The Bible: Should It Be in the School Room?

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.

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 [Pg 6]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 [Pg 7]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]⁠

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 [Pg 8](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 [Pg 9]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 [Pg 10]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 [Pg 11]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 [Pg 12]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:

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 [Pg 13]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 [Pg 14]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:

(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Noyes of Harvard Divinity School.)

(Translation of Dr. Dillon, in Skeptics of the Old Testament.)

(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Albert Barnes, Presbyterian divine and commentator.)

[Pg 15]

(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.

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 [Pg 17]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 [Pg 18]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 [Pg 19]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 [Pg 20]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.

[Pg 21]

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 [Pg 22]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 [Pg 23]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 [Pg 24]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 [Pg 25]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 [Pg 26]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 [Pg 27]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 [Pg 28]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 [Pg 29]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 [Pg 30]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 [Pg 31]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 [Pg 32]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 [Pg 33]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 [Pg 34]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:

[Pg 35]

“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.”

[Pg 36]

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.

[Pg 37]

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.

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 [Pg 39]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 [Pg 40]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 [Pg 41]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 [Pg 42]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 [Pg 43]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 [Pg 44]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 [Pg 45]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, [Pg 46]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 [Pg 47]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 [Pg 48]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 [Pg 49]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, [Pg 50]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 [Pg 51]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 [Pg 52]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: [Pg 53]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).

[Pg 54]

“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.”

[Pg 55]

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 [Pg 56]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 [Pg 57]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 [Pg 58]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 [Pg 59]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 [Pg 60]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.

[Pg 61]

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:

No volume can be made large enough to contain this BIBLE, yet to it all other books must conform.