Chapter 16
The Bible in Public Schools
IN the latter part of the nineteenth century, a number
of legal battles took place over the reading of Bible in the public
schools of America. In the 1870s, a case that was to have significance in
other parts of the United States revolved around the decision of the
Cincinnati Board of Education, to repeal a resolution which had allowed
for teachers to read the Bible in the classroom. The new resolution was as
follows:
Resolved, That religious
instruction, and the reading of religious books, including the Holy Bible,
are prohibited in the common schools of Cincinnati, it being the true
object and intent of this rule to allow the children of the parents of all
sects and opinions, in matters of faith and worship, to enjoy alike the
benefits of the common school fund.
Resolved, That so much of the regulations of the
course of study and text-books in the intermediate and district schools
. . . as reads as follows: "The opening exercises in every
department shall commence by reading a portion of the Bible, by or under
the direction of the teacher, and appropriate singing by the pupil,"
be repealed. Quoted in William Blakely, American State Papers Bearing
on Sunday Legislation, 1891, p. 192
A number of citizens objected to this measure, and the
case was heard before the Superior Court of Cincinnati. In a two-to-one
decision, the Superior Court overruled the resolutions of the school
board, thus continuing the reading of Bible in the city schools.
However, the case was appealed to the Ohio Supreme
Court, which reversed the decision of the Superior Court, thus upholding
the school board’s decision to delete the reading of Bible from public
schools in Cincinnati. The majority opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court was
written by Mr. Justice Welch, who argued forcibly,
We are told that the word "religion" must
mean Christian "religion," because "Christianity is a part
of the common law of this country," lying behind and above each
constitution. Those who make this assertion can hardly be serious, and
intend the real import of their language. If Christianity is a law
of the state, like every other law, it must have a sanction and
equal 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.
Blakely, p. l92, 193
The justice went on to point out that,
True Christianity asks no aid from the sword of civil
authority. It began without the sword, and wherever it has taken the
sword, it has perished by the sword. To depend on civil authority for its
enforcement is to acknowledge its own weakness, which it can never afford
to do. It [Christianity] is able to fight its own battles. Its weapons are
moral and spiritual, and not carnal. Blakely, p. 193
Mr. Justice Welch also pointed out that there is no
mention in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, of
religion as one of the declared objects of government, much less
Christianity. Therefore he argued that the state could not have any
religious opinions. (Blakely, p. 194, 195)
Counsel for the plaintiffs had argued that to withdraw
all religious instruction from the school would be to place children under
the control of "infidel sects." (Ibid. p. 200)
The judge argued against this viewpoint, saying,
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. Ibid.
The judge then quoted James Madison as stating,
Religion is not within the purview of human government.
Religion is essentially distinct from human government, and exempt from
its cognizance. A connection between them is injudicious to both. There
are causes in the human breast which insure the perpetuity of religion
without the aid of law. Ibid., p. 200, 201
Of equal significance was a decision of the Supreme
Court of the State of Wisconsin delivered in July of 1890. The case
involved the reading of portions of the King James Version of the Bible
every day in the public schools in the city of Edgerton. Some of the
taxpayers of Edgerton, apparently Roman Catholics in their religious
faith, objected strenuously and took their complaint to the court. The
Wisconsin Supreme Court rendered a unanimous decision in which they
declared such bible reading to be unconstitutional. The court ruled that
the reading of the Bible in the public schools of the state during school
hours was sectarian instruction, and thus prohibited by the Constitution.
(Blakely, p. 226)
Mr. Justice Lyon, rendering the court’s decision,
pointed out that the King James Version of the Bible was not accepted by
all religious sects. Commenting upon the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme
Court, the New York Independent wrote,
We presume that there is not a Protestant in Wisconsin
who would hesitate a moment on the point, if the book read had been the
Douay version of the Bible, which is acceptable to the Catholics, or the
Koran [of the Muslims], or the Book of Mormon. The reading of such a book
as a part of school exercises, whether for worship or religious
instruction, would be offensive to Protestants, and they would have good
cause for complaint, just as the reading of the King James’s [sic]
Version, which is sometimes called the Protestant Bible, is offensive to
Catholics. New York Independent, July 19, 1890, quoted in Blakely,
p. 227
The school board of Edgerton had argued that no pupil
was required to stay in the school room when the Bible was being read. But
Mr. Justice Lyon responded as follows,
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 apparent hostility to the Bible,
which a 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 subject 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 at a serious
disadvantage in many ways with respect to that of others. Quoted in
Blakely
Third, the Wisconsin Supreme Court argued that,
The reading of the Bible is an act of worship and
therefore the taxpayers of any district cannot be compelled to contribute
to the support of public schools which enjoin an act of worship. As the
Wisconsin constitution expressly declared that the people could not be
compelled to erect any place for the purpose of worship, then no tax money
could be used to support a public school which introduced any element of
worship into its curriculum. Ibid. p. 228
The fourth point made by the court was that, should
religious instruction take place in the public school, it would be
parallel to the state supporting a religious seminary. The justices
assured the community in their statement that the schools had every right
and responsibility to teach morality and good conduct in the common
schools, but that it should not be connected with any particular church or
religion, for such a practice inevitably led to the state becoming
despotic.
In spite of the careful way in which these two cases
were argued, whereby the issue of the reading of Scripture in the public
schools was forcibly declared to be unconstitutional, this issue continues
to be repetitively raised in American society even to this time. It must
be emphasized that in the freedom principles of America, any religion,
Christian or otherwise, has the full right to establish its own schools
and to teach emphatically the belief system that it holds, and to use any
means of instruction it chooses, whether it be the Bible, the Koran, the
writings of Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other "holy" book.
If the arguments quoted above were to be taken to their
logical conclusions, the present thrust for the establishment of the
voucher system in the United States would be held to be wholly
unconstitutional. The voucher system calls for parents to be provided with
a certain amount of money for education, should they choose to have their
children educated in a private or sectarian school. Logic would also lead
to the repealing of legislation in countries like Australia where huge
amounts of funds are provided from the public treasury in the support of
private and sectarian schools. Such actions seriously breach the principle
of the separation of church and state.
The public school system has been established to serve
the educational needs of the citizens of the nation. It is charged to
exclude the presentation of sectarian concepts. It supports no particular
religion, be it Christian or non-Christian, nor does it proselytize those
who have no religious persuasion.
Today the Christian community of the United State is
sharply divided on the issue of bible readings and school prayer. Some of
the more strongly fundamentalist Protestants believe that the removal of
prayer and the reading of the Bible from the public schools has greatly
diminished the moral influence of the public schools upon their students.
They see this as a factor contributing to the violence, crime, and
immorality that is prevalent in society today. Thus there is increasing
agitation for the removal of some of the strict laws that have been passed
in more modern times, prohibiting the teaching or practice of religion in
the public schools. It must never be forgotten that false thinking is
always supported among its advocates by plausible reasons. That truism is
evident in this matter.
Other citizens believe that to introduce prayer into
the public schools or to allow bible readings would be a direct violation
of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Today, as the
cosmopolitan nature of American society reflects increased numbers who
have accepted non-Christian religions, these matters become an even more
contentious issue. However, the elimination of any vestige of Christianity
in the public schools has brought fierce opposition from many sincere
Christians. There are at least three troubling elements at stake:
(1) As mentioned, it is argued that the great social
problems, including violence, crime, sexual promiscuity, and drugs, are
partially a result of the lack of moral influence now exerted in the
public school systems—a decline that is linked to the elimination of
Judeo-Christian values in schools and in society, and specifically the
principles of the law of God.
(2) Presently, however, the curriculum developers seem
to have much less inhibition about presenting non-Christian religions such
as Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism in the social studies text books. It has
sometimes been argued that this is part of the acculturation of the
students to the pluralistic society in which they live. But such answers
do not satisfy sincere Christians, who object strenuously to what they see
as the replacement of what were once the Judeo-Christian values by the
non-Christian values.
(3) Almost universally, evolution theory is being
taught in the public school system. Many sincere Christians see this as a
concept totally antagonistic to Christianity. Those who believe so see it
as a deep breech in the intent of the First Amendment, for they see it as
planting anti-Christian precepts in the minds of the students. Some
Christians, who otherwise might be favorable to a level of Christian
principles being taught in the public school, are now reticent because of
the diversity of religious thought within the United States of America.
While some Americans possess little concern about
various religious groups offering some religious instruction in public
school, they have no desire to see pagan religions being taught in the
public schools of America. They point to the fact that, fundamentally,
America is a Christian nation, established upon Christian principles, a
nation whose coins declare, "In God We Trust." They are further
revolted by the thought that some satanist groups might also argue their
right to offer instruction in public schools. Thus for these reasons they
prefer to forego their desire to have Christian principles enunciated in
the public school system.
Still others argue that the American society provides
opportunity for parents to send their children to private schools where
there is no restriction on the type of religious training that may be
provided. The limitation of this argument is that, while this provision is
available, theoretically, to all citizens of the nation; in reality,
because of the cost to parents of private school education, it is, in
practical terms, unavailable to the very poor families of the nation. The
issue of school prayer and bible reading is a very complex one, where a
society attempts to provide equal access for all students, on the one
hand, but on the other, seeks to avoid supporting or appearing to support
any particular religious persuasion.
When we were boys growing up in Australia, we attended
public school up until the end of fourth grade. There the government
schools attempted to solve the issue in a way which at that time proved
satisfactory to Australian citizens. Any religious group could appoint one
representative to teach a religious class one period per week. Each
representative was provided a class room in which to expound the
Scriptures to the children who would attend. The students could choose
whatever church group they desired, or, if they desired not to attend any
group, they could spend the period in the school library. Thus the schools
provided for at least some Christian training for those who wanted to take
advantage of it, without requiring anyone to attend or promoting any
particular religion. In today’s society, the authors are not
enthusiastic for this process, knowing the attraction that anti-Christian
religions would provide for many children.
Another group of citizens, while not supporting
coercion of Bible reading in a public school environment, nevertheless
recognize that the reading of the Bible would hurt no child. Indeed, for
many, they argue, it may be the only place where they ever hear the words
of the Bible; the only opportunity that they would have to recognize its
power in the human life. Some Christians fear that if they strongly oppose
the reading of the Bible in the public schools, they may be seen as
opposing the Scriptures. If this should happen, they could be counted with
the atheists, the agnostics, and the infidels who oppose the Word of God.
The authors stand firmly upon the platform of
separation of Church and State in the curriculum of the public schools. We
stand firmly against the voucher system or any system that calls for
public funding to support private education. Great care must be exercised
to avoid anything that would erode the broadest intent of the guarantees
of religious freedom and separation of church and state.
Citizens should not overlook the fact that the misuse
of state monies for parochial school education is far from unknown. In
Australia public money has been on occasions utilized for the construction
of denomination youth centers, using the justification that children from
the sectarian school sometimes go to the youth center for field trips.
Other cases of abuse of state funds include church administrators
appropriating state-aid funds for their salaries on the grounds that they
have some supervisory role, such as school board chairman, or as
treasurers of the church, because the government monies are sent to them
for dispersion. Such abuses are not the central issue of opposition to
state funding of private schools, for that centrality rests upon the
principle of the separation of church and state. They do, nevertheless,
underscore the lack of integrity sometimes exhibited by church
administrators.
|
