul
in heaven. This is done in defiance of the fact that Job in other
passages states that death ends all. (See vii, 7–10; xiv, 7–12 and
xxxiv, 15.) Following are the translations of a number of well-known
Biblical scholars, which give it a different meaning and state an
entirely different situation:
“Yet I know that my Vindicator liveth
And will stand at length upon the earth;
And though with my skin this body be wasted away,
Yet in my flesh shall I see God.
Yea, I shall see him my friend;
My eyes shall behold him no longer an adversary;
For this my soul panteth within me.”
(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Noyes of Harvard Divinity School.)
“But I know that my avenger liveth;
Though it be at the end upon my dust,
My witness shall avenge these things,
And a curse alight upon mine enemies.”
(Translation of Dr. Dillon, in Skeptics of the Old Testament.)
“For I know that my Avenger liveth
And that hereafter he shall stand upon the earth;
And though after my skin this (flesh) be destroyed,
Yet even without my flesh shall I see God;
Whom I shall see for myself.
And mine eyes shall behold, and not another--
Though my vitals are wasting away within me.”
(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Albert Barnes, Presbyterian divine and
commentator.)
“As for me, I know it--my Avenger liveth,
And (lying) in the dust I shall receive his pledge;
Shaddai will bring to pass my desire,
And as my justifier I shall see God.”
(Translation of the Rev. Dr. T. K. Cheyne, Editor of The Encyclopedia
Biblica.)
This is one of the many passages in the Bible which in the King James
Version has been twisted to meet doctrinal ends. Again we repeat,
that were any other book containing so many controversial meanings,
especially among those who maintain its efficiency and credibility,
offered for use in the school room, it would be rejected at once.
Let us be honest with ourselves and with one another, and admit the
true motive of those who prolong this agitation to place the Bible in
the public schools. We have said that they represent the Evangelical
Protestant churches.
The Catholic church maintains its separate schools for the purpose
of teaching its children the common branches of knowledge side by
side with its religious doctrines. Protestants send their children to
the public schools, relying upon their churches and Sunday schools
alone for religious instruction. As their churches and Sunday schools
have failed to arouse sufficient interest, they now want to make
use of the public schools for religious propaganda. Hence their
Jesuitical attempts to have laws passed forcing their Bible into these
institutions. Quite naturally in a country whose national Constitution,
as well as practically all its state constitutions, proclaims divorce
between church and state, the Catholic, the Jew, the Agnostic, and
citizens of other opposing beliefs protest.
CHAPTER II
_The Bible and the Courts--Law, Constitution and the Judges Are Opposed
to Religion in Our Common Schools._
We will begin with fundamentals by calling attention to the first
amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads:
“_Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof._”
While this does not take away from the states the power to establish
religious observances, it has been repeated, even with stronger
guarantees, in practically all of our state constitutions. The
exceptions are New Hampshire, where the constitution can authorize a
municipality to provide support for Protestant ministers; Pennsylvania
and Tennessee, where a belief in God and future rewards and punishments
is a constitutional qualification for office; Arkansas, whose
constitution declares ineligible to office and incompetent as a witness
any person who denies the existence of God; and Maryland, where belief
in future rewards and punishments is essential to competency as a
witness or juror. Hence, upon the principle of no union of religion
with the state, our fundamental laws are almost unanimous.
This is distinctly an American idea. In Europe every country except
Turkey recognized the Christian religion, and all had a state
church. All the thirteen colonies had the same except Rhode Island,
Pennsylvania and Delaware. The last two granted religious equality only
to Protestants. Only in the first was there absolute religious freedom.
Cobb says: “The history of religion and the church in America, as those
stand related to the civil government, presents features unparalleled
in the rest of Christendom” ... “a peculiarly American production.”
(“The Rise of Religious Liberty in America,” page 1.) The churches,
from the first, opposed the religious liberties of the Constitution,
and either openly defied them or covertly evaded them. They do the
same today. “The practical recognition of entire individual freedom
of thought and action in reference to matters of religion has not,
however, always been conceded” (Illinois Reports, Vol. 245, page
341). The present efforts to place the Bible in the schools are a
manifestation of the old-time evasion and defiance. The orthodox
church, from the very nature of the pretenses that it makes, has never
ceased to seek favors from the state and to demand emoluments in one
form or another.
When a person or an organization lifts a voice in opposition to the
introduction of the Bible in the school room, bibliolaters immediately
raise the hue and cry, “Enemy of the Bible!” They do this as a means
of starting the “odium theologicum.” Their tactics here are intended
not to answer the arguments of their opponents, but to crush them by
opprobrium. The statement that opponents of the Bible in the schools
are necessarily enemies of it is not only untrue, but has no purpose,
except the intent be to blind the eyes of the public. The Bible as
a work of literature no more has “enemies” than have the works of
Shakespeare, Rabelais, Plato, Homer, Milton, or the productions of
other writers, ancient or modern. It is to the position claimed for
the Bible and the unwarranted assertions concerning it made by the
very people who are trying to force it by law into the schools, that
exception is taken. All have the right to view and interpret the Bible
as they choose, but no one interpretation should have the prestige of
the law, considering that there are so many of them and that our law
recognizes no particular form of religion.
Others raise the hue and cry that the opposition to Bible reading
in the schools comes from Catholic sources. Even if this were true,
it would only prove that the Catholic has the right to object to
another religion in which he does not believe, being crammed down his
children’s throats by the civil law. The fact that this church, the
oldest existing Christian church, opposes it, to say nothing of others,
and of people who belong to no church--and these include two-thirds of
our population--only demonstrates the injustice of the proposal. To say
that justice should not be administered, merely because it would be
granted to a certain people, is a poor argument in favor of injustice.
Whenever and wherever Catholics attempt to make use of the public
schools as a place of propaganda for their church, as Protestants are
doing when they force their Bible there, we will then and there oppose
them with the same logic we are now advancing against Protestants.
Among the side issues brought forward to befog the minds of the citizen
is the plea that the Bible should be read in the schools because all
should know something about it. But have we not a millionaire Bible
society to publish it, churches, ministers and Sunday school teachers
numbering into the hundred thousands whose special business is to teach
and preach this book? Are not these at the disposal of all who want
such teaching and preaching? The plea is a subterfuge. They want it
there so that it may be forced, by the authority of law, upon those
who do not want it. Their plea that they are willing that it be read
“without comment,” places them logically and morally in an exceedingly
unenviable position. Those who want the Bible in the school room hold
the book to be the inspired word of God. Do they want it recognized in
the schools as such, or not as such, or are they indifferent to either
position? If either of the last two, would they be so anxious to have
laws forcing it there? The Bible brings forward multitudes of questions
of religion, history, science, ethnology, anthropology, archeology,
morality and so on. In the study of the book are all these to be
neglected? If they are, the Bible would not be studied intelligently.
The “without comment” plea is equivalent to a confession that they do
not want it so studied.
THE OHIO CASE
Where the real merits of the case have been before a court for
consideration as to the legality of the reading of the Bible in the
public schools, the decisions have invariably been that it was illegal,
unconstitutional, and subversive of the rights of those who objected
to such reading. This is so well recognized now that Bible advocates
generally, as a last resort, advocate only the reading of a book of
_extracts_ from the Bible, a proposal to a consideration of which we
shall give our attention later. The first historic case of interest
is the Ohio case. The circumstances were these: In the year 1854 the
school board of the city of Cincinnati adopted a rule requiring that
a chapter from the Bible be read each morning by the teacher on the
opening of a public school session. In 1869, the board, acting on the
protests of citizens who by such reading considered that their rights
were invaded, repealed this rule. Whereupon, the Protestant church
people of Cincinnati applied to the Superior Court for an injunction to
restrain the board from enforcing the repeal. Their plea was, in brief:
The fact that Protestants were in the majority, and therefore their
will should be obeyed; that Christianity was the common law of the
land, and that therefore its teachings could not be denied a place in
the schools; that the constitution of the Northwest Territory provided
for the teaching of “religion, morality, and knowledge”; that to keep
the Bible out of the schools would be to turn the schools over to the
control of “Infidel sects”; that many children would remain in total
ignorance of the Bible did they not study it in the common schools.
The school board was represented by two of the ablest lawyers in Ohio,
Hon. Stanley Matthews, afterwards United States senator, and at the
time of his death a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States;
and the Hon. George Hoadley, afterwards governor of Ohio. We quote
but a part of Judge Matthews’ argument, though all of it is worthy of
reproduction:
“I do say that the reading of the Holy Bible in the manner repealed
by this resolution, is the teaching of a dogma in religion, held by
only a portion of the religious community, objected to by a large
part of the others, and that it is in a just, true and sober sense, a
merely sectarian book.
“But it is asked by some, who by asking betray their want of
comprehension of the real question: Have Protestants no rights?
Cannot the majority of the community insist upon their consciences?
Must the right of minorities alone be consulted? Are we to be ruled
by Catholics, or Jews, or Infidels? The answer is obvious and easy:
_Protestants have no rights_, as such, _which do not at the same
time_ and to the same extent belong to Catholics as such, to Jews and
Infidels. Protestants have a civil right to enjoy their own belief,
to worship in their own way, to read the Bible and teach it as a part
of their religion. But they have _no right in_ this respect _to any
preference from the state_ or any of its institutions. They have _no
right_ to insist upon _Protestant practices at public expense_, or in
public buildings, or to turn public schools into seminaries for the
dissemination of Protestant ideas.
“They can claim nothing on the score of conscience which they cannot
concede equally to all others. It is not a question of majorities
or minorities, for if the conscience of the majority is to be the
standard, then there is no such thing as conscience at all. It is
against the predominance and power of majorities that the right of
conscience are protected: and have need to be.
“For--and that is the gist of the thing--the reading of the Holy
Scriptures in the appropriate commencement of the morning daily
exercises of the public school _is the teaching_ of the _religious
dogma_ that they are the inspired word of God: and if it were not so
held by the Protestant members of this community, there would be no
such lawsuit here today as there is.
“If it were the writings of Epictetus, of Seneca, or of Pliny, or
moral philosophy, or anything of human composition and origin only,
that taught the purest and highest morality, nobody would be found to
pay the expense of filing this bill to compel its daily reading.
“It is because that exercise is intended, and valued only as it
is intended, to teach the Christian doctrine as to the scheme of
salvation offered by Christ, and the Protestant doctrine that the
book without note or comment is the infallible rule of faith and
practice.
“And therefore I say that the practice to be perpetuated by the
power of the civil arm in this suit, is a practice which teaches a
_religious dogma_, and in a sectarian sense. And I say that it is
so indisputable, it is so self-evident--it is written upon every
countenance in this room--that nothing else than that could account
for the extraordinary interest taken in this trial and the efforts
which are made to secure the interposition of this court.”
The case caused great bitterness of feeling, was hotly contested, and
finally carried to the Supreme Court of Ohio. There, in December,
1872, it was decided against the churches and in favor of the school
board. (See Ohio Reports, Vol. 23, pages 211–254.) The real, practical
question was, Had the school board the right to adopt what rules it
pleased, without dictation from the courts? It was held that the Board
had such a right and that any error the board might make must be
corrected by the legislature, and not by the courts. But as the church
people had persisted in lugging in the subject of religion, it was
necessary to deal with that also. Here the court spoke in no uncertain
tone. We quote first an extract from the brief submitted by the legal
representatives of the Board:
“Superficial teaching should be shunned most of all in this
department, for this concerns, not the poor and temporary affairs of
the body, but the eternal welfare of the soul; ... But true and full
religious instruction, to a Catholic, is the teaching of Catholicism;
to a Methodist, of Methodism; to a Presbyterian, of Presbyterianism;
in the sense of Spinoza, of Pantheism; and that of Hume, of Deism;
to the Baptist mind it involves immersion, etc. Religious men differ
at all points, except, perhaps, as to the being of God. Honest
differences prevail even as to what books should be included within
the meaning of the words ‘Holy Bible.’ Witness the Jew, who regards
the Old Testament as alone inspired; the Catholic, who adds the
Apocrypha. And the shades of difference as to the true sense and
correct meaning of the Bibles are endless.” (pages 218–219.)
Speaking of the constitutions of the United States and of the state of
Ohio, the Court said: “They, in a sense, speak to _mankind_, and speak
of the rights of _man_. Neither the words _Christianity_, _Christian_,
nor _Bible_, is to be found therein.... Some of the very men who helped
to frame these constitutions were themselves not Christian men.” (page
246.)
In dilating upon the relations of religion and government, the Court
unanimously held:
“We are told that this word religion must mean Christian religion
because Christianity is a part of the common law of this country,
lying behind and above its constitutions. Those who make this
assertion can hardly be serious, and intend the real import of their
language. If Christianity is a _law_ of the state, like every other
law, it must have a _sanction_. Adequate penalties must be provided
to enforce obedience to all its requirements and precepts. No one
seriously contends for any such doctrine in this country, or, I might
almost say, in this age of the world.” (pages 246–247.)
“_Legal_ Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction of terms. When
Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere _impartial_
protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine, and not human.
Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human
governments. _United with the government, religion never rises above
the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises
above the merest despotism_; and all history shows us that the more
widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.”
(page 248.)
“Religion is not--Much less is Christianity or any other system of
religion--named in the preamble of the Constitution of the United
States as one of the declared _objects_ of government; nor is it
mentioned in the clause in question, in our own constitution, as
being essential to anything _beyond_ mere human government.” (page
248.)
“Properly speaking, there is no such thing as religion of state. What
we mean by that phrase is, the religion of some individual, or set
of individuals, taught and enforced by the state. The state can have
no religious opinions; and if it undertakes to enforce the teaching
of such opinions, they must be the opinions of some natural person,
or class of persons. If it embarks in this business, whose opinions
shall it adopt?” (page 249.)
“But the real question here is, not what is the best religion, but
how shall this best religion be secured? I answer, it can best be
secured by adopting the doctrine of this seventh section in our own
bill of rights, and which I summarize in two words, by calling it the
doctrine of _hands off_. Let the state not only keep its own hands
off, but let it also see to it that religious sects keep their hands
off each other.” (page 250.)
“Government is an organization for particular purposes. It is not
almighty and we are not to look to it for everything. The great bulk
of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government
to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently
one of those interests lying outside the true and legitimate province
of government. Counsel say that to withdraw all religious instruction
from the schools would be to put them under the control of ‘Infidel
sects.’ This is by no means so. To teach the doctrines of Infidelity,
and thereby teach that Christianity is false, is one thing; and to
give no instruction on the subject is quite another thing. The only
fair and impartial method, where serious objection is made, is to
let each sect give its own instructions, elsewhere than in the state
schools, where of necessity all are to meet; and to put disputed
doctrines of religion among other subjects of instruction, for there
are many others, which can more conveniently, satisfactorily, and
safely be taught elsewhere.... The principles expressed here are not
new.... They are as old as Madison, and were his favorite opinions.
Madison, who had more to do with framing the Constitution of the
United States than any other man, and whose purity of life and
orthodoxy of religious belief no one questions, himself says:
“‘Religion is not within the purview of human government.’ And again
he says, ‘Religion is essentially distinct from human government, and
exempt from its cognizance. A connection between them is injurious
to both. There are causes in the human breast which insure the
perpetuity of religion without the aid of law.’”
“In his letter to Gov. Livingston, July 10, 1822, he says: ‘I observe
with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity
of religion from civil government, in every case where it does not
trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been
a favorite doctrine with me.’” (pages 253–254.)
THE WISCONSIN CASE
This case was decided by the supreme court of Wisconsin in March, 1890,
and a report of it will be found in the Northwestern Reporter, Vol.
44, pages 967–982. It was an appeal from Rock county, where, in the
town of Edgerton, a number of citizens had brought action to prevent
the reading of the King James version of the Bible in the schools of
the town, for the following reasons: 1, It violates the rights of
conscience; 2, It compels them to aid in the support of a place of
worship against their consent; 3, It is sectarian instruction. (pages
971–972.)
The body of the decision was rendered by Justice Lyon, and was
concurred in by the entire court. In dealing with the difference
between the Douay and the King James versions, the Justice said:
“It is averred in the return that there is no material difference
between the King James version of the Bible used in the Edgerton
schools, and the Douay version, which is the only one recognized
by the Catholic church as correct and complete. It is universally
known that there are differences between these two versions in many
particulars, which the respective sects regard as material. Hence
the averment is against common knowledge, and therefore not well
pleaded.” (page 972.)
Concerning the reading of the King James version being sectarian
instruction Justice Lyon declared:
“The term ‘sectarian instruction,’ in the constitution, manifestly
refers exclusively to instruction in religious doctrines, and the
prohibition is aimed only at such instruction as is sectarian; that
is to say, instruction in religious doctrines which are believed by
some sects and rejected by others. Hence, to teach the existence
of a supreme being, of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, and
that it is the highest duty of all men to adore, obey, and love
him, is not sectarian, because all religious sects so believe and
teach. The instruction becomes sectarian when it goes further, and
inculcates doctrine and dogma concerning which the religious sects
are in conflict. That the reading from the Bible in the schools,
although unaccompanied by any comment on the part of the teacher, is
‘instruction,’ seems to us too clear for argument. Some of the most
valuable instruction a person can receive may be derived from reading
alone, without any extrinsic aid by way of comment or exposition.
The question, therefore, seems to narrow down to this: Is the
reading of the Bible in the schools--not merely selected passages
therefrom, but the whole of it--sectarian instruction of the pupils?
In view of the fact already mentioned, that the Bible contains
many doctrinal passages, upon some of which the peculiar creed of
almost every sect is based, and that such passages may reasonably
be understood to inculcate the doctrines predicated upon them, an
affirmative answer to the question seems unavoidable. Any pupil of
ordinary intelligence who listens to the reading of the doctrinal
portions of the Bible will be more or less instructed thereby in the
doctrines of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the eternal punishment
of the wicked, the authority of the priesthood, the binding force
and efficacy of the sacraments, and many other conflicting sectarian
doctrines. A most forcible demonstration of the accuracy of this
statement is found in the reports of the American Bible Society of
its work in Catholic countries (referred to in one of the arguments),
in which instances are given of the conversion of several persons
from ‘Romanism’ through the reading of the scriptures alone; that is
to say, the reading of the Protestant or King James version of the
Bible converted Catholics to Protestants without the aid of comment
or exposition. In those cases the reading of the Bible certainly was
sectarian instruction. We do not know how to frame an argument in
support of the proposition that the reading thereof in the district
schools is not also sectarian instruction.” (page 973.)
It having been pleaded by the school board that children were not
required to remain in the room during Bible reading, if it was against
the will of their parents, and therefore did not infringe upon their
rights, the Justice said:
“The answer of the respondent states that the relators’ children are
not compelled to remain in the school room while the Bible is being
read, but are at liberty to withdraw therefrom during the reading
of the same. For this reason it is claimed that the relators have
no good cause for complaint, even though such reading be sectarian
instruction. We cannot give our sanction to this position. When, as
in this case, a small minority of the pupils in the public school is
excluded, for any cause, from a stated school exercise, particularly
when such cause is apparently hostility to the Bible, which the
majority of the pupils have been taught to revere, from that moment
the excluded pupil loses caste with his fellows, and is liable to
be regarded with aversion, and subjected to reproach and insult.
But it is a sufficient refutation of the argument that the practice
in question tends to destroy the equality of the pupils which the
constitution seeks to establish and protect, and puts a portion
of them to serious disadvantage in many ways with respect to the
others.” (page 975.)
Justice Cassody, in concurring, holds that even though no comment is
made it would be very easy for the teacher if he so desired to make of
such reading sectarian instruction:
“Since every translation made by man must be more or less imperfect,
and since the application of particular passages is liable to be made
with partial apprehension and biased or even distorted judgment, it
is easy to perceive how texts of scripture may be read with such
an emphasis and tone as to become excessively sectarian. While the
members of any particular sect may be willing to have one of their
own number read the Bible in the public schools, yet they are not
always willing to concede the same to a member of a sect believing
in an opposite faith or doctrine. But the law is impartial, and has
given no rights to any one sect that is not equally secured to every
other.” (page 977.)
He here quotes Judge Thurman of the Ohio Supreme Court as saying:
“It is not by mere toleration that every individual here is
protected in his belief or disbelief. He reposes not upon the
leniency of the government, or the liberality of any class or sect
of men, but upon his natural, indefeasible rights of conscience,
which, in the language of the constitution, are beyond the control or
interference of any human authority.” (page 978.)
Is the reading of the Bible worship? Justice Cassody upon this issue
speaks without reserve, and handles the question without gloves:
“Certainly, the reading of the holy scriptures, as the eternal
word of God, in obedience to the oft-repeated injunction therein
contained, whether by the individual in private, or in the family,
or in the public assembly, is an essential part of divine worship.
Every sermon is based upon some text of scripture. Most prayers
are preceded by the reading of some passage of scripture, as an
intelligent guide to the thoughts of the worshiper or worshipers. The
Sermon on the Mount contains the prayer taught by the blessed Lord.
Is it possible for any genuine believer in the Christian religion to
read or listen to the reading of that sermon, and especially that
prayer, without being filled with a holy sense of honor, reverence,
adoration, and homage to Almighty God, which is the very essence of
worship? _We must hold that the stated reading of the Bible in the
public schools as a text book may be worship within the meaning of
the clause of the constitution under consideration._ If, then, such
reading of the Bible is worship, can there be any doubt but what the
school room in which it is so statedly read is a ‘place of worship’
within the same clause of the constitution? Counsel seem to argue
that such place of worship should be confined to some church edifice,
or place where the members of a church statedly worship. Some of
the earlier constitutions, having similar clauses, used the words
‘building’ and ‘church.’ Manifestly the words ‘place of worship’
were advisedly used, as applicable to any ‘place’ or structure where
worship is statedly held, and which the citizen is ‘compelled to
attend,’ or the tax payers are compelled to ‘erect or support.’
The mere fact that only a small fraction of the school hours is
devoted to such worship, in no way justifies such use, as against
an objecting tax payer. If the right be conceded, then the length of
time so devoted becomes a matter of discretion. If such right does
not exist, then any length of time, however short, is forbidden.”
(page 979.)
Justice Orton, in concurring, thus speaks of the evils of even in the
slightest manner mixing religion with the government:
“There is no other such source and cause of strife, quarrels, fights,
malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the
state, as religion. Let it once enter into our civil affairs, our
government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter into our common
schools, they would be destroyed. Those who made our constitution
saw this, and used the most apt and comprehensive language in it to
prevent such a catastrophe. It is said that if reading the Protestant
version of the Bible in school is offensive to the parents of some
of the scholars, and antagonistic to their religious views, their
children can retire. They ought not to be compelled to go out of the
school for such a reason for a moment. The suggestion itself concedes
the whole argument. That version of the Bible is hostile to the
belief of many who are taxed to support the common schools and who
have equal rights and privileges in them. It is a source of religious
and sectarian strife. That is enough. It violates the letter and
spirit of the constitution.” (page 981.)
“It requires but little argument to prove that the Protestant version
of the Bible, or any other version of the Bible, is the source of
religious strife and opposition, and opposed to the religious belief
of many of our people. It is a sectarian book. The Protestants were a
very small sect in religion at one time, and they are a sect yet, to
the great Catholic church, against whose usages they protested; and
so is their version of the Bible sectarian as against the Catholic
version. The common school is one of the most indispensable, useful,
and valuable civil institutions this state has. It is democratic and
free to all alike, in perfect equality, where all the children of
our people stand on a common platform, and enjoy the benefits of
an equal and common education. An enemy of our common schools is an
enemy to our state government.
“This case is important and timely. It brings before the courts a
case of plausible, insidious, and apparently innocent entrance of
religion into our civil affairs, and of an assault upon the most
valuable provisions of our constitution. These provisions should be
pondered and heeded by all of our people, of all nationalities and of
all denominations of religion, who desire the perpetuity, and value
the blessings of our free government.” (page 982.)
THE NEBRASKA CASE
This case was decided by the supreme court of the state on October 9,
1902. It was the case of Daniel Freeman vs. School District No. 21,
appealed from Gage county. The teacher, summoned as a witness, admitted
having read the Bible; that she considered the exercises conducted
as religious exercises, held them as such, and believed it to be her
duty to do so. This teacher was evidently honest, and made no false
pretenses, which is more than we can say of many others in her position
and holding her views. Two extracts from the decision of the court are
worthy of our attention:
“But if the system of compulsory education is persevered in, and
religious worship or sectarian instruction in the public schools
is at the same time permitted, parents will be compelled to expose
their children to what they deem spiritual contamination, or else,
while bearing their share of the burden for the support of public
education, provide the means from their own pockets for the training
of their offspring elsewhere. It might be reasonably apprehended that
such a practice, besides being unjust and oppressive to the persons
immediately concerned, would, by its tendency to the multiplication
of parochial and sectarian schools, tend forcibly to the destruction
of one of the most important, if not indispensable, foundation
stones of our form of government. It will be an evil day when
anything happens to lower the public schools in public esteem, or to
discourage attendance upon them by children of any class.” (page 847.)
“For more than three centuries it has been the boast and exultation
of Protestants and a complaint and grievance of the Roman Catholics
that the various translations of the Bible, especially the New
Testament, into the vernacular of different peoples, have been the
chief controversial weapons of the former and the principal cause of
undoing of the latter. For the making of such translations Wickliffe,
Tyndale, Luther, and others have been commended and glorified by
one party and anathematized by the others. Books containing such
translations have been committed to the flames as heretical, and
their translators, printers, publishers, and distributors persecuted,
imprisoned, tortured and put to death for participating in their
production and distribution. The several popular versions differ in
some particulars from each other, and all differ from the Catholic
canon, both in rendition of passages from which sectarian doctrines
are derived by construction and in the number of books or gospels
constituting what is regarded as the written record of divine
revelation. In addition to this, there are persons who are convinced,
upon grounds satisfactory to them, that considerable parts of the
writings accepted by all Protestant denominations are not authentic
while devout Hebrews maintain that the New Testament itself is not
entitled to a place in the true Bible. These diverse opinions have
given rise to a great number of religious sects or denominations.
To some of these sects the reading in public of any portion of any
version of the scriptures unaccompanied by authoritative comment
or explanation, or the reading of it privately by persons not
commissioned by the church to do so, is objectionable, and an offense
to their religious feelings; to some, the utterance of public prayer,
except recitations from the Scripture, is a vain and a wicked act;
and to some the songs and hymns of praise in which others engage
are a stumbling-block and an offense. We do not think it wise or
necessary to prolong a discussion of what appears to us an almost
self-evident fact--that exercises such as are complained of by the
relator in this case both constitute religious worship and are
sectarian in their character, within the meaning of the constitution.
Nor do we feel inclined to make what might be looked upon as a
spurious exhibition of learning by quoting at length from the many
judicial decisions and utterances of eminent men in this country
concerning the subject.” (pages 846–847.)
A motion for a rehearing of this case was denied.
THE ILLINOIS CASE
This was the case of The People _ex rel._ Jeremiah Ring _et al._,
Plaintiffs in Error, vs. the Board of Education of District 24, etc.,
Defendant in Error. It was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in
June, 1910, and is to be found in the Reports of the state, Vol. 245,
pages 334–378.
The situation, briefly stated, was this: Mr. Ring, a Roman Catholic in
belief, was sending his children to a district school in Scott county,
Illinois, there being no Catholic school available within reasonable
distance. Moreover, he was compelled by law to give his children an
education. In this school certain teachers held religious service
which included, during school hours, readings from the King James
version of the Bible, repeating the Lord’s Prayer as written therein,
and the singing of hymns, among them one entitled, “Grace Enough for
Me.” During such religious service the pupils were required to rise in
their seats, fold their hands and bow their heads, and were sometimes
called on to explain the meaning of passages of scripture read. Mr.
Ring had brought suit in the District Court of Scott county, where
it was held that the services were not unjust and not a violation of
the constitution of Illinois. He thereupon appealed to the Supreme
Court of the state. Here four important questions were decided, which
applied not only to Mr. Ring, but to all other citizens not in sympathy
with what is known as Evangelical Protestant Christianity. The first
question decided was that “_free enjoyment of religious worship
includes freedom not to worship_.” This, orthodox religionists have
been slow to concede, and never before has the right _not to worship_
been so clearly stated. On this point the court said:
“The wrong arises, not out of the particular version of the Bible or
form of prayer used--whether that found in the Douay or the King James
version--or the particular songs sung, but out of the _compulsion_ to
join in any form of worship.”
The second point decided was that “_children attending public school
cannot be compelled to join in religious worship_,” and that the
religious exercises as held in the school “constitute worship within
the meaning of the Constitution.” The third point decided was that, the
constitution of Illinois having forbidden the use of school funds for
sectarian instruction, the giving of such instruction in the schools
by the teacher is illegal. Most important of all, the fourth point was
that the reading of the Bible in public schools constitutes sectarian
instruction. Here the court speaks plainly:
“The Bible, in its entirety, is a sectarian book as to the Jew and
every believer in any religion other than the Christian religion and as
to those who are heretical or who hold beliefs that are not regarded as
orthodox. Whether it be called sectarian or not, its use in the schools
necessarily results in sectarian instruction.”
In delivering this decision the court gave forth a number of maxims
worthy of being remembered, among which were:
“All stand equal before the law--the Protestant, the Catholic, the
Mohammedan, the Jew, the Mormon, the Freethinker, the Atheist. Whatever
may be the view of the majority of the people, the court has no right,
and the majority has no right to force that view upon the minority,
however small.”
Regarding the status of a pupil in a school who is permitted by the
objection of himself or his parents to refrain from taking part in
religious exercises, the Court said:
“The exclusion of a pupil from this part of the school exercises in
which the rest of the school joins, separates him from his fellows,
puts him in a class by himself, deprives him of his equality with the
other pupils, subjects him to a religious stigma and places him at a
disadvantage in the school, which the law never contemplated.”
The decision of the judge of the District Court of Scott county was
reversed.
At the Illinois constitutional convention of 1920, an attempt was made
to nullify this decision by inserting the following in the proposed new
constitution: “The reading of selections from any version of the Old
and New Testaments in the public schools without comment shall never be
held to be in conflict with this constitution.”
The object of this was to force the Bible into the schools and to make
opponents of the tyranny helpless in protest. The people of Illinois,
however, took the matter in hand, and on December 12, 1922, defeated
the adoption of the new constitution by a majority of six to one.
THE CALIFORNIA CASE
This case was decided by the Court of Appeals of the state in December,
1922. It was based on a clause of the Constitution of California
reading:
“No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any
sectarian school; ... nor shall any sectarian doctrine be taught
or instruction therein permitted, directly or indirectly, in any
common schools of this state.” The California court held that “while
Protestantism may not be a ‘sect’ in the strict interpretation of
the term, the Protestant Bible contains the precepts of many of the
Protestant denominations, and the ‘denomination’ is merely another term
for ‘sect’.”
As the arguments in this case were very largely those used in the other
cases they are not reproduced here.
The New York Globe, in commenting upon the decision admits that the
“authorized version” is “technically sectarian literature,” while the
Brooklyn Citizen admits: “There can be no doubt as to the facts. The
law is clear.” In California as in Illinois, the churches are going to
try to nullify this decision by a constitutional amendment.
The following points now seem to be established in law:
First: Any _version_ of the Christian Bible is sectarian to those who
do not accept it as the inspired word of God.
Second: One version of the Bible accepted by one denomination of
Christians is sectarian to members of any other denomination which does
not accept it.
Third: The Bible is distinctly a book of religion, and the teaching of
it anywhere cannot fail to be construed as religious teaching.
Fourth: Readings from the Bible, accompanied or unaccompanied by prayer
and the singing of religious hymns, are acts of religious worship.
Fifth: If done in the public school room, during school hours, with the
pupils present, it thereby makes the public school a place of religious
worship.
Sixth: As our citizens are compelled by law either to send their
children to the public schools or by other means provide for them
an education, the use of the Bible in the school room compels the
citizen to support and attend a place of worship, thereby violating the
fundamental American principle of no state religion and no union of
church and state. The attempts of Protestants to place the Bible in the
schools are very astute efforts to evade and nullify this principle.
Seventh: No church, or religion is entitled to any special privileges
at the hands of the government. All the state is bound to do is to
protect them all in their equal rights.
Eighth: Those professing no religion have the same rights as those who
do.
CHAPTER III
_Fifteen Reasons Why the Bible Should Not Be in the School Room_
I. _The Question of Religion Involved._ Those who want the Bible read
in the public schools declare it to be the word of God. Now it either
is such or it is not. If taught as the word of God, such teaching would
be religious and therefore, as the courts maintain, unconstitutional.
If taught as a human production, would the advocates of its use in the
schools be so enthusiastic to place it there? As we have previously
observed, the subject of religion cannot be eliminated from any
study of the Bible. The result would be the dragging of it into the
public school, where of all places it should not be. It would cause
dissension, disagreement, and bad feeling and bring about the very
thing we do not want to happen, the dividing of the children into
religious groups or sects. The object of our schools above all things
is to make the forthcoming citizens Americans, not to divide them
into religious or national coteries. Let religion be taught in the
churches and Sunday schools. If it is of any value its worth will be
communicated from these places in the lives of those who attend them.
If the churches, as many of them as we have, as great effort as they
make to spread their teachings, and as much wealth as they possess, to
say nothing of the power of God behind them, cannot make their good
influence felt without encroaching upon the public secular school,
we have a right to assume that they are valueless. The Rev. Joseph
Parker, the eminent English clergyman, who was opposed to thrusting the
Bible into the schools, said that to do so was a reflection upon the
ministry. It implied that ministers are unable to do their own work and
must call upon the schoolmaster to help them.
II. _The Age of the Bible._ A book written over two thousand years
ago, in the infancy of the human intelligence, before the birth of
scientific knowledge, has no place as a text book in the schools of
the twentieth century. But, some will urge, are not other works of
antiquity studied in the schools? True, but under these circumstances:
They are used in higher education; they are used for a particular
purpose, as, for instance, the study of the language, history, or
habits of an ancient people; there are not the controversies or other
objectionable features connected with their study that would follow
the Bible. Why need we go to a book so old as the Bible for our
ideals? Have we not them among ourselves? We think we have. We think
our Abraham Lincoln a greater and a better man than Abraham of Ur of
the Chaldees. We think our Ingersoll and our Webster were greater
orators than Peter and Paul. We think Shakespeare, Byron, Burns, Moore,
Shelley, and our own Longfellow were greater poets than the writers
of the Psalms. We think Darwin knew more about biology, Herschel more
about astronomy, Lyell more about geology, Mill more about logic and
political economy, and almost any physician more about medicine and
surgery than were known by Moses or any other man, real or imagined,
who it is alleged wrote the Bible. We think that Herbert Spencer was
a greater philosophical genius of all the biblical writers, and that
Benjamin Franklin was a wiser and a cleaner man morally than was
Solomon. We think that Edison has done more good in the world than
did Ezekiel, and that Isaac Newton proclaimed greater truths than did
Isaiah. We think that Buddha, Confucius, Manu, and Zoroaster taught as
good systems of morals as did Jesus. If Jesus died to save the world,
thousands have also died in behalf of or on account of Jesus so the
debt has many times been repaid. If Jesus died in behalf of principles
which he deemed to be good, so did Bruno, Savonarola, Legate, Wightman,
Ferrer, and others too numerous to mention. Bible virtues of any real
value are strictly human virtues to be found in all ages and climes,
among all races and religions. Is it possible that for moral teaching
we must revert to the book of a people who were so far behind their
neighbors that except Saul and Jonathan they had “neither sword nor
spear in the hand of any of the people”? (1 Samuel xiii, 22.) And a
people who had no blacksmiths, but who “went down to the Philistines
to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his
mattock”? (verses 19 and 20). And a people who had no mechanics among
them, but when their king wanted to build a house for himself had to
send to a “heathen,” Hiram, king of Tyre, for masons and carpenters? (2
Samuel v, 11.)
III. _The Bible is not a book_, but a collection of books, written
hundreds of years apart, and arbitrarily, in the midst of great and
stormy controversy, gathered together in one volume. There was always a
dispute as to what books should compose it. The Hebrew Bible contains
thirty-nine books. The King James, or Protestant English, version
contains sixty-six, while the Roman Catholic or Douay version in
addition to these contains the Apocrypha, making in all seventy-two.
These different factions of religionists respectively reject certain
books the others accept. For a history of the controversies over what
books should compose the Bible, see Davidson on “The Canon,” “An
Introduction to the New Testament,” by the Rev. B. W. Bacon, D.D.,
of the Yale Divinity School, and the article on the Canon in the
Encyclopedia Biblica.
IV. Unless used for the purpose of teaching some foreign language, any
book studied in the public schools should be written in the English
language, not in a foreign or a dead language. The Old Testament was
written in the ancient Hebrew, practically a dead language at the
beginning of the alleged Christian era. Many translations have been
made, of which John E. Remsburg says, after speaking of the English
versions, Wicliffe’s, Tyndale’s, King James’s, the New Version, and
the Douay: “The foregoing are but a few of the numerous versions of
the Bible, ancient and modern, that have appeared. Nearly every nation
of Europe has had from one to a score. Luther’s version is nearly four
hundred years old, and yet Germany has seventeen translations and
consequently seventeen versions before Luther’s was published. England
had many besides those named.”
V. The Bible should not be read in the public schools because so many
false and unfounded claims have been made for it, claims that have
been nullified by the conclusions of modern science and criticism and
recent investigations and discoveries. These false claims are embodied
in the popular teaching of the book. It is claimed, for instance, that
the first five books of the Old Testament were written by Moses in the
thirteenth century B. C.; that the four gospels of the New Testament
were written by those whose names appear as the writers; that Paul
wrote the fourteen epistles that bear his name, and fictitious claims
are made for other books. In the face of modern scholarship, which has
submitted the Bible to the same scrutiny and criticism to which other
books have been submitted, all these claims have been proved false and
unfounded. This is so clear that the orthodox churches have split over
the situation, one party accepting the old or traditional view, and the
other the modern or scientific.
VI. As Archdeacon Farrar has said, all parts of the Bible are not of
equal value. The sixty-six books bound into one represent every variety
of literature--poetry, fiction, mythology, drama, legend, tradition,
and some things possibly historical. Yet the popular teaching of the
books makes no distinction between them, and uncritically places all
upon the same level and gives them the same value.
VII. The Bible should not be read in the schools because it relates
as facts numerous miracles, wonders, and myths, impossible in the
nature of things, as the established matter-of-fact experience of
mankind proves, which bear upon their face the marks of ignorance,
superstition, and fraud. In the ordinary course of life we laugh at
such narratives and regard them only as fairy tales. Why, then, in the
instruction of youth should we teach what we ourselves dismiss as the
fictitious and absurd?
VIII. The history of man proves that he has been enlightened, happy,
and prosperous to the extent that he has had a knowledge of Nature and
her laws, and that ignorance, superstition, and misfortune have been
the result of a lack of knowledge of, and the violation of, these laws.
In other words, science has been the great enlightener and civilizer.
Science today is the basis for judgment in all matters pertaining to
the welfare of the human race. Science has been called classified
knowledge, or as Professor Clifford has said, it is “organized common
sense.” “The subject of science is the human universe; that is to say,
every thing that is, or has been, or may be related to man” (Lectures
and Essays, page 24, R. P. A. Edition). Science is progressive. It
depends upon the continued advance of knowledge, is ever alert and
critical, calls everything into question and accepts nothing as true
without a preponderance of evidence. The Bible should not be read in
the schools because the science it teaches is that of a primitive
and a barbarous age. It was in accordance with the childhood of the
world, when, as Lydia M. Child says, “In the childhood of the race men
thought little and believed much, just as children do.” As a book in
the schools, the Bible, with its flat earth, its metallic firmament,
making the sun, moon, and stars as lanterns hung out to give light to
the day and the night, is a mockery and a distortion in this age of the
world. Its story of creation is a fairy tale only believable in an age
of ignorance. Its story of the origin of man is childish, being on a
par with similar myths of ancient peoples.
The Bishop of Oxford (England) has this to say about the teachings of
these myths to children: “You can hardly exaggerate the disaster it
has been to the education of children that they have been taught to
associate with religion things about the creation, the flood, and the
beginning of our race, which it was infallibly certain, when they grew
up to read the literature of their time, they would find false and
would reject as alien to the whole trend of the philosophy, science,
and history of their time.” This statement, coming from a clergyman of
such high standing, ought to be conclusive. We have neither the space
nor the time to dilate upon the conflict between the Bible and science
and the bitter struggle between religionists and the scientists. The
story has been written by one of our greatest of historians, Andrew
Dickson White, in his two large volumes entitled “The Warfare Between
Science and Theology in Christendom.” It has been written by Draper in
his “Intellectual Development of Europe” and in his “Conflict Between
Science and Religion.” Read these works and see clearly the folly and
the disaster of placing the Bible in the public schools. You will
not then be surprised that religionists of the type of W. J. Bryan
are now using their efforts to prevent the teaching of Evolution in
our public educational institutions. It is only a revival of the old
conflict between education and ignorance, between superstition and
knowledge. The cause of it all has been the use of the Bible as a book
of authority and teaching.
IX. The Bible has no place in the school room because it states as
facts the grossest absurdities. It speaks of an ax swimming in the
water (2 Kings vi, 5); it speaks of “an hundred and four score and five
thousand” men who arose early in the morning only to find that “they
were all dead corpses” (Isaiah xxxvii, 36); while we read in the ninth
and tenth chapters of 1 Kings that Solomon had more gold and silver
than there were in the world at that time; that the spies sent into
Caanan “cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and
they bare it between two upon a staff” (Numbers xiii, 23); that “we
saw the giants, and the sons of Anak, which came of the giants: and we
were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight”
(verse 33), and that the rabbit chews its cud like the cow (Lev. ii, 6).
We will call the reader’s attention to the very absurd story of the
Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, as shown by R. B. Westbrook, in his
work, “The Eliminator: or Skeleton Keys to Sacerdotal Mysteries”; “The
number of fighting men who marched out of Egypt is nowhere estimated
at less than 600,000, and if this represents only one-fifth of the
population, the latter must have reached 3,000,000. If we cut this down
one-third, so as to be sure of our figure, we make it 2,000,000 souls.
The number of the children of Israel who went into Egypt was seventy
(Ex. i, 5). They sojourned in Egypt 215 years. It could not have been
430, as would appear from Ex. xii, 40. The marginal chronology makes
the period 215 years, and there were only four generations to the
Exodus--namely, Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses (Ex. vi. 16, 18, 20).
How could these people increase in 215 years from seventy souls so as
to number 600,000 warriors? It would have required an average number
of 46 children to each father. The twelve sons of Jacob had between
them only fifty-three sons. At this rate of increase, in the fourth
generation there would have been only 6,311 males (providing they were
all living at the time of the Exodus), instead of 1,000,000. If we add
the fifth generation, who would be mostly children, the total number of
males would not have exceeded 28,465.
“All the first-born males from a month old and upwards, of those that
were numbered, were 22,273 (Numbers iii, 43). The lowest computation of
the whole number of the people at that time is 2,000,000. The number of
males would be 1,000,000. Dividing the latter number by the number of
first born gives 44, which would be the average number of boys in each
family, or about 88 children by each mother. Or, if where the first
born were females the males were not counted, the number of children by
each mother would be reduced to forty-four.
“Dan in the first generation had but one son (Gen. xlvi, 23), and
yet in the fourth generation his descendants had increased to 62,700
warriors (Num. ii, 26), or 64,400 (Num. xxvi, 43). Each of his sons and
grandsons must have had about eighty children of both sexes. On the
other hand, the Levites increased the number of ‘males from a month old
and upward’ during the thirty-eight years in the wilderness only from
22,000 to 23,000 (Num. iii, 39; xxvi, 62), and the tribe of Manasseh
during the same time increased from 32,200 (Num. i, 35) to 52,700
(xxvi, 34).
“The whole population of Israel were instructed in one single day to
keep the passover, and actually did keep it (Ex. xii). At the first
notice of any such feast Jehovah said, ‘I will pass through the land of
Egypt _this night_.’ The passover was to be killed ‘_at even_’ on the
same day that Moses received the command.... After midnight of the same
day the Israelites received notice to start for the wilderness. No one
was to go out of his house till morning, when they were to take their
hurried flight with their cattle and herds. How could 2,000,000 people,
scattered over a wide district, as they must have been with their
cattle and herds, have gotten ready and taken a simultaneous hurried
flight at twelve hours’ notice?
“The Israelites, with their flocks and herds, reached the Red Sea, a
distance of from fifty to sixty miles over a sandy desert, in three
days! Marching fifty abreast the able-bodied warriors alone would have
filled up the road for seven miles, and the whole multitude would have
made a column twenty-two miles long, so that the last of the body could
not have been started until the front had advanced that distance--more
than two days’ journey for such a mixed company. Then the sheep and
cattle must have formed another vast column, covering a much greater
tract of ground in proportion to their number. Upon what did these two
millions of sheep and oxen feed in the journey to the Red Sea over a
desert region, sandy, gravelly, and stony alternately? How did the
people manage with the sick and infirm, and especially with the seven
hundred and fifty births that must have taken place in the three days’
march?” (pages 85, 86, 87.)
In addition to this we need say nothing of the story of the flood or
other ridiculous Bible tales. The land of Caanan is described in the
Bible as “a land flowing with milk and honey,” as a rich land, where
gold and silver were as abundant as stones. We turn from this high
sounding Jewish boast to the description of it as given by General
Furlong, of the British army, who had marched over every mile of it:
“The area of Judea and Samaria is, according to the above authority,
140 × 40 = 5,600 square miles, which I think is certainly one-fourth
too much, my own triangulation of it giving only 4,500, or a figure of
about 130 × 35. I will, however, concede the allotment of 5,600, but
we must remember that, as a rule, the whole is a dismal, rocky, arid
region, with only intersecting valleys, watered by springs and heavy
rain from November to February inclusive, and having scorching heats
from April to September. Even the inhabitable portions of the country
could support only the very sparsest population, and I speak after
having marched over it and also a considerable portion of the rest of
the world. In India we should look upon it as a very poor province;
in some respects very like the hilly tracts of Mewar or Odeypoor in
Rajpootana, but in extent, population, and wealth it is less than a
small principality.”
Why should we place a book in the schools which teaches such falsehoods
when all around us are the grand truths of Nature?
X. The Bible should not be read in the schools because it teaches
oriental tyranny and kingcraft, against which our fathers fought and
offered their life blood. “Fear God, honor the king” (1 Peter ii, 17).
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake:
whether it be to the king, as supreme; or to the governors, as unto
them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the
praises of them that do well” (verses 13 and 14). “Let every soul be
subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the
powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans xiii, 1). This is contrary
to the principles of Americanism as taught by the founders of our
republic, and has no place in the instruction of the young Americans of
today in our public schools.
XI. As one of the most progressive nations in the world we have granted
woman equal rights with man. The Bible should not be read in our
schools because it teaches the subjugation, degradation, and oriental
slavery of women prevalent in the age and country in which it was
written. “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children: and thy
desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis
iii, 16). “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands” (Col. iii,
18). “As the church is subject unto Christ so let the wives be subject
to their own husbands in everything” (Eph. v, 24). “Let your women keep
silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak,
but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home;
for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35).
“Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.... For after this
manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned
themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands; even as Sarah
obeyed Abraham calling him lord” (1 Peter iii, 1–6). “Let women learn
in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach,
nor to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam
was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman
being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. ii, 11–14). Modern
civilization has bidden defiance to these words of Paul. We would ask
the good W. C. T. U. ladies who are working to place the Bible in the
public schools to ponder over these words of the apostle, as well as
over many other biblical passages. We would call their attention to the
despicable idea of marriage taught by Jesus in Matt. xix, 10–12, and by
Paul in the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians. In the Old Testament the
father selects a husband for his daughter, and is allowed to sell her
as a slave (Ex. xxi, 7). Let these ladies, who are the right bower of
the priest and parson, read and think over this passage: “When a man
hath taken a wife, and marries her, and it come to pass that she find
no favor in his eyes, ... then let him write her a bill of divorcement,
and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (Deut. xxiv,
1). Yet this is not quite so bad as the teaching of Jesus forbidding
divorce at all except for the cause of adultery. Let them read and
think of the following:
“Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee in
thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give
them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of
the sun” (2 Samuel xii, 11).
“Their children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their
houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished” (Isaiah xiii, 16).
“I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city
shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished” (Zech.
xiv, 2).
“Let their wives be bereaved of their children and be widows” (Jer.
xviii, 21).
Wherever the Bible speaks of woman, from the first chapter of Genesis
to the last chapter of Revelation, its ideas are low and vile. Those
ideas have no place in the school room and are unfit for the reading of
children and young people anywhere. The late G. W. Foote once said that
the day would come when it would be the proud boast of woman that she
had never contributed a line to the Bible.
XII. The best thoughts of the best men, both Christian and
non-Christian, at the present day are turned to the question of how
to avert war, the curse of the world during the past ten years. The
Bible should not be read in the schools because from cover to cover it
teaches, commends, authorizes, and lauds the practice of men killing
each other. The best evidence of this is the Bible itself. The word war
occurs within its lids just two hundred and thirty-five times--threats
of war, rumors of war, devastations of war. The following are a few of
them: “The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name” (Exodus xv, 3);
“He teacheth my hands to war” (1 Sam. xxii, 35). See also Psalms xviii,
34, and cxliv. “And thou shalt consume all the people, which the Lord
thy God shall deliver thee, thine eye shall have no pity upon them”
(Deut. vii, 16); “Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God
doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive that
breatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them” (Deut. xx, 16, 17);
“And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses;
and they slew all the males.... And the children of Israel took all the
women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil
of all their cattle, and all their flocks and all their goods. And
they burned all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly
castles with fire” (Numbers xxxi, 10).
These passages are typical of the Old Testament. To quote further would
be superfluous and wearisome. In the second chapter of Deuteronomy,
fourth and eighth verses, we find a thorough justification for the
marching of the Germans through Belgium in the late European war, an
outrage against all international law and the established rules of
justice which govern nations in their intercourse with each other.
Read the fourteenth chapter of Numbers and Deuteronomy ix, 23, and see
why all of the children of Israel twenty years old and over were doomed
to spend the remainder of their lives in the wilderness. Why? Because
they refused to _war_ against the inhabitants of the land of Canaan.
When the people told Jeremiah that they would go into Egypt where they
would be free from war (Jeremiah xlii, 14), the Lord replied that war
would also follow them there and that the sword “shall overtake you
there in the land of Egypt, and the famine, whereof ye were afraid,
shall follow close after you there in Egypt; and there ye shall die”
(verse 16). When Israel and Syria were without a war for three years it
was considered a matter worthy of special mention (1 Kings xxii, 1);
and God gave Judah a special dispensation from war. Jesus said: “I came
not to send peace but a sword” (Matthew x, 34). He said (Luke xxi, 24),
“And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away
captive into all nations.” “And he that hath no sword, let him sell
his garment and buy one” (Luke xxii, 36). But, say some bibliolaters,
he meant the “sword of the spirit!” Read, however, the fiftieth verse
of the same chapter; “And one of them smote the servant of the high
priest, and cut off his right ear.” With what did he do this, the sword
of the spirit? And there still was war, even in heaven (Rev. xii, 7).
As Archdeacon Farrar well said, “The Bible is a barbarous book, written
in a barbarous age for a barbarous people.” Do we want this book read
in our public schools against the best thought, the highest learning
and the most humanitarian views of this age? The people who advocate
its reading there require watching.
XIII. The Bible should not be read in the public schools because
it contradicts itself nearly two hundred times. We will give a few
illustrations:
“And he said, _Thou shalt not see my face_: for there shall no man see
me and live” (Ex. xxxiii, 20).
“_And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face_, as a man speaketh unto
his friend” (11).
“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, _hearing a
voice_, but seeing no man” (Acts ix, 7).
“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but
_they heard not the voice_ of him that spake to me” (xxii, 9).
Jesus said, “If any man hear my words, and believe not, _I judge him
not_: for _I came not to judge the world_, but to save the world” (John
xii, 47).
“For the Father judgeth no man; _but hath committed all judgment to the
son_” (v. 22).
“And the anger of _the Lord_ was kindled against Israel, and he moved
David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah” (2 Samuel xxiv,
1).
“And _Satan_ stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number
Israel” (1 Chronicles xxi, 1).
“The Jews therefore said unto him, _It is not lawful for us to put any
man to death_” (John xviii, 31).
“The Jews answered him, We have a law, and _by our law he ought to
die_” (John xiv, 7).
What women visited the tomb on the morning of the resurrection?
“The first day of the week cometh _Mary Magdalene_, early when it was
yet dark, unto the sepulchre” (John xx, 1).
“In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day
of the week, came _Mary Magdalene and the other Mary_ to see the
sepulchre” (Matt. xxviii, 1).
“Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they
came unto the sepulchre.... It was _Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and
Mary the mother of James, and other women_” (Luke xxiv, 10).
At what time in the morning did they visit the tomb?
“At the rising of the sun” (Mark xvi, 2).
“When it was yet dark” (John xx, 1).
Where did Jesus first appear to his disciples?
“Then said Jesus unto them (the women) Be not afraid; go tell my
brethren _that they go into Galilee_, into a mountain where Jesus had
appointed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some
doubted (Matt. xxviii, 10, 16, 17).
“And they rose up the same hour, and _returned to Jerusalem_, and found
the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The
Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.... And as they thus
spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them” (Luke xxiv, 33, 34,
36).
Did the disciples know that Jesus would arise from the dead? According
to Mark x, 32, 33 and 34, they did:
“And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things
should happen unto him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the
Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the
scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to
the Gentiles; and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall
spit upon him, and shall kill him; _and the third day he shall rise
again_.” Yet John xx, 9 distinctly says, “_For as yet they knew not the
scripture, that he must rise again from the dead._”
Did John the Baptist know Jesus when he came unto him to be baptized?
He did, according to Matt. iii, 13, 14: “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee
to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him,
saying, _I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?_”
Yet John himself admits that he did not know him:
“_And I knew him not_: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the
same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and
remaining on him, the same is he that baptizes with the holy ghost. And
I saw, and bare record, that this is the Son of God” (John i, 33).
There is also another very material contradiction as to what the
centurion at the cross said:
“Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus,
saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared
greatly, saying, ‘_Truly, this was the Son of God_’” (Matt. xxvii, 54).
Luke gives an entirely different version:
“Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying,
_Certainly this was a righteous man_” (xxiii, 47).
Are works necessary for salvation, or is faith alone sufficient?
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that
we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of
the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”
(Galatians ii, 16). “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is
dead in vain” (21). “Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by
faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans iii, 28).
“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead”
(James ii, 20). “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith
without works is dead also” (26). “Ye see then how that by works a man
is justified, and not by faith only” (24).
“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of
God Almighty, _but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them_” (Exodus
vi, 3). “_And Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah-jireh_”
(Genesis xxii, 14).
These are but a few of the contradictions of the Bible, selected at
random from hundreds.
XIV. The Bible should not be read in the public schools because it
teaches, by direct commands, by the praise of them, by acknowledgment
of their habitual use as a matter of custom, the taking of intoxicating
liquors. Many of us may not believe the eighteenth amendment, as
interpreted by the Volstead act, to be the best means of abrogating the
evils of intemperance. All thinking men, however, believe that the use
of alcoholic beverages, considering the evils that result therefrom,
should be reduced to a minimum. The words “wines” and “strong drink”
occur in the Bible about two hundred and forty times. Among these are
to be found some passages condemning drunkenness. This is of no special
moment, as no moral code in the world upholds intoxication, while the
Mohammedan Koran distinctly condemns the use of alcoholic liquors
and stands for total abstinence. In the Bible, total abstinence is
commanded under special circumstances. For illustration, a Nazarite
must not drink during the period of his separation. When that period
is passed he may drink all he wishes. (See Numbers vi, 3, 20.) Jehovah
said unto Aaron, in his official capacity as high-priest: “Do not drink
wine or strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, _when ye go into
the tabernacle of the congregation_, lest ye die” (Leviticus x, 9).
Why? “That ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between
clean and unclean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the
statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses”
(10, 11). He wanted his priests to be entirely sober when performing
their priestly functions, and what employer does not? King Lemuel was
taught by his mother, “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for
kings to drink wine nor for princes strong drink: lest they drink and
forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted”
(Proverbs xxxi, 4, 5). Yet in the sixth and seventh verses is this
imperative command as to other people: “Give strong drink unto him that
is ready to perish, and wine to those that be of heavy hearts. Let him
drink and forget his poverty and remember his misery no more.”
Moses told the children of Israel: “Ye have not eaten bread, neither
have ye drank wine or strong drink: that ye may know that I am the Lord
your God” (Deut. xxix, 6). But this was in the wilderness, where no
bread or liquors were to be had. But what does he say in the fourteenth
chapter, twenty-sixth verse, after giving directions as to what is
lawful to eat? “And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy
soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, _or for wine, or for strong
drink_, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth.” Jesus said, “Verily I
say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine”--because
it was wrong to do so? On the contrary, “until that day that I drink
it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark xiv, 25). We admit such temperance
passages as are to be found in Proverbs xx, 1, and in Isaiah v, 11.
These refer strictly to the abuse, not to the moderate use of alcoholic
liquors.
Let us now look at other passages where the use of intoxicants is not
only commended but commanded. We have space to refer to but a few of
them. “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s
sake” (1 Timothy v, 23); “Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink
thy wine with a merry heart, for God now accepteth thy good works”
(Eccles. ix, 7); “Corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine
the maids” (Zech. ix, 17); “They shall plant vineyards and drink the
wine thereof” (Amos ix, 14); “Wine maketh glad the heart of man” (Ps.
xiv, 15); “Wine, which cheereth God and man” (Judges iv, 13); “In the
holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the
Lord for a drink offering” (Num. xxviii, 7); “Honor the Lord with thy
substance, and with the first fruits of all thine increase; so shall
thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with
new wine” (Proverbs iii, 9, 10).
When God decided that the human race was so bad that he would have to
drown everybody he selected one man and his family to be saved--Noah.
Yet when the flood had subsided, and all returned to dry ground, Noah
got drunk (Genesis ix, 20–24). When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah,
he saved another drunkard, Lot. How this gentleman conducted himself
while under the influence of wine would not make a very edifying
subject for a Sunday school lesson (See Genesis xix, 30–38). David got
drunk himself and danced before the ark in a state of nudity, after
giving each of all the people “a flagon of wine” (2 Samuel vi, 14, 16,
19). Yet God said, “David ... a man after mine own heart, which shall
fulfill all my will” (Acts. xiii, 22). God also gives David two other
unqualified certificates of character (See 1 Kings xiv, 7, 8; xv, 5).
When Solomon erected the great temple he gave his laborers “twenty
thousand baths (nearly 17,500 gallons) of wine” (2 Chronicles ii, 10).
Jeremiah, one of God’s favorite prophets, tempted the Rechabites, who
were total abstainers, to drink (See Jeremiah xxxv, 2). Yet this same
God on another occasion said, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor
drink, that puttest thy bottle to him and makest him drunken” (Habakkuk
ii, 15).
The first miracle of Jesus was the transforming of water into wine
(John ii, 3–11), and in Luke vii, 33, 34, are these words: “For John
the Baptist came neither eating bread, nor drinking wine; and ye say,
He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye
say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine bibber, a friend of publicans
and sinners.”
Bible advocates of temperance sometimes quote the following passages
from Paul, as evidence, to them, of Bible teaching of total abstinence.
“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything
whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is made weak.” (Romans xiv:21.)
Also, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no
flesh while the word standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” (1
Corinthians viii:13).
It will be noticed in the first that _flesh_ comes before wine,
while in the second, wine is not mentioned at all. When you read the
context in both cases you will find that Paul is merely warning his
hearers against meat offered to idols and that wine is only mentioned
incidentally. But when you turn to 1 Timothy, v:23, Paul imperatively
says, “DRINK NO LONGER WATER, BUT USE A LITTLE WINE FOR THY STOMACH’S
SAKE, AND THINE OFTEN INFIRMITIES.”
When confronted by these texts and the facts which they carry,
bibliolaters are driven to the entirely false and fictitious plea that
Bible wine was not intoxicating, that it might drown but could not
produce a drunk. We have no space here to discuss this makeshift. If
the reader is interested and wishes to pursue the subject, we refer him
to John E. Remsburg’s book, “The Bible,” pages 398–399; to the article
on “Wine and Strong Drink,” in that monument of scholarship, “The
Encyclopedia Biblica”; to that well-known orthodox work, Smith’s “Bible
Dictionary,” and to “Religion and Drink,” by Rev. E. A. Wasson.
Under our liquor laws as at present interpreted a priest, preacher,
or rabbi is permitted to purchase all the drink he desires for
“sacramental” purposes, while a physician is limited in the amount he
can prescribe for his patients. Why this unjust discrimination? If
liquor is a bad thing, why is it made good in the “sacrament”? This is
merely a trick common with the church to evade the force of the civil
law, just as is its effort to force the Bible into the public schools.
We, as citizens, protest against the unbridled fanaticism or base
hypocrisy of these people, who deny to others the privileges they claim
for themselves, then add insult to injury by trying to force upon the
country by law a book which advocates, teaches, abets, preaches, and
practices what they want by law forbidden.
XV. The entire idea under which they wish to place the Bible in the
schools is wrong. Why glorify one book above another? Any book to be
of service to a reader must be his servant, not his master. The real
question is, not what does a book say, but what does it say in accord
with the facts of life, nature, reason and experience? If a book
answers that test it is not necessary to praise it eternally, to say
nothing of asking special laws for its recognition. The idea has been
well expressed by the poet Lowell in these words:
“Slowly the Bible of the race is writ,
And not on paper leaves or leaves of stone;
Each age, each kindred, adds a verse to it,
Texts of despair or hope, of joy or moan;
While swings the sea, while mists the mountains shroud,
While thunder’s surges burst on cliffs of cloud,
Still at the prophet’s feet the nations sit.”
No volume can be made large enough to contain this BIBLE, yet to it all
other books must conform.
Transcriber’s Note
Some inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, and punctuation have
been retained.
This file uses _underscores_ to indicate italic text and =equals= to
indicate bold text. Small capitals changed to all capitals.
p. 8: added “in” after “belief” (Action or conduct indicating a belief
in)
p. 12: changed “of” to “to” (on earth peace to men of good will)
p. 24: changed “depotism” to “despotism” (never rises above the merest
despotism)
p. 24: changed “in” to “is” (Much less is Christianity or any other
system)
p. 24: changed “almightly” to “almighty” (It is not almighty and we are
not to look)
p. 31: changed “summonded” to “summoned” (The teacher, summoned as a
witness)
p. 32: changed “ther” to “their” (put to death for participating in
their production)
p. 41: “Wicliffe’s” left as-printed; this name has many variant
spellings.
p. 46: changed incorrect citation “xl” to “xlvi” (Gen. xlvi. 23)
p. 61: changed “prohpet’s” to “prophet’s” and “nation’s” to “nations”
(Still at the prophet’s feet the nations sit)
Uncharted Knowledge
Wisdom From Previous Realities
View as JSON for agents & LLMs