diff options
Diffstat (limited to '78962-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 78962-0.txt | 1816 |
1 files changed, 1816 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/78962-0.txt b/78962-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1a4e11c --- /dev/null +++ b/78962-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1816 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78962 *** + + + + + LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. =706= + Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius + + The Bible: Should It Be in + the School Room? + + The Question Considered Legally, Morally + and Religiously + + Franklin Steiner + + + HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY + GIRARD, KANSAS + + + + + Copyright, 1924, + Haldeman-Julius Company. + + PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA + + + + + THE BIBLE: SHOULD IT BE IN THE SCHOOL ROOM? + + + + + INTRODUCTION + + +The fact that certain Protestant churches, strong politically, are +exerting their efforts to force the teaching of their religion in our +public schools against law, constitution, equity and the American +principle of no union of church and state: the further fact that at +the present time there is in existence a strong Protestant jesuitical +political secret order trying to put this measure on statute books +whether the people want it or not, is the author’s sole apology for +presenting this little book to the public. He claims for it no literary +merit, but hopes that all who are truly Americans, whether native or +foreign born, will circulate its facts and arguments. + + FRANKLIN STEINER. + + + + + THE BIBLE: SHOULD IT BE IN THE SCHOOL ROOM? + + + + + CHAPTER I + +_The Bible and the Sects--Shall Any Version of the Book Be Placed in +This Country’s Common Schools?_ + + +A STATEMENT OF THE CASE. A stupendous effort is now being nationally +made by a particular and special class of our citizens, to place the +Bible, the text book of the Christian religion, in the curriculum +of our public schools. From the outset, there arises this curious +fact: It is that many Christian sects, one of them being the largest +in number of communicants, to say nothing of individual Christians, +have strenuously opposed the measure. The Jews, “unto whom were +committed the oracles of God” (Romans iii, 2) have also expressed their +disapprobation. Then add to these about two-thirds of our population +who profess no religion, and we find the movement limited to a small +section of our people. The fact that advocates of enforced Bible +reading are so enthusiastic, so intolerant of criticism and opposition, +and that they would compel the use of the Bible by law causes us to +inquire seriously into the question. Then the intense opposition of +religionists as well as of those professing no religion in particular, +causes us to conclude that the _propriety_ of such an inclusion in our +public school instruction is the main issue to be considered. + +There arises before us the further fact that one class of people are +vigorously determined upon the use in the schools of a book of which +they are the partisans, while the world contains many more books of +the same character. Still another, that those who accept the book as +an authority are not agreed as to which edition or which version is +the correct one. Over this controversies have arisen, resulting in law +suits which have finally had to be decided by supreme courts. Here we +might surmise the cause of the intense opposition of some to the use +of the Bible in the schools, and of further discontent and controversy +should it be placed there. The advocates of the measure, if they think +themselves able to put it over, would make Bible reading compulsory. +Should they fail in this, they are agreeable that it should be read at +the discretion of the teacher. Should they still fail, they will ask +that _extracts_ be read. As a last resort, they will plead that it be +not _excluded_ and that it be read “without comment.” They are even +willing to concede that no child shall be compelled to take part in the +Bible reading exercise against the will of its parents. + +Why, unlike any other school book, should it be read “without comment”? +Why the exception? The Bible from whatever view we take it, above all +other books, to be understood, must be commented upon and explained. +The whole presents a curious medley of circumstances and positions +which could hardly be duplicated when any other book is proposed for +use in the school room. All goes to prove that the advocates of the +proposal are very enthusiastic and determined to force the book in +the schools, on the best terms that they can obtain. Should any other +book be proposed for a course of public school education, under the +same conditions, no one will deny that its use would be unhesitatingly +rejected.[1] + +[1] Religionists in some places are now opposing the use of Wells’ +“Outline of History” in high schools and colleges because some of its +views are not orthodox and conventional. Yet they, a minority, would +force their Bible by law upon all. + + + IS THE BIBLE A RELIGIOUS AND SECTARIAN BOOK? + +It is not our purpose to take part in any of the theological +controversies that in the past or at the present have raged around the +Bible. Yet, as the teaching of religion seems to be the desideratum of +the advocates of Bible reading in the schools, as we shall later prove; +and the opposition to such teaching on the part of others the cause +of the opposition to such reading, we are compelled to ask and answer +the query, Is the Bible a religious book? The meaning of the word +“religion” has been fixed by the best lexicographers and has been so +utilized by the best writers. + +“The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the +existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny; to whom +obedience, service and honor are due.”--Webster’s International. + +“An acknowledgment of our obligation to God as our creator, with a +feeling of reverence and love, and consequent duty or obedience to +him.”--Worcester. + +“A belief in an invisible superhuman power (or powers) conceived of +after the analogy of the human spirit on which (or whom) man regards +himself as dependent.”--The Standard Dictionary. + +“Any system of faith or worship.”--Imperial Dictionary. + +“Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to +please a divine ruling power.”--Oxford Dictionary. + +We are aware that a class of modern thinkers define and understand +religion differently, as does R. B. Westbrook in The Eliminator, page +12: “We use the word religion as it was used by Cicero, in the sense of +_Scruple_, implying the consciousness of a natural obligation wholly +irrespective of what one may believe concerning the gods.” + +We must say that in the face of the five definitions first given, added +to the understanding and use of the word by religionists themselves, a +revolution in human thought and in the meaning of the English language +must take place before this can be seriously accepted as the correct, +understood, prevailing definition. + +Following these guides, the best we can obtain, let us ask, Is the +Bible a religious book? Is its chief object the teaching of religion? +We think we need adduce no argument to prove that were those portions +of the Bible which inculcate religious doctrines eliminated, the +fly-leaves of the book alone would hold most of what remains. No one, +and least of all a Christian, will deny that it teaches “a belief in an +invisible superhuman power (or powers) conceived of after the analogy +of the human spirit”; or that it teaches “a divine ruling power,” “to +whom obedience, service and honor are due.” + +The first three of the ten commandments are strictly religious and in +no way concern morality. They teach the absurd doctrine that the God of +the ancient Hebrews was the only God worthy of worship. + +The sermon on the mount, which is perhaps more free from strict +religious teaching than any other portion of the Bible, yet says, +“Seek ye _first_ the kingdom of God and _his righteousness_ and all +these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. vi, 33). Here, again, the +Jewish God is referred to. The most beautiful of Jesus’ teachings are +his eulogy and defense of children. Even here he strictly maintains +religious doctrines, as when he says, in Matthew xviii, 6: “But whoso +shall offend one of these little ones _which believe in me_,” etc. + +“In thus looking at the Bible from a distinctly religious point of +view, we are in perfect harmony with its writers; even with such +of them as adopt the narrative style, and will therefore engage +the greatest share of our attention. For when the books of the Old +Testament were set aside and preserved as a sacred book by the Jews, +and those of the New Testament were added to them by the Christians, it +was with no idea of drawing knowledge of nature or history from them, +but because they recognized them as the rule of faith and conduct; +and in the same way the writers themselves prepared their works and +gave publicity to them, not simply or chiefly in order to make their +readers accurately acquainted with the past, but to promulgate and +recommend what seemed to them to be religious truth.” (“Bible for +Learners,” Vol. 1, page 5.) Hence, however much Bible reading advocates +may cavil about the book as “literature” or “the fountain of morality,” +there can be no legitimate question of its object being to teach a +particular religion, and that its purpose in the school room is to do +the same. + +Let us now ask another question, Is the Bible a sectarian book? Let us +first state that there is no such thing as a cosmopolitan or universal +religion. Prof. Max Müller, perhaps the greatest authority upon the +science of religion, has said: “Religion is a mental faculty which, +independent of, nay, in spite of, sense and reason, enables man to +apprehend the infinite _under different names and disguises_.” + +Hence, man, in an effort to understand the infinite, has formed not +one but many religions; therefore we have Buddhism, Brahmanism, +Shintoism, Judaism, the mythology of the Greeks and Romans and +finally Christianism and Mohammedanism. In recent years there +has been developed Agnosticism which holds that the infinite is +incomprehensible. Religions and Bibles are all sectarian to the +devotees of other religions who do not accept them as true or +authoritative. + +In the face of this broad truth, those who advocate reading the Bible +in the public school deny that it is sectarian. They would narrow +their definition of “sect” to that of the Standard Dictionary, which +defines it as “a body of persons distinguished by peculiarities of +faith and practice from other bodies adhering to the same general +system.” But Christianity consists of different bodies distinguished by +wide “peculiarities of faith and practice.” Some of these have their +own versions of the Bible, while others base their peculiarities upon +different interpretations and particular sections of the same version. +The widely divergent forms of Christianity, from Roman Catholicism +to Unitarianism, have their foundation and different versions and +interpretations. Those holding to one set of doctrines and practices +accept that version which sustains their contentions and reject those +which do not. Those making the nation-wide propaganda to place the +Bible in the schools are the Evangelical Protestants, who accept +the King James version. The question, “Is the King James version +sectarian?” has caused the long controversy which courts have been +called on to settle when opponents of Bible reading have taken legal +action to keep it out of the schools. + +There is another English version of the Bible called the “Douay +version,” which is accepted by Roman Catholics, who not only deny that +the King James version is the correct one, but affirm that it teaches +dangerous and damning errors. Protestants retaliate by making the same +charges against the Douay version. Therefore, to either one of these, +the principal divisions of Christianity, the Bible of the other is +sectarian. + +Let us give illustrations of the widely variant readings in these two +principal English versions of the Bible. When we have done so our +readers can perceive why such a bitter controversy has arisen between +the partisans of the different transcripts. He will also see the folly +and injustice of trying to force a book, which has been the center of +so much bitter animosity, into public schools supported by citizens +of all religious beliefs, who are compelled by the law of the land to +send their children there. We will take just a few illustrations from +hundreds. + +In the King James Version 1 Corinthians xv, 51, is translated: “Behold, +I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be +changed.” The Douay Version renders the same verse, “Behold, I tell +you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: _but we shall not all +be changed_.” Luke ii, 14, is translated in the King James, “Glory to +God in the highest, and on earth _peace to men of good will_.” The +Protestant “Revised Version” gives it still different: + + “Glory to God in the highest, + And on earth _peace among men in whom he is well pleased_.” + +The King James Version makes Matthew vi, 11, read, “Give us this +day our daily bread.” The Douay version says, “Give us this day our +_super-substantial_ bread.” + +We now come to one difference of translation, which perhaps above +all others is the most startling and would arouse the greatest of +the theological controversies. Matthew iii, 1–2, reads, in the King +James Version: “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the +wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven +is at hand.” The Douay Version gives it an entirely different meaning +when it makes the second verse read: “_Do penance_: for the kingdom of +heaven is at hand.” This controverted word occurs in the New Testament +fifty times and is so differently translated in the King James and +Douay Versions. In the Catholic church penance is one of the seven +sacraments, while Protestants do not recognize it at all, hence one +looks upon the Bible of the other as false and as a teacher of false +doctrines. + +A more startling fact arises when we discover that not only are +Catholics and Protestants divided in opinion as to what the Bible +means and as to which version gives the correct meaning, but on this +point Protestant Bible scholars differ widely among themselves. This +was so notorious that in 1883 a “new version” was given the world. +While it corrected some mistakes of translation, it was far from being +acknowledged as satisfactory. We will here give just one illustration, +selected from many, of differences of translation among Protestant +Biblical scholars. Job xix, 25–27, is rendered in the King James +Version: “For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand +at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms +destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall +see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though +my reins be consumed within me.” This passage is to be found in the +Episcopal and other orthodox church funeral rituals. The “redeemer” +is supposed to be Christ, and Job is supposed to refer to his soul +in heaven. This is done in defiance of the fact that Job in other +passages states that death ends all. (See vii, 7–10; xiv, 7–12 and +xxxiv, 15.) Following are the translations of a number of well-known +Biblical scholars, which give it a different meaning and state an +entirely different situation: + + “Yet I know that my Vindicator liveth + And will stand at length upon the earth; + And though with my skin this body be wasted away, + Yet in my flesh shall I see God. + Yea, I shall see him my friend; + My eyes shall behold him no longer an adversary; + For this my soul panteth within me.” + +(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Noyes of Harvard Divinity School.) + + “But I know that my avenger liveth; + Though it be at the end upon my dust, + My witness shall avenge these things, + And a curse alight upon mine enemies.” + +(Translation of Dr. Dillon, in Skeptics of the Old Testament.) + + “For I know that my Avenger liveth + And that hereafter he shall stand upon the earth; + And though after my skin this (flesh) be destroyed, + Yet even without my flesh shall I see God; + Whom I shall see for myself. + And mine eyes shall behold, and not another-- + Though my vitals are wasting away within me.” + +(Translation of the Rev. Dr. Albert Barnes, Presbyterian divine and +commentator.) + + “As for me, I know it--my Avenger liveth, + And (lying) in the dust I shall receive his pledge; + Shaddai will bring to pass my desire, + And as my justifier I shall see God.” + +(Translation of the Rev. Dr. T. K. Cheyne, Editor of The Encyclopedia +Biblica.) + +This is one of the many passages in the Bible which in the King James +Version has been twisted to meet doctrinal ends. Again we repeat, +that were any other book containing so many controversial meanings, +especially among those who maintain its efficiency and credibility, +offered for use in the school room, it would be rejected at once. + +Let us be honest with ourselves and with one another, and admit the +true motive of those who prolong this agitation to place the Bible in +the public schools. We have said that they represent the Evangelical +Protestant churches. + +The Catholic church maintains its separate schools for the purpose +of teaching its children the common branches of knowledge side by +side with its religious doctrines. Protestants send their children to +the public schools, relying upon their churches and Sunday schools +alone for religious instruction. As their churches and Sunday schools +have failed to arouse sufficient interest, they now want to make +use of the public schools for religious propaganda. Hence their +Jesuitical attempts to have laws passed forcing their Bible into these +institutions. Quite naturally in a country whose national Constitution, +as well as practically all its state constitutions, proclaims divorce +between church and state, the Catholic, the Jew, the Agnostic, and +citizens of other opposing beliefs protest. + + + + + CHAPTER II + +_The Bible and the Courts--Law, Constitution and the Judges Are Opposed +to Religion in Our Common Schools._ + + +We will begin with fundamentals by calling attention to the first +amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: + +“_Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion +or prohibiting the free exercise thereof._” + +While this does not take away from the states the power to establish +religious observances, it has been repeated, even with stronger +guarantees, in practically all of our state constitutions. The +exceptions are New Hampshire, where the constitution can authorize a +municipality to provide support for Protestant ministers; Pennsylvania +and Tennessee, where a belief in God and future rewards and punishments +is a constitutional qualification for office; Arkansas, whose +constitution declares ineligible to office and incompetent as a witness +any person who denies the existence of God; and Maryland, where belief +in future rewards and punishments is essential to competency as a +witness or juror. Hence, upon the principle of no union of religion +with the state, our fundamental laws are almost unanimous. + +This is distinctly an American idea. In Europe every country except +Turkey recognized the Christian religion, and all had a state +church. All the thirteen colonies had the same except Rhode Island, +Pennsylvania and Delaware. The last two granted religious equality only +to Protestants. Only in the first was there absolute religious freedom. + +Cobb says: “The history of religion and the church in America, as those +stand related to the civil government, presents features unparalleled +in the rest of Christendom” ... “a peculiarly American production.” +(“The Rise of Religious Liberty in America,” page 1.) The churches, +from the first, opposed the religious liberties of the Constitution, +and either openly defied them or covertly evaded them. They do the +same today. “The practical recognition of entire individual freedom +of thought and action in reference to matters of religion has not, +however, always been conceded” (Illinois Reports, Vol. 245, page +341). The present efforts to place the Bible in the schools are a +manifestation of the old-time evasion and defiance. The orthodox +church, from the very nature of the pretenses that it makes, has never +ceased to seek favors from the state and to demand emoluments in one +form or another. + +When a person or an organization lifts a voice in opposition to the +introduction of the Bible in the school room, bibliolaters immediately +raise the hue and cry, “Enemy of the Bible!” They do this as a means +of starting the “odium theologicum.” Their tactics here are intended +not to answer the arguments of their opponents, but to crush them by +opprobrium. The statement that opponents of the Bible in the schools +are necessarily enemies of it is not only untrue, but has no purpose, +except the intent be to blind the eyes of the public. The Bible as +a work of literature no more has “enemies” than have the works of +Shakespeare, Rabelais, Plato, Homer, Milton, or the productions of +other writers, ancient or modern. It is to the position claimed for +the Bible and the unwarranted assertions concerning it made by the +very people who are trying to force it by law into the schools, that +exception is taken. All have the right to view and interpret the Bible +as they choose, but no one interpretation should have the prestige of +the law, considering that there are so many of them and that our law +recognizes no particular form of religion. + +Others raise the hue and cry that the opposition to Bible reading +in the schools comes from Catholic sources. Even if this were true, +it would only prove that the Catholic has the right to object to +another religion in which he does not believe, being crammed down his +children’s throats by the civil law. The fact that this church, the +oldest existing Christian church, opposes it, to say nothing of others, +and of people who belong to no church--and these include two-thirds of +our population--only demonstrates the injustice of the proposal. To say +that justice should not be administered, merely because it would be +granted to a certain people, is a poor argument in favor of injustice. +Whenever and wherever Catholics attempt to make use of the public +schools as a place of propaganda for their church, as Protestants are +doing when they force their Bible there, we will then and there oppose +them with the same logic we are now advancing against Protestants. + +Among the side issues brought forward to befog the minds of the citizen +is the plea that the Bible should be read in the schools because all +should know something about it. But have we not a millionaire Bible +society to publish it, churches, ministers and Sunday school teachers +numbering into the hundred thousands whose special business is to teach +and preach this book? Are not these at the disposal of all who want +such teaching and preaching? The plea is a subterfuge. They want it +there so that it may be forced, by the authority of law, upon those +who do not want it. Their plea that they are willing that it be read +“without comment,” places them logically and morally in an exceedingly +unenviable position. Those who want the Bible in the school room hold +the book to be the inspired word of God. Do they want it recognized in +the schools as such, or not as such, or are they indifferent to either +position? If either of the last two, would they be so anxious to have +laws forcing it there? The Bible brings forward multitudes of questions +of religion, history, science, ethnology, anthropology, archeology, +morality and so on. In the study of the book are all these to be +neglected? If they are, the Bible would not be studied intelligently. +The “without comment” plea is equivalent to a confession that they do +not want it so studied. + + + THE OHIO CASE + +Where the real merits of the case have been before a court for +consideration as to the legality of the reading of the Bible in the +public schools, the decisions have invariably been that it was illegal, +unconstitutional, and subversive of the rights of those who objected +to such reading. This is so well recognized now that Bible advocates +generally, as a last resort, advocate only the reading of a book of +_extracts_ from the Bible, a proposal to a consideration of which we +shall give our attention later. The first historic case of interest +is the Ohio case. The circumstances were these: In the year 1854 the +school board of the city of Cincinnati adopted a rule requiring that +a chapter from the Bible be read each morning by the teacher on the +opening of a public school session. In 1869, the board, acting on the +protests of citizens who by such reading considered that their rights +were invaded, repealed this rule. Whereupon, the Protestant church +people of Cincinnati applied to the Superior Court for an injunction to +restrain the board from enforcing the repeal. Their plea was, in brief: +The fact that Protestants were in the majority, and therefore their +will should be obeyed; that Christianity was the common law of the +land, and that therefore its teachings could not be denied a place in +the schools; that the constitution of the Northwest Territory provided +for the teaching of “religion, morality, and knowledge”; that to keep +the Bible out of the schools would be to turn the schools over to the +control of “Infidel sects”; that many children would remain in total +ignorance of the Bible did they not study it in the common schools. + +The school board was represented by two of the ablest lawyers in Ohio, +Hon. Stanley Matthews, afterwards United States senator, and at the +time of his death a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States; +and the Hon. George Hoadley, afterwards governor of Ohio. We quote +but a part of Judge Matthews’ argument, though all of it is worthy of +reproduction: + + “I do say that the reading of the Holy Bible in the manner repealed + by this resolution, is the teaching of a dogma in religion, held by + only a portion of the religious community, objected to by a large + part of the others, and that it is in a just, true and sober sense, a + merely sectarian book. + + “But it is asked by some, who by asking betray their want of + comprehension of the real question: Have Protestants no rights? + Cannot the majority of the community insist upon their consciences? + Must the right of minorities alone be consulted? Are we to be ruled + by Catholics, or Jews, or Infidels? The answer is obvious and easy: + _Protestants have no rights_, as such, _which do not at the same + time_ and to the same extent belong to Catholics as such, to Jews and + Infidels. Protestants have a civil right to enjoy their own belief, + to worship in their own way, to read the Bible and teach it as a part + of their religion. But they have _no right in_ this respect _to any + preference from the state_ or any of its institutions. They have _no + right_ to insist upon _Protestant practices at public expense_, or in + public buildings, or to turn public schools into seminaries for the + dissemination of Protestant ideas. + + “They can claim nothing on the score of conscience which they cannot + concede equally to all others. It is not a question of majorities + or minorities, for if the conscience of the majority is to be the + standard, then there is no such thing as conscience at all. It is + against the predominance and power of majorities that the right of + conscience are protected: and have need to be. + + “For--and that is the gist of the thing--the reading of the Holy + Scriptures in the appropriate commencement of the morning daily + exercises of the public school _is the teaching_ of the _religious + dogma_ that they are the inspired word of God: and if it were not so + held by the Protestant members of this community, there would be no + such lawsuit here today as there is. + + “If it were the writings of Epictetus, of Seneca, or of Pliny, or + moral philosophy, or anything of human composition and origin only, + that taught the purest and highest morality, nobody would be found to + pay the expense of filing this bill to compel its daily reading. + + “It is because that exercise is intended, and valued only as it + is intended, to teach the Christian doctrine as to the scheme of + salvation offered by Christ, and the Protestant doctrine that the + book without note or comment is the infallible rule of faith and + practice. + + “And therefore I say that the practice to be perpetuated by the + power of the civil arm in this suit, is a practice which teaches a + _religious dogma_, and in a sectarian sense. And I say that it is + so indisputable, it is so self-evident--it is written upon every + countenance in this room--that nothing else than that could account + for the extraordinary interest taken in this trial and the efforts + which are made to secure the interposition of this court.” + +The case caused great bitterness of feeling, was hotly contested, and +finally carried to the Supreme Court of Ohio. There, in December, +1872, it was decided against the churches and in favor of the school +board. (See Ohio Reports, Vol. 23, pages 211–254.) The real, practical +question was, Had the school board the right to adopt what rules it +pleased, without dictation from the courts? It was held that the Board +had such a right and that any error the board might make must be +corrected by the legislature, and not by the courts. But as the church +people had persisted in lugging in the subject of religion, it was +necessary to deal with that also. Here the court spoke in no uncertain +tone. We quote first an extract from the brief submitted by the legal +representatives of the Board: + + “Superficial teaching should be shunned most of all in this + department, for this concerns, not the poor and temporary affairs of + the body, but the eternal welfare of the soul; ... But true and full + religious instruction, to a Catholic, is the teaching of Catholicism; + to a Methodist, of Methodism; to a Presbyterian, of Presbyterianism; + in the sense of Spinoza, of Pantheism; and that of Hume, of Deism; + to the Baptist mind it involves immersion, etc. Religious men differ + at all points, except, perhaps, as to the being of God. Honest + differences prevail even as to what books should be included within + the meaning of the words ‘Holy Bible.’ Witness the Jew, who regards + the Old Testament as alone inspired; the Catholic, who adds the + Apocrypha. And the shades of difference as to the true sense and + correct meaning of the Bibles are endless.” (pages 218–219.) + +Speaking of the constitutions of the United States and of the state of +Ohio, the Court said: “They, in a sense, speak to _mankind_, and speak +of the rights of _man_. Neither the words _Christianity_, _Christian_, +nor _Bible_, is to be found therein.... Some of the very men who helped +to frame these constitutions were themselves not Christian men.” (page +246.) + +In dilating upon the relations of religion and government, the Court +unanimously held: + + “We are told that this word religion must mean Christian religion + because Christianity is a part of the common law of this country, + lying behind and above its constitutions. Those who make this + assertion can hardly be serious, and intend the real import of their + language. If Christianity is a _law_ of the state, like every other + law, it must have a _sanction_. Adequate penalties must be provided + to enforce obedience to all its requirements and precepts. No one + seriously contends for any such doctrine in this country, or, I might + almost say, in this age of the world.” (pages 246–247.) + + “_Legal_ Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction of terms. When + Christianity asks the aid of government beyond mere _impartial_ + protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine, and not human. + Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human + governments. _United with the government, religion never rises above + the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises + above the merest despotism_; and all history shows us that the more + widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.” + (page 248.) + + “Religion is not--Much less is Christianity or any other system of + religion--named in the preamble of the Constitution of the United + States as one of the declared _objects_ of government; nor is it + mentioned in the clause in question, in our own constitution, as + being essential to anything _beyond_ mere human government.” (page + 248.) + + “Properly speaking, there is no such thing as religion of state. What + we mean by that phrase is, the religion of some individual, or set + of individuals, taught and enforced by the state. The state can have + no religious opinions; and if it undertakes to enforce the teaching + of such opinions, they must be the opinions of some natural person, + or class of persons. If it embarks in this business, whose opinions + shall it adopt?” (page 249.) + + “But the real question here is, not what is the best religion, but + how shall this best religion be secured? I answer, it can best be + secured by adopting the doctrine of this seventh section in our own + bill of rights, and which I summarize in two words, by calling it the + doctrine of _hands off_. Let the state not only keep its own hands + off, but let it also see to it that religious sects keep their hands + off each other.” (page 250.) + + “Government is an organization for particular purposes. It is not + almighty and we are not to look to it for everything. The great bulk + of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government + to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently + one of those interests lying outside the true and legitimate province + of government. Counsel say that to withdraw all religious instruction + from the schools would be to put them under the control of ‘Infidel + sects.’ This is by no means so. To teach the doctrines of Infidelity, + and thereby teach that Christianity is false, is one thing; and to + give no instruction on the subject is quite another thing. The only + fair and impartial method, where serious objection is made, is to + let each sect give its own instructions, elsewhere than in the state + schools, where of necessity all are to meet; and to put disputed + doctrines of religion among other subjects of instruction, for there + are many others, which can more conveniently, satisfactorily, and + safely be taught elsewhere.... The principles expressed here are not + new.... They are as old as Madison, and were his favorite opinions. + Madison, who had more to do with framing the Constitution of the + United States than any other man, and whose purity of life and + orthodoxy of religious belief no one questions, himself says: + + “‘Religion is not within the purview of human government.’ And again + he says, ‘Religion is essentially distinct from human government, and + exempt from its cognizance. A connection between them is injurious + to both. There are causes in the human breast which insure the + perpetuity of religion without the aid of law.’” + + “In his letter to Gov. Livingston, July 10, 1822, he says: ‘I observe + with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity + of religion from civil government, in every case where it does not + trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been + a favorite doctrine with me.’” (pages 253–254.) + + + THE WISCONSIN CASE + +This case was decided by the supreme court of Wisconsin in March, 1890, +and a report of it will be found in the Northwestern Reporter, Vol. +44, pages 967–982. It was an appeal from Rock county, where, in the +town of Edgerton, a number of citizens had brought action to prevent +the reading of the King James version of the Bible in the schools of +the town, for the following reasons: 1, It violates the rights of +conscience; 2, It compels them to aid in the support of a place of +worship against their consent; 3, It is sectarian instruction. (pages +971–972.) + +The body of the decision was rendered by Justice Lyon, and was +concurred in by the entire court. In dealing with the difference +between the Douay and the King James versions, the Justice said: + + “It is averred in the return that there is no material difference + between the King James version of the Bible used in the Edgerton + schools, and the Douay version, which is the only one recognized + by the Catholic church as correct and complete. It is universally + known that there are differences between these two versions in many + particulars, which the respective sects regard as material. Hence + the averment is against common knowledge, and therefore not well + pleaded.” (page 972.) + +Concerning the reading of the King James version being sectarian +instruction Justice Lyon declared: + + “The term ‘sectarian instruction,’ in the constitution, manifestly + refers exclusively to instruction in religious doctrines, and the + prohibition is aimed only at such instruction as is sectarian; that + is to say, instruction in religious doctrines which are believed by + some sects and rejected by others. Hence, to teach the existence + of a supreme being, of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, and + that it is the highest duty of all men to adore, obey, and love + him, is not sectarian, because all religious sects so believe and + teach. The instruction becomes sectarian when it goes further, and + inculcates doctrine and dogma concerning which the religious sects + are in conflict. That the reading from the Bible in the schools, + although unaccompanied by any comment on the part of the teacher, is + ‘instruction,’ seems to us too clear for argument. Some of the most + valuable instruction a person can receive may be derived from reading + alone, without any extrinsic aid by way of comment or exposition. + The question, therefore, seems to narrow down to this: Is the + reading of the Bible in the schools--not merely selected passages + therefrom, but the whole of it--sectarian instruction of the pupils? + In view of the fact already mentioned, that the Bible contains + many doctrinal passages, upon some of which the peculiar creed of + almost every sect is based, and that such passages may reasonably + be understood to inculcate the doctrines predicated upon them, an + affirmative answer to the question seems unavoidable. Any pupil of + ordinary intelligence who listens to the reading of the doctrinal + portions of the Bible will be more or less instructed thereby in the + doctrines of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the eternal punishment + of the wicked, the authority of the priesthood, the binding force + and efficacy of the sacraments, and many other conflicting sectarian + doctrines. A most forcible demonstration of the accuracy of this + statement is found in the reports of the American Bible Society of + its work in Catholic countries (referred to in one of the arguments), + in which instances are given of the conversion of several persons + from ‘Romanism’ through the reading of the scriptures alone; that is + to say, the reading of the Protestant or King James version of the + Bible converted Catholics to Protestants without the aid of comment + or exposition. In those cases the reading of the Bible certainly was + sectarian instruction. We do not know how to frame an argument in + support of the proposition that the reading thereof in the district + schools is not also sectarian instruction.” (page 973.) + +It having been pleaded by the school board that children were not +required to remain in the room during Bible reading, if it was against +the will of their parents, and therefore did not infringe upon their +rights, the Justice said: + + “The answer of the respondent states that the relators’ children are + not compelled to remain in the school room while the Bible is being + read, but are at liberty to withdraw therefrom during the reading + of the same. For this reason it is claimed that the relators have + no good cause for complaint, even though such reading be sectarian + instruction. We cannot give our sanction to this position. When, as + in this case, a small minority of the pupils in the public school is + excluded, for any cause, from a stated school exercise, particularly + when such cause is apparently hostility to the Bible, which the + majority of the pupils have been taught to revere, from that moment + the excluded pupil loses caste with his fellows, and is liable to + be regarded with aversion, and subjected to reproach and insult. + But it is a sufficient refutation of the argument that the practice + in question tends to destroy the equality of the pupils which the + constitution seeks to establish and protect, and puts a portion + of them to serious disadvantage in many ways with respect to the + others.” (page 975.) + +Justice Cassody, in concurring, holds that even though no comment is +made it would be very easy for the teacher if he so desired to make of +such reading sectarian instruction: + + “Since every translation made by man must be more or less imperfect, + and since the application of particular passages is liable to be made + with partial apprehension and biased or even distorted judgment, it + is easy to perceive how texts of scripture may be read with such + an emphasis and tone as to become excessively sectarian. While the + members of any particular sect may be willing to have one of their + own number read the Bible in the public schools, yet they are not + always willing to concede the same to a member of a sect believing + in an opposite faith or doctrine. But the law is impartial, and has + given no rights to any one sect that is not equally secured to every + other.” (page 977.) + +He here quotes Judge Thurman of the Ohio Supreme Court as saying: + + “It is not by mere toleration that every individual here is + protected in his belief or disbelief. He reposes not upon the + leniency of the government, or the liberality of any class or sect + of men, but upon his natural, indefeasible rights of conscience, + which, in the language of the constitution, are beyond the control or + interference of any human authority.” (page 978.) + +Is the reading of the Bible worship? Justice Cassody upon this issue +speaks without reserve, and handles the question without gloves: + + “Certainly, the reading of the holy scriptures, as the eternal + word of God, in obedience to the oft-repeated injunction therein + contained, whether by the individual in private, or in the family, + or in the public assembly, is an essential part of divine worship. + Every sermon is based upon some text of scripture. Most prayers + are preceded by the reading of some passage of scripture, as an + intelligent guide to the thoughts of the worshiper or worshipers. The + Sermon on the Mount contains the prayer taught by the blessed Lord. + Is it possible for any genuine believer in the Christian religion to + read or listen to the reading of that sermon, and especially that + prayer, without being filled with a holy sense of honor, reverence, + adoration, and homage to Almighty God, which is the very essence of + worship? _We must hold that the stated reading of the Bible in the + public schools as a text book may be worship within the meaning of + the clause of the constitution under consideration._ If, then, such + reading of the Bible is worship, can there be any doubt but what the + school room in which it is so statedly read is a ‘place of worship’ + within the same clause of the constitution? Counsel seem to argue + that such place of worship should be confined to some church edifice, + or place where the members of a church statedly worship. Some of + the earlier constitutions, having similar clauses, used the words + ‘building’ and ‘church.’ Manifestly the words ‘place of worship’ + were advisedly used, as applicable to any ‘place’ or structure where + worship is statedly held, and which the citizen is ‘compelled to + attend,’ or the tax payers are compelled to ‘erect or support.’ + The mere fact that only a small fraction of the school hours is + devoted to such worship, in no way justifies such use, as against + an objecting tax payer. If the right be conceded, then the length of + time so devoted becomes a matter of discretion. If such right does + not exist, then any length of time, however short, is forbidden.” + (page 979.) + +Justice Orton, in concurring, thus speaks of the evils of even in the +slightest manner mixing religion with the government: + + “There is no other such source and cause of strife, quarrels, fights, + malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the + state, as religion. Let it once enter into our civil affairs, our + government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter into our common + schools, they would be destroyed. Those who made our constitution + saw this, and used the most apt and comprehensive language in it to + prevent such a catastrophe. It is said that if reading the Protestant + version of the Bible in school is offensive to the parents of some + of the scholars, and antagonistic to their religious views, their + children can retire. They ought not to be compelled to go out of the + school for such a reason for a moment. The suggestion itself concedes + the whole argument. That version of the Bible is hostile to the + belief of many who are taxed to support the common schools and who + have equal rights and privileges in them. It is a source of religious + and sectarian strife. That is enough. It violates the letter and + spirit of the constitution.” (page 981.) + + “It requires but little argument to prove that the Protestant version + of the Bible, or any other version of the Bible, is the source of + religious strife and opposition, and opposed to the religious belief + of many of our people. It is a sectarian book. The Protestants were a + very small sect in religion at one time, and they are a sect yet, to + the great Catholic church, against whose usages they protested; and + so is their version of the Bible sectarian as against the Catholic + version. The common school is one of the most indispensable, useful, + and valuable civil institutions this state has. It is democratic and + free to all alike, in perfect equality, where all the children of + our people stand on a common platform, and enjoy the benefits of + an equal and common education. An enemy of our common schools is an + enemy to our state government. + + “This case is important and timely. It brings before the courts a + case of plausible, insidious, and apparently innocent entrance of + religion into our civil affairs, and of an assault upon the most + valuable provisions of our constitution. These provisions should be + pondered and heeded by all of our people, of all nationalities and of + all denominations of religion, who desire the perpetuity, and value + the blessings of our free government.” (page 982.) + + + THE NEBRASKA CASE + +This case was decided by the supreme court of the state on October 9, +1902. It was the case of Daniel Freeman vs. School District No. 21, +appealed from Gage county. The teacher, summoned as a witness, admitted +having read the Bible; that she considered the exercises conducted +as religious exercises, held them as such, and believed it to be her +duty to do so. This teacher was evidently honest, and made no false +pretenses, which is more than we can say of many others in her position +and holding her views. Two extracts from the decision of the court are +worthy of our attention: + + “But if the system of compulsory education is persevered in, and + religious worship or sectarian instruction in the public schools + is at the same time permitted, parents will be compelled to expose + their children to what they deem spiritual contamination, or else, + while bearing their share of the burden for the support of public + education, provide the means from their own pockets for the training + of their offspring elsewhere. It might be reasonably apprehended that + such a practice, besides being unjust and oppressive to the persons + immediately concerned, would, by its tendency to the multiplication + of parochial and sectarian schools, tend forcibly to the destruction + of one of the most important, if not indispensable, foundation + stones of our form of government. It will be an evil day when + anything happens to lower the public schools in public esteem, or to + discourage attendance upon them by children of any class.” (page 847.) + + “For more than three centuries it has been the boast and exultation + of Protestants and a complaint and grievance of the Roman Catholics + that the various translations of the Bible, especially the New + Testament, into the vernacular of different peoples, have been the + chief controversial weapons of the former and the principal cause of + undoing of the latter. For the making of such translations Wickliffe, + Tyndale, Luther, and others have been commended and glorified by + one party and anathematized by the others. Books containing such + translations have been committed to the flames as heretical, and + their translators, printers, publishers, and distributors persecuted, + imprisoned, tortured and put to death for participating in their + production and distribution. The several popular versions differ in + some particulars from each other, and all differ from the Catholic + canon, both in rendition of passages from which sectarian doctrines + are derived by construction and in the number of books or gospels + constituting what is regarded as the written record of divine + revelation. In addition to this, there are persons who are convinced, + upon grounds satisfactory to them, that considerable parts of the + writings accepted by all Protestant denominations are not authentic + while devout Hebrews maintain that the New Testament itself is not + entitled to a place in the true Bible. These diverse opinions have + given rise to a great number of religious sects or denominations. + To some of these sects the reading in public of any portion of any + version of the scriptures unaccompanied by authoritative comment + or explanation, or the reading of it privately by persons not + commissioned by the church to do so, is objectionable, and an offense + to their religious feelings; to some, the utterance of public prayer, + except recitations from the Scripture, is a vain and a wicked act; + and to some the songs and hymns of praise in which others engage + are a stumbling-block and an offense. We do not think it wise or + necessary to prolong a discussion of what appears to us an almost + self-evident fact--that exercises such as are complained of by the + relator in this case both constitute religious worship and are + sectarian in their character, within the meaning of the constitution. + Nor do we feel inclined to make what might be looked upon as a + spurious exhibition of learning by quoting at length from the many + judicial decisions and utterances of eminent men in this country + concerning the subject.” (pages 846–847.) + +A motion for a rehearing of this case was denied. + + + THE ILLINOIS CASE + +This was the case of The People _ex rel._ Jeremiah Ring _et al._, +Plaintiffs in Error, vs. the Board of Education of District 24, etc., +Defendant in Error. It was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in +June, 1910, and is to be found in the Reports of the state, Vol. 245, +pages 334–378. + +The situation, briefly stated, was this: Mr. Ring, a Roman Catholic in +belief, was sending his children to a district school in Scott county, +Illinois, there being no Catholic school available within reasonable +distance. Moreover, he was compelled by law to give his children an +education. In this school certain teachers held religious service +which included, during school hours, readings from the King James +version of the Bible, repeating the Lord’s Prayer as written therein, +and the singing of hymns, among them one entitled, “Grace Enough for +Me.” During such religious service the pupils were required to rise in +their seats, fold their hands and bow their heads, and were sometimes +called on to explain the meaning of passages of scripture read. Mr. +Ring had brought suit in the District Court of Scott county, where +it was held that the services were not unjust and not a violation of +the constitution of Illinois. He thereupon appealed to the Supreme +Court of the state. Here four important questions were decided, which +applied not only to Mr. Ring, but to all other citizens not in sympathy +with what is known as Evangelical Protestant Christianity. The first +question decided was that “_free enjoyment of religious worship +includes freedom not to worship_.” This, orthodox religionists have +been slow to concede, and never before has the right _not to worship_ +been so clearly stated. On this point the court said: + +“The wrong arises, not out of the particular version of the Bible or +form of prayer used--whether that found in the Douay or the King James +version--or the particular songs sung, but out of the _compulsion_ to +join in any form of worship.” + +The second point decided was that “_children attending public school +cannot be compelled to join in religious worship_,” and that the +religious exercises as held in the school “constitute worship within +the meaning of the Constitution.” The third point decided was that, the +constitution of Illinois having forbidden the use of school funds for +sectarian instruction, the giving of such instruction in the schools +by the teacher is illegal. Most important of all, the fourth point was +that the reading of the Bible in public schools constitutes sectarian +instruction. Here the court speaks plainly: + +“The Bible, in its entirety, is a sectarian book as to the Jew and +every believer in any religion other than the Christian religion and as +to those who are heretical or who hold beliefs that are not regarded as +orthodox. Whether it be called sectarian or not, its use in the schools +necessarily results in sectarian instruction.” + +In delivering this decision the court gave forth a number of maxims +worthy of being remembered, among which were: + +“All stand equal before the law--the Protestant, the Catholic, the +Mohammedan, the Jew, the Mormon, the Freethinker, the Atheist. Whatever +may be the view of the majority of the people, the court has no right, +and the majority has no right to force that view upon the minority, +however small.” + +Regarding the status of a pupil in a school who is permitted by the +objection of himself or his parents to refrain from taking part in +religious exercises, the Court said: + +“The exclusion of a pupil from this part of the school exercises in +which the rest of the school joins, separates him from his fellows, +puts him in a class by himself, deprives him of his equality with the +other pupils, subjects him to a religious stigma and places him at a +disadvantage in the school, which the law never contemplated.” + +The decision of the judge of the District Court of Scott county was +reversed. + +At the Illinois constitutional convention of 1920, an attempt was made +to nullify this decision by inserting the following in the proposed new +constitution: “The reading of selections from any version of the Old +and New Testaments in the public schools without comment shall never be +held to be in conflict with this constitution.” + +The object of this was to force the Bible into the schools and to make +opponents of the tyranny helpless in protest. The people of Illinois, +however, took the matter in hand, and on December 12, 1922, defeated +the adoption of the new constitution by a majority of six to one. + + + THE CALIFORNIA CASE + +This case was decided by the Court of Appeals of the state in December, +1922. It was based on a clause of the Constitution of California +reading: + +“No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any +sectarian school; ... nor shall any sectarian doctrine be taught +or instruction therein permitted, directly or indirectly, in any +common schools of this state.” The California court held that “while +Protestantism may not be a ‘sect’ in the strict interpretation of +the term, the Protestant Bible contains the precepts of many of the +Protestant denominations, and the ‘denomination’ is merely another term +for ‘sect’.” + +As the arguments in this case were very largely those used in the other +cases they are not reproduced here. + +The New York Globe, in commenting upon the decision admits that the +“authorized version” is “technically sectarian literature,” while the +Brooklyn Citizen admits: “There can be no doubt as to the facts. The +law is clear.” In California as in Illinois, the churches are going to +try to nullify this decision by a constitutional amendment. + +The following points now seem to be established in law: + +First: Any _version_ of the Christian Bible is sectarian to those who +do not accept it as the inspired word of God. + +Second: One version of the Bible accepted by one denomination of +Christians is sectarian to members of any other denomination which does +not accept it. + +Third: The Bible is distinctly a book of religion, and the teaching of +it anywhere cannot fail to be construed as religious teaching. + +Fourth: Readings from the Bible, accompanied or unaccompanied by prayer +and the singing of religious hymns, are acts of religious worship. + +Fifth: If done in the public school room, during school hours, with the +pupils present, it thereby makes the public school a place of religious +worship. + +Sixth: As our citizens are compelled by law either to send their +children to the public schools or by other means provide for them +an education, the use of the Bible in the school room compels the +citizen to support and attend a place of worship, thereby violating the +fundamental American principle of no state religion and no union of +church and state. The attempts of Protestants to place the Bible in the +schools are very astute efforts to evade and nullify this principle. + +Seventh: No church, or religion is entitled to any special privileges +at the hands of the government. All the state is bound to do is to +protect them all in their equal rights. + +Eighth: Those professing no religion have the same rights as those who +do. + + + + + CHAPTER III + +_Fifteen Reasons Why the Bible Should Not Be in the School Room_ + + +I. _The Question of Religion Involved._ Those who want the Bible read +in the public schools declare it to be the word of God. Now it either +is such or it is not. If taught as the word of God, such teaching would +be religious and therefore, as the courts maintain, unconstitutional. +If taught as a human production, would the advocates of its use in the +schools be so enthusiastic to place it there? As we have previously +observed, the subject of religion cannot be eliminated from any +study of the Bible. The result would be the dragging of it into the +public school, where of all places it should not be. It would cause +dissension, disagreement, and bad feeling and bring about the very +thing we do not want to happen, the dividing of the children into +religious groups or sects. The object of our schools above all things +is to make the forthcoming citizens Americans, not to divide them +into religious or national coteries. Let religion be taught in the +churches and Sunday schools. If it is of any value its worth will be +communicated from these places in the lives of those who attend them. +If the churches, as many of them as we have, as great effort as they +make to spread their teachings, and as much wealth as they possess, to +say nothing of the power of God behind them, cannot make their good +influence felt without encroaching upon the public secular school, +we have a right to assume that they are valueless. The Rev. Joseph +Parker, the eminent English clergyman, who was opposed to thrusting the +Bible into the schools, said that to do so was a reflection upon the +ministry. It implied that ministers are unable to do their own work and +must call upon the schoolmaster to help them. + +II. _The Age of the Bible._ A book written over two thousand years +ago, in the infancy of the human intelligence, before the birth of +scientific knowledge, has no place as a text book in the schools of +the twentieth century. But, some will urge, are not other works of +antiquity studied in the schools? True, but under these circumstances: +They are used in higher education; they are used for a particular +purpose, as, for instance, the study of the language, history, or +habits of an ancient people; there are not the controversies or other +objectionable features connected with their study that would follow +the Bible. Why need we go to a book so old as the Bible for our +ideals? Have we not them among ourselves? We think we have. We think +our Abraham Lincoln a greater and a better man than Abraham of Ur of +the Chaldees. We think our Ingersoll and our Webster were greater +orators than Peter and Paul. We think Shakespeare, Byron, Burns, Moore, +Shelley, and our own Longfellow were greater poets than the writers +of the Psalms. We think Darwin knew more about biology, Herschel more +about astronomy, Lyell more about geology, Mill more about logic and +political economy, and almost any physician more about medicine and +surgery than were known by Moses or any other man, real or imagined, +who it is alleged wrote the Bible. We think that Herbert Spencer was +a greater philosophical genius of all the biblical writers, and that +Benjamin Franklin was a wiser and a cleaner man morally than was +Solomon. We think that Edison has done more good in the world than +did Ezekiel, and that Isaac Newton proclaimed greater truths than did +Isaiah. We think that Buddha, Confucius, Manu, and Zoroaster taught as +good systems of morals as did Jesus. If Jesus died to save the world, +thousands have also died in behalf of or on account of Jesus so the +debt has many times been repaid. If Jesus died in behalf of principles +which he deemed to be good, so did Bruno, Savonarola, Legate, Wightman, +Ferrer, and others too numerous to mention. Bible virtues of any real +value are strictly human virtues to be found in all ages and climes, +among all races and religions. Is it possible that for moral teaching +we must revert to the book of a people who were so far behind their +neighbors that except Saul and Jonathan they had “neither sword nor +spear in the hand of any of the people”? (1 Samuel xiii, 22.) And a +people who had no blacksmiths, but who “went down to the Philistines +to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his +mattock”? (verses 19 and 20). And a people who had no mechanics among +them, but when their king wanted to build a house for himself had to +send to a “heathen,” Hiram, king of Tyre, for masons and carpenters? (2 +Samuel v, 11.) + +III. _The Bible is not a book_, but a collection of books, written +hundreds of years apart, and arbitrarily, in the midst of great and +stormy controversy, gathered together in one volume. There was always a +dispute as to what books should compose it. The Hebrew Bible contains +thirty-nine books. The King James, or Protestant English, version +contains sixty-six, while the Roman Catholic or Douay version in +addition to these contains the Apocrypha, making in all seventy-two. +These different factions of religionists respectively reject certain +books the others accept. For a history of the controversies over what +books should compose the Bible, see Davidson on “The Canon,” “An +Introduction to the New Testament,” by the Rev. B. W. Bacon, D.D., +of the Yale Divinity School, and the article on the Canon in the +Encyclopedia Biblica. + +IV. Unless used for the purpose of teaching some foreign language, any +book studied in the public schools should be written in the English +language, not in a foreign or a dead language. The Old Testament was +written in the ancient Hebrew, practically a dead language at the +beginning of the alleged Christian era. Many translations have been +made, of which John E. Remsburg says, after speaking of the English +versions, Wicliffe’s, Tyndale’s, King James’s, the New Version, and +the Douay: “The foregoing are but a few of the numerous versions of +the Bible, ancient and modern, that have appeared. Nearly every nation +of Europe has had from one to a score. Luther’s version is nearly four +hundred years old, and yet Germany has seventeen translations and +consequently seventeen versions before Luther’s was published. England +had many besides those named.” + +V. The Bible should not be read in the public schools because so many +false and unfounded claims have been made for it, claims that have +been nullified by the conclusions of modern science and criticism and +recent investigations and discoveries. These false claims are embodied +in the popular teaching of the book. It is claimed, for instance, that +the first five books of the Old Testament were written by Moses in the +thirteenth century B. C.; that the four gospels of the New Testament +were written by those whose names appear as the writers; that Paul +wrote the fourteen epistles that bear his name, and fictitious claims +are made for other books. In the face of modern scholarship, which has +submitted the Bible to the same scrutiny and criticism to which other +books have been submitted, all these claims have been proved false and +unfounded. This is so clear that the orthodox churches have split over +the situation, one party accepting the old or traditional view, and the +other the modern or scientific. + +VI. As Archdeacon Farrar has said, all parts of the Bible are not of +equal value. The sixty-six books bound into one represent every variety +of literature--poetry, fiction, mythology, drama, legend, tradition, +and some things possibly historical. Yet the popular teaching of the +books makes no distinction between them, and uncritically places all +upon the same level and gives them the same value. + +VII. The Bible should not be read in the schools because it relates +as facts numerous miracles, wonders, and myths, impossible in the +nature of things, as the established matter-of-fact experience of +mankind proves, which bear upon their face the marks of ignorance, +superstition, and fraud. In the ordinary course of life we laugh at +such narratives and regard them only as fairy tales. Why, then, in the +instruction of youth should we teach what we ourselves dismiss as the +fictitious and absurd? + +VIII. The history of man proves that he has been enlightened, happy, +and prosperous to the extent that he has had a knowledge of Nature and +her laws, and that ignorance, superstition, and misfortune have been +the result of a lack of knowledge of, and the violation of, these laws. +In other words, science has been the great enlightener and civilizer. +Science today is the basis for judgment in all matters pertaining to +the welfare of the human race. Science has been called classified +knowledge, or as Professor Clifford has said, it is “organized common +sense.” “The subject of science is the human universe; that is to say, +every thing that is, or has been, or may be related to man” (Lectures +and Essays, page 24, R. P. A. Edition). Science is progressive. It +depends upon the continued advance of knowledge, is ever alert and +critical, calls everything into question and accepts nothing as true +without a preponderance of evidence. The Bible should not be read in +the schools because the science it teaches is that of a primitive +and a barbarous age. It was in accordance with the childhood of the +world, when, as Lydia M. Child says, “In the childhood of the race men +thought little and believed much, just as children do.” As a book in +the schools, the Bible, with its flat earth, its metallic firmament, +making the sun, moon, and stars as lanterns hung out to give light to +the day and the night, is a mockery and a distortion in this age of the +world. Its story of creation is a fairy tale only believable in an age +of ignorance. Its story of the origin of man is childish, being on a +par with similar myths of ancient peoples. + +The Bishop of Oxford (England) has this to say about the teachings of +these myths to children: “You can hardly exaggerate the disaster it +has been to the education of children that they have been taught to +associate with religion things about the creation, the flood, and the +beginning of our race, which it was infallibly certain, when they grew +up to read the literature of their time, they would find false and +would reject as alien to the whole trend of the philosophy, science, +and history of their time.” This statement, coming from a clergyman of +such high standing, ought to be conclusive. We have neither the space +nor the time to dilate upon the conflict between the Bible and science +and the bitter struggle between religionists and the scientists. The +story has been written by one of our greatest of historians, Andrew +Dickson White, in his two large volumes entitled “The Warfare Between +Science and Theology in Christendom.” It has been written by Draper in +his “Intellectual Development of Europe” and in his “Conflict Between +Science and Religion.” Read these works and see clearly the folly and +the disaster of placing the Bible in the public schools. You will +not then be surprised that religionists of the type of W. J. Bryan +are now using their efforts to prevent the teaching of Evolution in +our public educational institutions. It is only a revival of the old +conflict between education and ignorance, between superstition and +knowledge. The cause of it all has been the use of the Bible as a book +of authority and teaching. + +IX. The Bible has no place in the school room because it states as +facts the grossest absurdities. It speaks of an ax swimming in the +water (2 Kings vi, 5); it speaks of “an hundred and four score and five +thousand” men who arose early in the morning only to find that “they +were all dead corpses” (Isaiah xxxvii, 36); while we read in the ninth +and tenth chapters of 1 Kings that Solomon had more gold and silver +than there were in the world at that time; that the spies sent into +Caanan “cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and +they bare it between two upon a staff” (Numbers xiii, 23); that “we +saw the giants, and the sons of Anak, which came of the giants: and we +were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight” +(verse 33), and that the rabbit chews its cud like the cow (Lev. ii, 6). + +We will call the reader’s attention to the very absurd story of the +Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, as shown by R. B. Westbrook, in his +work, “The Eliminator: or Skeleton Keys to Sacerdotal Mysteries”; “The +number of fighting men who marched out of Egypt is nowhere estimated +at less than 600,000, and if this represents only one-fifth of the +population, the latter must have reached 3,000,000. If we cut this down +one-third, so as to be sure of our figure, we make it 2,000,000 souls. +The number of the children of Israel who went into Egypt was seventy +(Ex. i, 5). They sojourned in Egypt 215 years. It could not have been +430, as would appear from Ex. xii, 40. The marginal chronology makes +the period 215 years, and there were only four generations to the +Exodus--namely, Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses (Ex. vi. 16, 18, 20). +How could these people increase in 215 years from seventy souls so as +to number 600,000 warriors? It would have required an average number +of 46 children to each father. The twelve sons of Jacob had between +them only fifty-three sons. At this rate of increase, in the fourth +generation there would have been only 6,311 males (providing they were +all living at the time of the Exodus), instead of 1,000,000. If we add +the fifth generation, who would be mostly children, the total number of +males would not have exceeded 28,465. + +“All the first-born males from a month old and upwards, of those that +were numbered, were 22,273 (Numbers iii, 43). The lowest computation of +the whole number of the people at that time is 2,000,000. The number of +males would be 1,000,000. Dividing the latter number by the number of +first born gives 44, which would be the average number of boys in each +family, or about 88 children by each mother. Or, if where the first +born were females the males were not counted, the number of children by +each mother would be reduced to forty-four. + +“Dan in the first generation had but one son (Gen. xlvi, 23), and +yet in the fourth generation his descendants had increased to 62,700 +warriors (Num. ii, 26), or 64,400 (Num. xxvi, 43). Each of his sons and +grandsons must have had about eighty children of both sexes. On the +other hand, the Levites increased the number of ‘males from a month old +and upward’ during the thirty-eight years in the wilderness only from +22,000 to 23,000 (Num. iii, 39; xxvi, 62), and the tribe of Manasseh +during the same time increased from 32,200 (Num. i, 35) to 52,700 +(xxvi, 34). + +“The whole population of Israel were instructed in one single day to +keep the passover, and actually did keep it (Ex. xii). At the first +notice of any such feast Jehovah said, ‘I will pass through the land of +Egypt _this night_.’ The passover was to be killed ‘_at even_’ on the +same day that Moses received the command.... After midnight of the same +day the Israelites received notice to start for the wilderness. No one +was to go out of his house till morning, when they were to take their +hurried flight with their cattle and herds. How could 2,000,000 people, +scattered over a wide district, as they must have been with their +cattle and herds, have gotten ready and taken a simultaneous hurried +flight at twelve hours’ notice? + +“The Israelites, with their flocks and herds, reached the Red Sea, a +distance of from fifty to sixty miles over a sandy desert, in three +days! Marching fifty abreast the able-bodied warriors alone would have +filled up the road for seven miles, and the whole multitude would have +made a column twenty-two miles long, so that the last of the body could +not have been started until the front had advanced that distance--more +than two days’ journey for such a mixed company. Then the sheep and +cattle must have formed another vast column, covering a much greater +tract of ground in proportion to their number. Upon what did these two +millions of sheep and oxen feed in the journey to the Red Sea over a +desert region, sandy, gravelly, and stony alternately? How did the +people manage with the sick and infirm, and especially with the seven +hundred and fifty births that must have taken place in the three days’ +march?” (pages 85, 86, 87.) + +In addition to this we need say nothing of the story of the flood or +other ridiculous Bible tales. The land of Caanan is described in the +Bible as “a land flowing with milk and honey,” as a rich land, where +gold and silver were as abundant as stones. We turn from this high +sounding Jewish boast to the description of it as given by General +Furlong, of the British army, who had marched over every mile of it: + +“The area of Judea and Samaria is, according to the above authority, +140 × 40 = 5,600 square miles, which I think is certainly one-fourth +too much, my own triangulation of it giving only 4,500, or a figure of +about 130 × 35. I will, however, concede the allotment of 5,600, but +we must remember that, as a rule, the whole is a dismal, rocky, arid +region, with only intersecting valleys, watered by springs and heavy +rain from November to February inclusive, and having scorching heats +from April to September. Even the inhabitable portions of the country +could support only the very sparsest population, and I speak after +having marched over it and also a considerable portion of the rest of +the world. In India we should look upon it as a very poor province; +in some respects very like the hilly tracts of Mewar or Odeypoor in +Rajpootana, but in extent, population, and wealth it is less than a +small principality.” + +Why should we place a book in the schools which teaches such falsehoods +when all around us are the grand truths of Nature? + +X. The Bible should not be read in the schools because it teaches +oriental tyranny and kingcraft, against which our fathers fought and +offered their life blood. “Fear God, honor the king” (1 Peter ii, 17). +“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: +whether it be to the king, as supreme; or to the governors, as unto +them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the +praises of them that do well” (verses 13 and 14). “Let every soul be +subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the +powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans xiii, 1). This is contrary +to the principles of Americanism as taught by the founders of our +republic, and has no place in the instruction of the young Americans of +today in our public schools. + +XI. As one of the most progressive nations in the world we have granted +woman equal rights with man. The Bible should not be read in our +schools because it teaches the subjugation, degradation, and oriental +slavery of women prevalent in the age and country in which it was +written. “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow +and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children: and thy +desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis +iii, 16). “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands” (Col. iii, +18). “As the church is subject unto Christ so let the wives be subject +to their own husbands in everything” (Eph. v, 24). “Let your women keep +silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, +but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. +And if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; +for it is a shame for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35). +“Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.... For after this +manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned +themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands; even as Sarah +obeyed Abraham calling him lord” (1 Peter iii, 1–6). “Let women learn +in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, +nor to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam +was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman +being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. ii, 11–14). Modern +civilization has bidden defiance to these words of Paul. We would ask +the good W. C. T. U. ladies who are working to place the Bible in the +public schools to ponder over these words of the apostle, as well as +over many other biblical passages. We would call their attention to the +despicable idea of marriage taught by Jesus in Matt. xix, 10–12, and by +Paul in the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians. In the Old Testament the +father selects a husband for his daughter, and is allowed to sell her +as a slave (Ex. xxi, 7). Let these ladies, who are the right bower of +the priest and parson, read and think over this passage: “When a man +hath taken a wife, and marries her, and it come to pass that she find +no favor in his eyes, ... then let him write her a bill of divorcement, +and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (Deut. xxiv, +1). Yet this is not quite so bad as the teaching of Jesus forbidding +divorce at all except for the cause of adultery. Let them read and +think of the following: + +“Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee in +thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give +them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of +the sun” (2 Samuel xii, 11). + +“Their children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their +houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished” (Isaiah xiii, 16). + +“I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city +shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished” (Zech. +xiv, 2). + +“Let their wives be bereaved of their children and be widows” (Jer. +xviii, 21). + +Wherever the Bible speaks of woman, from the first chapter of Genesis +to the last chapter of Revelation, its ideas are low and vile. Those +ideas have no place in the school room and are unfit for the reading of +children and young people anywhere. The late G. W. Foote once said that +the day would come when it would be the proud boast of woman that she +had never contributed a line to the Bible. + +XII. The best thoughts of the best men, both Christian and +non-Christian, at the present day are turned to the question of how +to avert war, the curse of the world during the past ten years. The +Bible should not be read in the schools because from cover to cover it +teaches, commends, authorizes, and lauds the practice of men killing +each other. The best evidence of this is the Bible itself. The word war +occurs within its lids just two hundred and thirty-five times--threats +of war, rumors of war, devastations of war. The following are a few of +them: “The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name” (Exodus xv, 3); +“He teacheth my hands to war” (1 Sam. xxii, 35). See also Psalms xviii, +34, and cxliv. “And thou shalt consume all the people, which the Lord +thy God shall deliver thee, thine eye shall have no pity upon them” +(Deut. vii, 16); “Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God +doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive that +breatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them” (Deut. xx, 16, 17); +“And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; +and they slew all the males.... And the children of Israel took all the +women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil +of all their cattle, and all their flocks and all their goods. And +they burned all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly +castles with fire” (Numbers xxxi, 10). + +These passages are typical of the Old Testament. To quote further would +be superfluous and wearisome. In the second chapter of Deuteronomy, +fourth and eighth verses, we find a thorough justification for the +marching of the Germans through Belgium in the late European war, an +outrage against all international law and the established rules of +justice which govern nations in their intercourse with each other. + +Read the fourteenth chapter of Numbers and Deuteronomy ix, 23, and see +why all of the children of Israel twenty years old and over were doomed +to spend the remainder of their lives in the wilderness. Why? Because +they refused to _war_ against the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. +When the people told Jeremiah that they would go into Egypt where they +would be free from war (Jeremiah xlii, 14), the Lord replied that war +would also follow them there and that the sword “shall overtake you +there in the land of Egypt, and the famine, whereof ye were afraid, +shall follow close after you there in Egypt; and there ye shall die” +(verse 16). When Israel and Syria were without a war for three years it +was considered a matter worthy of special mention (1 Kings xxii, 1); +and God gave Judah a special dispensation from war. Jesus said: “I came +not to send peace but a sword” (Matthew x, 34). He said (Luke xxi, 24), +“And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away +captive into all nations.” “And he that hath no sword, let him sell +his garment and buy one” (Luke xxii, 36). But, say some bibliolaters, +he meant the “sword of the spirit!” Read, however, the fiftieth verse +of the same chapter; “And one of them smote the servant of the high +priest, and cut off his right ear.” With what did he do this, the sword +of the spirit? And there still was war, even in heaven (Rev. xii, 7). + +As Archdeacon Farrar well said, “The Bible is a barbarous book, written +in a barbarous age for a barbarous people.” Do we want this book read +in our public schools against the best thought, the highest learning +and the most humanitarian views of this age? The people who advocate +its reading there require watching. + +XIII. The Bible should not be read in the public schools because +it contradicts itself nearly two hundred times. We will give a few +illustrations: + +“And he said, _Thou shalt not see my face_: for there shall no man see +me and live” (Ex. xxxiii, 20). + +“_And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face_, as a man speaketh unto +his friend” (11). + +“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, _hearing a +voice_, but seeing no man” (Acts ix, 7). + +“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but +_they heard not the voice_ of him that spake to me” (xxii, 9). + +Jesus said, “If any man hear my words, and believe not, _I judge him +not_: for _I came not to judge the world_, but to save the world” (John +xii, 47). + +“For the Father judgeth no man; _but hath committed all judgment to the +son_” (v. 22). + +“And the anger of _the Lord_ was kindled against Israel, and he moved +David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah” (2 Samuel xxiv, +1). + +“And _Satan_ stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number +Israel” (1 Chronicles xxi, 1). + +“The Jews therefore said unto him, _It is not lawful for us to put any +man to death_” (John xviii, 31). + +“The Jews answered him, We have a law, and _by our law he ought to +die_” (John xiv, 7). + +What women visited the tomb on the morning of the resurrection? + +“The first day of the week cometh _Mary Magdalene_, early when it was +yet dark, unto the sepulchre” (John xx, 1). + +“In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day +of the week, came _Mary Magdalene and the other Mary_ to see the +sepulchre” (Matt. xxviii, 1). + +“Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they +came unto the sepulchre.... It was _Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and +Mary the mother of James, and other women_” (Luke xxiv, 10). + +At what time in the morning did they visit the tomb? + +“At the rising of the sun” (Mark xvi, 2). + +“When it was yet dark” (John xx, 1). + +Where did Jesus first appear to his disciples? + +“Then said Jesus unto them (the women) Be not afraid; go tell my +brethren _that they go into Galilee_, into a mountain where Jesus had +appointed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some +doubted (Matt. xxviii, 10, 16, 17). + +“And they rose up the same hour, and _returned to Jerusalem_, and found +the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The +Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.... And as they thus +spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them” (Luke xxiv, 33, 34, +36). + +Did the disciples know that Jesus would arise from the dead? According +to Mark x, 32, 33 and 34, they did: + +“And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things +should happen unto him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the +Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the +scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to +the Gentiles; and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall +spit upon him, and shall kill him; _and the third day he shall rise +again_.” Yet John xx, 9 distinctly says, “_For as yet they knew not the +scripture, that he must rise again from the dead._” + +Did John the Baptist know Jesus when he came unto him to be baptized? +He did, according to Matt. iii, 13, 14: “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee +to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, +saying, _I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?_” + +Yet John himself admits that he did not know him: + +“_And I knew him not_: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the +same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and +remaining on him, the same is he that baptizes with the holy ghost. And +I saw, and bare record, that this is the Son of God” (John i, 33). + +There is also another very material contradiction as to what the +centurion at the cross said: + +“Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, +saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared +greatly, saying, ‘_Truly, this was the Son of God_’” (Matt. xxvii, 54). + +Luke gives an entirely different version: + +“Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, +_Certainly this was a righteous man_” (xxiii, 47). + +Are works necessary for salvation, or is faith alone sufficient? +“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by +the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that +we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of +the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” +(Galatians ii, 16). “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is +dead in vain” (21). “Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by +faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans iii, 28). + +“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead” +(James ii, 20). “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith +without works is dead also” (26). “Ye see then how that by works a man +is justified, and not by faith only” (24). + +“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of +God Almighty, _but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them_” (Exodus +vi, 3). “_And Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah-jireh_” +(Genesis xxii, 14). + +These are but a few of the contradictions of the Bible, selected at +random from hundreds. + +XIV. The Bible should not be read in the public schools because it +teaches, by direct commands, by the praise of them, by acknowledgment +of their habitual use as a matter of custom, the taking of intoxicating +liquors. Many of us may not believe the eighteenth amendment, as +interpreted by the Volstead act, to be the best means of abrogating the +evils of intemperance. All thinking men, however, believe that the use +of alcoholic beverages, considering the evils that result therefrom, +should be reduced to a minimum. The words “wines” and “strong drink” +occur in the Bible about two hundred and forty times. Among these are +to be found some passages condemning drunkenness. This is of no special +moment, as no moral code in the world upholds intoxication, while the +Mohammedan Koran distinctly condemns the use of alcoholic liquors +and stands for total abstinence. In the Bible, total abstinence is +commanded under special circumstances. For illustration, a Nazarite +must not drink during the period of his separation. When that period +is passed he may drink all he wishes. (See Numbers vi, 3, 20.) Jehovah +said unto Aaron, in his official capacity as high-priest: “Do not drink +wine or strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, _when ye go into +the tabernacle of the congregation_, lest ye die” (Leviticus x, 9). +Why? “That ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between +clean and unclean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the +statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses” +(10, 11). He wanted his priests to be entirely sober when performing +their priestly functions, and what employer does not? King Lemuel was +taught by his mother, “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for +kings to drink wine nor for princes strong drink: lest they drink and +forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted” +(Proverbs xxxi, 4, 5). Yet in the sixth and seventh verses is this +imperative command as to other people: “Give strong drink unto him that +is ready to perish, and wine to those that be of heavy hearts. Let him +drink and forget his poverty and remember his misery no more.” + +Moses told the children of Israel: “Ye have not eaten bread, neither +have ye drank wine or strong drink: that ye may know that I am the Lord +your God” (Deut. xxix, 6). But this was in the wilderness, where no +bread or liquors were to be had. But what does he say in the fourteenth +chapter, twenty-sixth verse, after giving directions as to what is +lawful to eat? “And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy +soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, _or for wine, or for strong +drink_, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth.” Jesus said, “Verily I +say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine”--because +it was wrong to do so? On the contrary, “until that day that I drink +it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark xiv, 25). We admit such temperance +passages as are to be found in Proverbs xx, 1, and in Isaiah v, 11. +These refer strictly to the abuse, not to the moderate use of alcoholic +liquors. + +Let us now look at other passages where the use of intoxicants is not +only commended but commanded. We have space to refer to but a few of +them. “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s +sake” (1 Timothy v, 23); “Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink +thy wine with a merry heart, for God now accepteth thy good works” +(Eccles. ix, 7); “Corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine +the maids” (Zech. ix, 17); “They shall plant vineyards and drink the +wine thereof” (Amos ix, 14); “Wine maketh glad the heart of man” (Ps. +xiv, 15); “Wine, which cheereth God and man” (Judges iv, 13); “In the +holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the +Lord for a drink offering” (Num. xxviii, 7); “Honor the Lord with thy +substance, and with the first fruits of all thine increase; so shall +thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with +new wine” (Proverbs iii, 9, 10). + +When God decided that the human race was so bad that he would have to +drown everybody he selected one man and his family to be saved--Noah. +Yet when the flood had subsided, and all returned to dry ground, Noah +got drunk (Genesis ix, 20–24). When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, +he saved another drunkard, Lot. How this gentleman conducted himself +while under the influence of wine would not make a very edifying +subject for a Sunday school lesson (See Genesis xix, 30–38). David got +drunk himself and danced before the ark in a state of nudity, after +giving each of all the people “a flagon of wine” (2 Samuel vi, 14, 16, +19). Yet God said, “David ... a man after mine own heart, which shall +fulfill all my will” (Acts. xiii, 22). God also gives David two other +unqualified certificates of character (See 1 Kings xiv, 7, 8; xv, 5). +When Solomon erected the great temple he gave his laborers “twenty +thousand baths (nearly 17,500 gallons) of wine” (2 Chronicles ii, 10). +Jeremiah, one of God’s favorite prophets, tempted the Rechabites, who +were total abstainers, to drink (See Jeremiah xxxv, 2). Yet this same +God on another occasion said, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor +drink, that puttest thy bottle to him and makest him drunken” (Habakkuk +ii, 15). + +The first miracle of Jesus was the transforming of water into wine +(John ii, 3–11), and in Luke vii, 33, 34, are these words: “For John +the Baptist came neither eating bread, nor drinking wine; and ye say, +He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye +say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine bibber, a friend of publicans +and sinners.” + +Bible advocates of temperance sometimes quote the following passages +from Paul, as evidence, to them, of Bible teaching of total abstinence. + +“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything +whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is made weak.” (Romans xiv:21.) + +Also, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no +flesh while the word standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” (1 +Corinthians viii:13). + +It will be noticed in the first that _flesh_ comes before wine, +while in the second, wine is not mentioned at all. When you read the +context in both cases you will find that Paul is merely warning his +hearers against meat offered to idols and that wine is only mentioned +incidentally. But when you turn to 1 Timothy, v:23, Paul imperatively +says, “DRINK NO LONGER WATER, BUT USE A LITTLE WINE FOR THY STOMACH’S +SAKE, AND THINE OFTEN INFIRMITIES.” + +When confronted by these texts and the facts which they carry, +bibliolaters are driven to the entirely false and fictitious plea that +Bible wine was not intoxicating, that it might drown but could not +produce a drunk. We have no space here to discuss this makeshift. If +the reader is interested and wishes to pursue the subject, we refer him +to John E. Remsburg’s book, “The Bible,” pages 398–399; to the article +on “Wine and Strong Drink,” in that monument of scholarship, “The +Encyclopedia Biblica”; to that well-known orthodox work, Smith’s “Bible +Dictionary,” and to “Religion and Drink,” by Rev. E. A. Wasson. + +Under our liquor laws as at present interpreted a priest, preacher, +or rabbi is permitted to purchase all the drink he desires for +“sacramental” purposes, while a physician is limited in the amount he +can prescribe for his patients. Why this unjust discrimination? If +liquor is a bad thing, why is it made good in the “sacrament”? This is +merely a trick common with the church to evade the force of the civil +law, just as is its effort to force the Bible into the public schools. +We, as citizens, protest against the unbridled fanaticism or base +hypocrisy of these people, who deny to others the privileges they claim +for themselves, then add insult to injury by trying to force upon the +country by law a book which advocates, teaches, abets, preaches, and +practices what they want by law forbidden. + +XV. The entire idea under which they wish to place the Bible in the +schools is wrong. Why glorify one book above another? Any book to be +of service to a reader must be his servant, not his master. The real +question is, not what does a book say, but what does it say in accord +with the facts of life, nature, reason and experience? If a book +answers that test it is not necessary to praise it eternally, to say +nothing of asking special laws for its recognition. The idea has been +well expressed by the poet Lowell in these words: + + “Slowly the Bible of the race is writ, + And not on paper leaves or leaves of stone; + Each age, each kindred, adds a verse to it, + Texts of despair or hope, of joy or moan; + While swings the sea, while mists the mountains shroud, + While thunder’s surges burst on cliffs of cloud, + Still at the prophet’s feet the nations sit.” + +No volume can be made large enough to contain this BIBLE, yet to it all +other books must conform. + + + + + Transcriber’s Note + + +Some inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, and punctuation have +been retained. + +This file uses _underscores_ to indicate italic text and =equals= to +indicate bold text. Small capitals changed to all capitals. + +p. 8: added “in” after “belief” (Action or conduct indicating a belief +in) + +p. 12: changed “of” to “to” (on earth peace to men of good will) + +p. 24: changed “depotism” to “despotism” (never rises above the merest +despotism) + +p. 24: changed “in” to “is” (Much less is Christianity or any other +system) + +p. 24: changed “almightly” to “almighty” (It is not almighty and we are +not to look) + +p. 31: changed “summonded” to “summoned” (The teacher, summoned as a +witness) + +p. 32: changed “ther” to “their” (put to death for participating in +their production) + +p. 41: “Wicliffe’s” left as-printed; this name has many variant +spellings. + +p. 46: changed incorrect citation “xl” to “xlvi” (Gen. xlvi. 23) + +p. 61: changed “prohpet’s” to “prophet’s” and “nation’s” to “nations” +(Still at the prophet’s feet the nations sit) + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78962 *** |