diff options
Diffstat (limited to '78962-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 78962-h/78962-h.htm | 2853 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 78962-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 247695 bytes |
2 files changed, 2853 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/78962-h/78962-h.htm b/78962-h/78962-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8620ca5 --- /dev/null +++ b/78962-h/78962-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2853 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> + <meta name="format-detection" content="telephone=no,date=no,address=no,email=no,url=no"> + <title> + The Bible: should it be in the school room? | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; +} + +h3 { margin-top: 2em; } + +p { + margin-top: .5em; + /*text-align: justify;*/ + margin-bottom: .5em; +} + +.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} +.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} + +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: 33.5%; + margin-right: 33.5%; + clear: both; +} + +hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} +@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} +h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} + +.fm-l { font-size: 120%; } +.fm-xl { font-size: 150%; } + +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; +} +table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; } +table.autotable td, +table.autotable th { padding: 0.25em; } + +table.toc { max-width: 28em; } +table.toc td { padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.5em; } + +.tdc {text-align: center;} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: 0; +} /* page numbers */ + +blockquote { + margin-top: 0; + margin-bottom: 0; + margin-left: 5%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;} + +.right {text-align: right;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + +figcaption {font-weight: bold;} +figcaption p {margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: .2em; text-align: inherit;} + +/* Images */ + +img { + max-width: 100%; + height: auto; +} + +/* Footnotes */ +.footnotes {border: 1px dashed;} + +.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + +.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + +.fnanchor { + vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: + none; +} + +/* Poetry */ +/* uncomment the next line for centered poetry */ +/* .poetry-container {display: flex; justify-content: center;} */ +.poetry-container {text-align: center;} +.poetry {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} +.poetry .stanza {margin: 1em auto;} +.poetry .verse {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;} + +/* Transcriber's notes */ +.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; + color: black; + font-size:small; + padding:0.5em; + margin-bottom:5em; + font-family:sans-serif, serif; +} + + +/* indent paragraphs */ +p { text-indent: 1em; } +p.noindent { text-indent: 0; } + +/* de-emphasize page numbers */ +.pagenum { color: #bbbbbb; } + +/* footnote block styling */ +.footnotes { + border: 1px dashed #aaaaaa; + margin-top: 1.5em; +} + +/* TN styling */ +.transnote { + background-color: inherit; + border: 1px dashed #bbbbbb; + margin-top: 3em; + page-break-before: always; +} + +/* Don't visibly style abbr tags. Browsers usually underline them. */ +abbr, abbr[title] { + text-decoration: none; +} +/* abbrs that should be read letter-by-letter */ +abbr.spell { speak: spell-out; } + +/* remove italic styling, e.g. on a <cite> */ +.nonitalic { font-style: normal; } + +/* Poetry indents */ +.poetry .indent0 {text-indent: -3.0em;} +.poetry .indent1 {text-indent: -2.5em;} + + </style> +</head> + +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78962 ***</div> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</span></p> +<p class="center"><span class="fm-l">LITTLE BLUE BOOK <abbr title="NUMBER">NO.</abbr> <b>706</b></span><br> +Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius</p> + +<h1 class="p2">The Bible: Should It Be in +the School Room?</h1> + +<p class="center fm-l">The Question Considered Legally, Morally +and Religiously</p> + +<p class="center fm-xl">Franklin Steiner</p> + +<p class="center p4 fm-l">HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY<br> +GIRARD, KANSAS</p> + + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</span></p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" aria-hidden="true"> +<div class="chapter"> +<p class="center">Copyright, 1924,<br> +Haldeman-Julius Company.</p> + +<p class="center p4">PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</p> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span></p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" aria-hidden="true"> +<div class="chapter"> +<p class="center fm-xl">THE BIBLE: SHOULD IT BE IN THE +SCHOOL ROOM?</p> +</div> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" aria-hidden="true"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h2 class="nobreak" id="TABLE_OF_CONTENTS"> + Table of Contents + </h2> +</div> + +<nav> +<table class="autotable toc"> +<tr> +<td class="tdc"> +<a href="#INTRODUCTION">INTRODUCTION</a> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdc"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER <abbr title="1">I</abbr></a><br> +The Bible and the Sects—Shall Any Version of the Book Be Placed in This Country’s Common Schools? +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdc"> +<a href="#Is_the_Bible_a_Religious_and_Sectarian_Book">Is the Bible a Religious and Sectarian Book?</a> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdc"> +<a href="#CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER <abbr title="2">II</abbr></a><br> +The Bible and the Courts—Law, Constitution and the Judges Are Opposed to Religion in Our Common Schools. +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdc"> +<a href="#THE_OHIO_CASE">THE OHIO CASE</a> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdc"> +<a href="#THE_WISCONSIN_CASE">THE WISCONSIN CASE</a> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdc"> +<a href="#THE_NEBRASKA_CASE">THE NEBRASKA CASE</a> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdc"> +<a href="#THE_ILLINOIS_CASE">THE ILLINOIS CASE</a> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdc"> +<a href="#THE_CALIFORNIA_CASE">THE CALIFORNIA CASE</a> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdc"> +<a href="#CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER <abbr title="3">III</abbr></a><br> +Fifteen Reasons Why the Bible Should Not Be in the School Room +</td> +</tr> +</table> +</nav> + +<main> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" aria-hidden="true"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</span></p> + + + <h2 class="nobreak" id="INTRODUCTION"> + INTRODUCTION + </h2> +</div> + + +<p>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.</p> + +<p class="right"> + FRANKLIN STEINER. +</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" aria-hidden="true"> +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span></p> + <p class="center fm-xl"> + THE BIBLE: SHOULD IT BE IN THE + SCHOOL ROOM? + </p> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" aria-hidden="true"> +<div class="chapter"> + <h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I"> + CHAPTER <abbr title="1">I</abbr> + </h2> + <p class="center"><i>The Bible and the Sects—Shall Any Version of + the Book Be Placed in This Country’s + Common Schools?</i></p> +</div> + +<p class="p2"><span class="smcap">A Statement of the Case.</span> 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 <abbr title="3">iii</abbr>, 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 <em>propriety</em> of such an inclusion in our +public school instruction is the main issue to +be considered.</p> + +<p>There arises before us the further fact that +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span>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 <em>extracts</em> be +read. As a last resort, they will plead that it +be not <em>excluded</em> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span>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.⁠<a id="FNanchor_1_1" href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>⁠</p> + +<div class="footnotes"> +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_1_1" href="#FNanchor_1_1" class="label">[1]</a> 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.</p></div> +</div> + +<h3 id="Is_the_Bible_a_Religious_and_Sectarian_Book"> + <span class="smcap">Is the Bible a Religious and Sectarian Book?</span> +</h3> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>“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.</p> + +<p>“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.</p> + +<p>“A belief in an invisible superhuman power +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span>(or powers) conceived of after the analogy of +the human spirit on which (or whom) man regards +himself as dependent.”—The Standard +Dictionary.</p> + +<p>“Any system of faith or worship.”—Imperial +Dictionary.</p> + +<p>“<span id="TN9">Action or conduct indicating a belief in</span>, reverence +for, and desire to please a divine ruling +power.”—Oxford Dictionary.</p> + +<p>We are aware that a class of modern thinkers +define and understand religion differently, +as does R. B. Westbrook in <cite class="nonitalic">The Eliminator</cite>, +page 12: “We use the word religion as it was +used by Cicero, in the sense of <em>Scruple</em>, implying +the consciousness of a natural obligation +wholly irrespective of what one may believe +concerning the gods.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span>spirit”; or that it teaches “a divine ruling +power,” “to whom obedience, service and honor +are due.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 <em>first</em> the kingdom of God and <em>his righteousness</em> +and all these things shall be added unto +you” (<abbr title="Matthew">Matt.</abbr> <abbr title="6">vi</abbr>, 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 +<abbr title="18">xviii</abbr>, 6: “But whoso shall offend one of these +little ones <em>which believe in me</em>,” <abbr>etc.</abbr></p> + +<p>“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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span>their readers accurately acquainted with the +past, but to promulgate and recommend what +seemed to them to be religious truth.” (“Bible +for Learners,” <abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p>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. <abbr title="Professor">Prof.</abbr> 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 <em>under +different names and disguises</em>.”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Let us give illustrations of the widely variant +readings in these two principal English versions +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span>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.</p> + +<p>In the King James Version <abbr title="First">1</abbr> Corinthians <abbr title="15">xv</abbr>, +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: <em>but we shall not +all be changed</em>.” Luke <abbr title="2">ii</abbr>, 14, is translated in +the King James, “Glory to God in the highest, +and <span id="TN10">on earth <em>peace to men of good will</em></span>.” The +Protestant “Revised Version” gives it still different:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">“Glory to God in the highest,</div> + <div class="verse indent1">And on earth <em>peace among men in whom he is well pleased</em>.”</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> + +<p>The King James Version makes Matthew <abbr title="6">vi</abbr>, +11, read, “Give us this day our daily bread.” +The Douay version says, “Give us this day our +<em>super-substantial</em> bread.”</p> + +<p>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 <abbr title="3">iii</abbr>, +1–2, reads, in the King James Version: “In +those days came John the Baptist, preaching +in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span>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: “<em>Do penance</em>: 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.</p> + +<p>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 <abbr title="19">xix</abbr>, 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span>heaven. This is done in defiance of the fact +that Job in other passages states that death +ends all. (See <abbr title="7">vii</abbr>, 7–10; <abbr title="14">xiv</abbr>, 7–12 and <abbr title="34">xxxiv</abbr>, +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:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">“Yet I know that my Vindicator liveth</div> + <div class="verse indent1">And will stand at length upon the earth;</div> + <div class="verse indent1">And though with my skin this body be wasted away,</div> + <div class="verse indent1">Yet in my flesh shall I see God.</div> + <div class="verse indent1">Yea, I shall see him my friend;</div> + <div class="verse indent1">My eyes shall behold him no longer an adversary;</div> + <div class="verse indent1">For this my soul panteth within me.”</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> + +<p>(Translation of the <abbr title="Reverend">Rev.</abbr> <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Noyes of Harvard +Divinity School.)</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">“But I know that my avenger liveth;</div> + <div class="verse indent1">Though it be at the end upon my dust,</div> + <div class="verse indent1">My witness shall avenge these things,</div> + <div class="verse indent1">And a curse alight upon mine enemies.”</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> + +<p>(Translation of <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Dillon, in Skeptics of the +Old Testament.)</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">“For I know that my Avenger liveth</div> + <div class="verse indent1">And that hereafter he shall stand upon the earth;</div> + <div class="verse indent1">And though after my skin this (flesh) be destroyed,</div> + <div class="verse indent1">Yet even without my flesh shall I see God;</div> + <div class="verse indent1">Whom I shall see for myself.</div> + <div class="verse indent1">And mine eyes shall behold, and not another—</div> + <div class="verse indent1">Though my vitals are wasting away within me.”</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> + +<p>(Translation of the <abbr title="Reverend">Rev.</abbr> <abbr>Dr.</abbr> Albert Barnes, +Presbyterian divine and commentator.)</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">“As for me, I know it—my Avenger liveth,</div> + <div class="verse indent1">And (lying) in the dust I shall receive his pledge;</div> + <div class="verse indent1">Shaddai will bring to pass my desire,</div> + <div class="verse indent1">And as my justifier I shall see God.”</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span></p> + +<p>(Translation of the <abbr title="Reverend">Rev.</abbr> <abbr>Dr.</abbr> T. K. Cheyne, +Editor of The Encyclopedia Biblica.)</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" aria-hidden="true"> +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span></p> + <h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II"> + CHAPTER <abbr title="2">II</abbr> + </h2> + <p class="center"><i>The Bible and the Courts—Law, Constitution + and the Judges Are Opposed to Religion + in Our Common Schools.</i> + </p> +</div> + + +<p class="p2">We will begin with fundamentals by calling +attention to the first amendment to the Constitution +of the United States which reads:</p> + +<p class="noindent">“<i>Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment +of religion or prohibiting the free +exercise thereof.</i>”</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>This is distinctly an American idea. In +Europe every country except Turkey recognized +the Christian religion, and all had a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span>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.</p> + +<p>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, <abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p>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 “<span lang="la">odium theologicum</span>.” 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span>force their Bible there, we will then and there +oppose them with the same logic we are now +advancing against Protestants.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3 id="THE_OHIO_CASE"> + THE OHIO CASE +</h3> + +<p>Where the real merits of the case have been +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span>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 <em>extracts</em> +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.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span></p> + +<p>The school board was represented by two of +the ablest lawyers in Ohio, <abbr title="Honorable">Hon.</abbr> 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 <abbr title="Honorable">Hon.</abbr> +George Hoadley, afterwards governor of Ohio. +We quote but a part of Judge Matthews’ argument, +though all of it is worthy of reproduction:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“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.</p> + +<p>“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: <em>Protestants +have no rights</em>, as such, <em>which do not at the +same time</em> 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 +<em>no right in</em> this respect <em>to any preference from the +state</em> or any of its institutions. They have <em>no right</em> +to insist upon <em>Protestant practices at public expense</em>, +or in public buildings, or to turn public +schools into seminaries for the dissemination of +Protestant ideas.</p> + +<p>“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.</p> + +<p>“For—and that is the gist of the thing—the reading +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span>of the Holy Scriptures in the appropriate commencement +of the morning daily exercises of the +public school <em>is the teaching</em> of the <em>religious dogma</em> +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.</p> + +<p>“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.</p> + +<p>“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.</p> + +<p>“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 <em>religious dogma</em>, +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.”</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>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, +<abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span>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:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“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, +<abbr>etc.</abbr> 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.)</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Speaking of the constitutions of the United +States and of the state of Ohio, the Court said: +“They, in a sense, speak to <em>mankind</em>, and speak +of the rights of <em>man</em>. Neither the words <em>Christianity</em>, +<em>Christian</em>, nor <em>Bible</em>, is to be found +therein.... Some of the very men who +helped to frame these constitutions were themselves +not Christian men.” (page 246.)</p> + +<p>In dilating upon the relations of religion +and government, the Court unanimously held:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span><em>law</em> of the state, like every other law, it must have +a <em>sanction</em>. 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.)</p> + +<p>“<em>Legal</em> Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction +of terms. When Christianity asks the aid of government +beyond mere <em>impartial</em> protection, it denies +itself. Its laws are divine, and not human. Its +essential interests lie beyond the reach and range +of human governments. <em>United with the government, +religion never rises above the merest superstition; +united with religion, government <span id="TN1">never +rises above the merest despotism</span></em>; and all history +shows us that the more widely and completely they +are separated, the better it is for both.” (page 248.)</p> + +<p>“Religion is not—<span id="TN11">Much less is Christianity or +any other system</span> of religion—named in the preamble +of the Constitution of the United States as +one of the declared <em>objects</em> of government; nor is +it mentioned in the clause in question, in our own +constitution, as being essential to anything <em>beyond</em> +mere human government.” (page 248.)</p> + +<p>“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.)</p> + +<p>“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 <em>hands off</em>. 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.)</p> + +<p>“Government is an organization for particular +purposes. <span id="TN2">It is not almighty and we are not to +look</span> to it for everything. The great bulk of human +affairs and human interests is left by any free +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span>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:</p> + +<p>“‘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.’”</p> + +<p>“In his letter to <abbr title="Governor">Gov.</abbr> 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.)</p> +</blockquote> + + +<h3 id="THE_WISCONSIN_CASE"> + THE WISCONSIN CASE +</h3> + +<p>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, +<abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr> 44, pages 967–982. It was an appeal from +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span>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.)</p> + +<p>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:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“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.)</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Concerning the reading of the King James version +being sectarian instruction Justice Lyon declared:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span>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.)</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>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:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“The answer of the respondent states that the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span>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.)</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>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:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“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.)</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>He here quotes Judge Thurman of the Ohio +Supreme Court as saying:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“It is not by mere toleration that every individual +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span>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.)</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Is the reading of the Bible worship? Justice +Cassody upon this issue speaks without reserve, +and handles the question without gloves:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“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? <em>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.</em> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span>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.)</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>Justice Orton, in concurring, thus speaks of +the evils of even in the slightest manner mixing +religion with the government:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“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.)</p> + +<p>“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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span>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.</p> + +<p>“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.)</p> +</blockquote> + + +<h3 id="THE_NEBRASKA_CASE"> + THE NEBRASKA CASE +</h3> + +<p>This case was decided by the supreme court +of the state on October 9, 1902. It was the +case of Daniel Freeman <abbr title="versus" lang="la">vs.</abbr> School District <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> +21, appealed from Gage county. <span id="TN3">The teacher, +summoned as a witness</span>, 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:</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>“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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span>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.)</p> +</blockquote> + +<blockquote> +<p>“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 <span id="TN4">put to death for participating in their production</span> +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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</span>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.)</p> +</blockquote> + +<p>A motion for a rehearing of this case was +denied.</p> + + +<h3 id="THE_ILLINOIS_CASE"> + THE ILLINOIS CASE +</h3> + +<p>This was the case of The People <abbr><i>ex rel.</i></abbr> Jeremiah +Ring <abbr><i>et al.</i></abbr>, Plaintiffs in Error, <abbr title="versus" lang="la">vs.</abbr> the +Board of Education of District 24, <abbr>etc.</abbr>, 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, <abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr> 245, +pages 334–378.</p> + +<p>The situation, briefly stated, was this: <abbr>Mr.</abbr> +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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</span>hands and bow their heads, and were sometimes +called on to explain the meaning of passages +of scripture read. <abbr>Mr.</abbr> 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 <abbr>Mr.</abbr> Ring, but to all other citizens not in +sympathy with what is known as Evangelical +Protestant Christianity. The first question decided +was that “<em>free enjoyment of religious +worship includes freedom not to worship</em>.” +This, orthodox religionists have been slow to +concede, and never before has the right <em>not +to worship</em> been so clearly stated. On this +point the court said:</p> + +<p>“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 <em>compulsion</em> to join in any form +of worship.”</p> + +<p>The second point decided was that “<em>children +attending public school cannot be compelled to +join in religious worship</em>,” 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:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</span></p> + +<p>“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.”</p> + +<p>In delivering this decision the court gave +forth a number of maxims worthy of being +remembered, among which were:</p> + +<p>“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.”</p> + +<p>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:</p> + +<p>“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.”</p> + +<p>The decision of the judge of the District +Court of Scott county was reversed.</p> + +<p>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.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<h3 id="THE_CALIFORNIA_CASE"> + THE CALIFORNIA CASE +</h3> + +<p>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:</p> + +<p>“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’.”</p> + +<p>As the arguments in this case were very +largely those used in the other cases they are +not reproduced here.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The following points now seem to be established +in law:</p> + +<p>First: Any <em>version</em> of the Christian Bible +is sectarian to those who do not accept it as +the inspired word of God.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</span></p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Third: The Bible is distinctly a book of +religion, and the teaching of it anywhere cannot +fail to be construed as religious teaching.</p> + +<p>Fourth: Readings from the Bible, accompanied +or unaccompanied by prayer and the +singing of religious hymns, are acts of religious +worship.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Eighth: Those professing no religion have +the same rights as those who do.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" aria-hidden="true"> +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</span></p> + <h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III"> + CHAPTER <abbr title="3">III</abbr> + </h2> + <p class="center"><i>Fifteen Reasons Why the Bible Should Not Be + in the School Room</i> + </p> +</div> + + +<p class="p2"><abbr title="1">I.</abbr> <i>The Question of Religion Involved.</i> 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 <abbr title="Reverend">Rev.</abbr> +Joseph Parker, the eminent English clergyman, +who was opposed to thrusting the Bible +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</span>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.</p> + +<p><abbr title="2">II.</abbr> <i>The Age of the Bible.</i> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</span>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”? (<abbr title="First">1</abbr> Samuel <abbr title="13">xiii</abbr>, 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? (<abbr title="Second">2</abbr> +Samuel <abbr title="5">v</abbr>, 11.)</p> + +<p><abbr title="3">III.</abbr> <i>The Bible is not a book</i>, 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</span>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 <abbr title="Reverend">Rev.</abbr> B. W. Bacon, <abbr class="spell">D.D.</abbr>, of +the Yale Divinity School, and the article on +the Canon in the Encyclopedia Biblica.</p> + +<p><abbr title="4">IV.</abbr> 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, <span id="TN5">Wicliffe’s</span>, 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.”</p> + +<p><abbr title="5">V.</abbr> 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 <abbr class="spell">B. C.</abbr>; +that the four gospels of the New Testament +were written by those whose names appear as +the writers; that Paul wrote the fourteen +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</span>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.</p> + +<p><abbr title="6">VI.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p><abbr title="7">VII.</abbr> 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?</p> + +<p><abbr title="8">VIII.</abbr> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</span>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, <abbr>R. P. A.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</span>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.</p> + +<p><abbr title="9">IX.</abbr> 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 (<abbr title="Second">2</abbr> Kings <abbr title="6">vi</abbr>, 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 +<abbr title="37">xxxvii</abbr>, 36); while we read in the ninth and +tenth chapters of <abbr title="First">1</abbr> 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 <abbr title="13">xiii</abbr>, 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</span>in their sight” (verse 33), and that the rabbit +chews its cud like the cow (<abbr title="Leviticus">Lev.</abbr> <abbr title="2">ii</abbr>, 6).</p> + +<p>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, “<cite class="nonitalic">The Eliminator: or Skeleton Keys to +Sacerdotal Mysteries</cite>”; “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 (<abbr title="Exodus">Ex.</abbr> <abbr title="1">i</abbr>, 5). They sojourned +in Egypt 215 years. It could not have been +430, as would appear from <abbr title="Exodus">Ex.</abbr> <abbr title="12">xii</abbr>, 40. The +marginal chronology makes the period 215 +years, and there were only four generations to +the Exodus—namely, Levi, Kohath, Amram, +and Moses (<abbr title="Exodus">Ex.</abbr> <abbr title="6">vi.</abbr> 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.</p> + +<p>“All the first-born males from a month old +and upwards, of those that were numbered, +were 22,273 (Numbers <abbr title="3">iii</abbr>, 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, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</span>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.</p> + +<p>“Dan in the first generation had but one +son (<span id="TN6"><abbr title="Genesis">Gen.</abbr> <abbr title="46">xlvi</abbr>, 23</span>), and yet in the fourth generation +his descendants had increased to 62,700 +warriors (<abbr title="Numbers">Num.</abbr> <abbr title="2">ii</abbr>, 26), or 64,400 (<abbr title="Numbers">Num.</abbr> +<abbr title="26">xxvi</abbr>, 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 +(<abbr title="Numbers">Num.</abbr> <abbr title="3">iii</abbr>, 39; <abbr title="26">xxvi</abbr>, 62), and the tribe of Manasseh +during the same time increased from 32,200 +(<abbr title="Numbers">Num.</abbr> <abbr title="1">i</abbr>, 35) to 52,700 (<abbr title="26">xxvi</abbr>, 34).</p> + +<p>“The whole population of Israel were instructed +in one single day to keep the passover, +and actually did keep it (<abbr title="Exodus">Ex.</abbr> <abbr title="12">xii</abbr>). At +the first notice of any such feast Jehovah said, +‘I will pass through the land of Egypt <em>this +night</em>.’ The passover was to be killed ‘<em>at even</em>’ +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?</p> + +<p>“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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</span>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.)</p> + +<p>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:</p> + +<p>“The area of Judea and Samaria is, according +to the above authority, 140 <abbr title="times">×</abbr> 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 <abbr title="times">×</abbr> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</span>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.”</p> + +<p>Why should we place a book in the schools +which teaches such falsehoods when all around +us are the grand truths of Nature?</p> + +<p><abbr title="10">X.</abbr> 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” (<abbr title="First">1</abbr> Peter <abbr title="2">ii</abbr>, 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 <abbr title="13">xiii</abbr>, 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.</p> + +<p><abbr title="11">XI.</abbr> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</span>children: and thy desire shall be to thy husband, +and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis +<abbr title="3">iii</abbr>, 16). “Wives, submit yourselves to your +own husbands” (<abbr title="Colossians">Col.</abbr> <abbr title="3">iii</abbr>, 18). “As the church +is subject unto Christ so let the wives be subject +to their own husbands in everything” +(<abbr title="Ephesians">Eph.</abbr> <abbr title="5">v</abbr>, 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” (<abbr title="First Corinthians">1 Cor.</abbr> <abbr title="14">xiv</abbr>, 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” (<abbr title="First">1</abbr> Peter <abbr title="3">iii</abbr>, 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” (<abbr title="First Timothy">1 +Tim.</abbr> <abbr title="2">ii</abbr>, 11–14). Modern civilization has bidden +defiance to these words of Paul. We would +ask the good <abbr class="spell">W. C. T. U.</abbr> 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 <abbr title="Matthew">Matt.</abbr> <abbr title="19">xix</abbr>, 10–12, +and by Paul in the seventh chapter of <abbr title="First">1</abbr> Corinthians. +In the Old Testament the father selects +a husband for his daughter, and is allowed +to sell her as a slave (<abbr title="Exodus">Ex.</abbr> <abbr title="21">xxi</abbr>, 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, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</span>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” +(<abbr title="Deuteronomy">Deut.</abbr> <abbr title="24">xxiv</abbr>, 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:</p> + +<p>“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” (<abbr title="Second">2</abbr> +Samuel <abbr title="12">xii</abbr>, 11).</p> + +<p>“Their children shall be dashed to pieces +before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled +and their wives ravished” (Isaiah <abbr title="13">xiii</abbr>, 16).</p> + +<p>“I will gather all nations against Jerusalem +to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the +houses rifled, and the women ravished” (<abbr title="Zechariah">Zech.</abbr> +<abbr title="14">xiv</abbr>, 2).</p> + +<p>“Let their wives be bereaved of their children +and be widows” (<abbr title="Jeremiah">Jer.</abbr> <abbr title="18">xviii</abbr>, 21).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p><abbr title="12">XII.</abbr> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</span>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 <abbr title="15">xv</abbr>, 3); “He +teacheth my hands to war” (<abbr title="First Samuel">1 Sam.</abbr> <abbr title="22">xxii</abbr>, 35). +See also Psalms <abbr title="18">xviii</abbr>, 34, and <abbr title="144">cxliv.</abbr> “And thou +shalt consume all the people, which the Lord +thy God shall deliver thee, thine eye shall +have no pity upon them” (<abbr title="Deuteronomy">Deut.</abbr> <abbr title="7">vii</abbr>, 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” (<abbr title="Deuteronomy">Deut.</abbr> <abbr title="20">xx</abbr>, +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 <abbr title="31">xxxi</abbr>, 10).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>Read the fourteenth chapter of Numbers and +Deuteronomy <abbr title="9">ix</abbr>, 23, and see why all of the children +of Israel twenty years old and over were +doomed to spend the remainder of their lives +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</span>in the wilderness. Why? Because they refused +to <em>war</em> 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 <abbr title="42">xlii</abbr>, 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 (<abbr title="First">1</abbr> Kings <abbr title="22">xxii</abbr>, 1); +and God gave Judah a special dispensation from +war. Jesus said: “I came not to send peace +but a sword” (Matthew <abbr title="10">x</abbr>, 34). He said (Luke +<abbr title="21">xxi</abbr>, 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 <abbr title="22">xxii</abbr>, +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 (<abbr title="Revelation">Rev.</abbr> <abbr title="12">xii</abbr>, 7).</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p><abbr title="13">XIII.</abbr> The Bible should not be read in the +public schools because it contradicts itself +nearly two hundred times. We will give a few +illustrations:</p> + +<p>“And he said, <em>Thou shalt not see my face</em>: +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</span>for there shall no man see me and live” (<abbr title="Exodus">Ex.</abbr> +<abbr title="33">xxxiii</abbr>, 20).</p> + +<p>“<em>And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face</em>, +as a man speaketh unto his friend” (11).</p> + +<p>“And the men which journeyed with him +stood speechless, <em>hearing a voice</em>, but seeing +no man” (Acts <abbr title="9">ix</abbr>, 7).</p> + +<p>“And they that were with me saw indeed +the light, and were afraid; but <em>they heard not +the voice</em> of him that spake to me” (<abbr title="22">xxii</abbr>, 9).</p> + +<p>Jesus said, “If any man hear my words, and +believe not, <em>I judge him not</em>: for <em>I came not to +judge the world</em>, but to save the world” (John +<abbr title="12">xii</abbr>, 47).</p> + +<p>“For the Father judgeth no man; <em>but hath +committed all judgment to the son</em>” (<abbr title="verse">v.</abbr> 22).</p> + +<p>“And the anger of <em>the Lord</em> was kindled +against Israel, and he moved David against +them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah” (<abbr title="Second">2</abbr> +Samuel <abbr title="24">xxiv</abbr>, 1).</p> + +<p>“And <em>Satan</em> stood up against Israel, and provoked +David to number Israel” (<abbr title="First">1</abbr> Chronicles +<abbr title="21">xxi</abbr>, 1).</p> + +<p>“The Jews therefore said unto him, <em>It is not +lawful for us to put any man to death</em>” (John +<abbr title="18">xviii</abbr>, 31).</p> + +<p>“The Jews answered him, We have a law, +and <em>by our law he ought to die</em>” (John <abbr title="14">xiv</abbr>, 7).</p> + +<p>What women visited the tomb on the morning +of the resurrection?</p> + +<p>“The first day of the week cometh <em>Mary Magdalene</em>, +early when it was yet dark, unto the +sepulchre” (John <abbr title="20">xx</abbr>, 1).</p> + +<p>“In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to +dawn toward the first day of the week, came +<em>Mary Magdalene and the other Mary</em> to see the +sepulchre” (<abbr title="Matthew">Matt.</abbr> <abbr title="28">xxviii</abbr>, 1).</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</span></p> + +<p>“Now upon the first day of the week, very +early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre.... +It was <em>Mary Magdalene, and +Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and +other women</em>” (Luke <abbr title="24">xxiv</abbr>, 10).</p> + +<p>At what time in the morning did they visit +the tomb?</p> + +<p>“At the rising of the sun” (Mark <abbr title="16">xvi</abbr>, 2).</p> + +<p>“When it was yet dark” (John <abbr title="20">xx</abbr>, 1).</p> + +<p>Where did Jesus first appear to his disciples?</p> + +<p>“Then said Jesus unto them (the women) +Be not afraid; go tell my brethren <em>that they +go into Galilee</em>, into a mountain where Jesus +had appointed them. And when they saw him +they worshiped him; but some doubted (<abbr title="Matthew">Matt.</abbr> +<abbr title="28">xxviii</abbr>, 10, 16, 17).</p> + +<p>“And they rose up the same hour, and <em>returned +to Jerusalem</em>, 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 <abbr title="24">xxiv</abbr>, 33, 34, 36).</p> + +<p>Did the disciples know that Jesus would arise +from the dead? According to Mark <abbr title="10">x</abbr>, 32, 33 +and 34, they did:</p> + +<p>“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; <em>and the third day he +shall rise again</em>.” Yet John <abbr title="20">xx</abbr>, 9 distinctly +says, “<em>For as yet they knew not the scripture, +that he must rise again from the dead.</em>”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</span></p> + +<p>Did John the Baptist know Jesus when he +came unto him to be baptized? He did, according +to <abbr title="Matthew">Matt.</abbr> <abbr title="3">iii</abbr>, 13, 14: “Then cometh Jesus +from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized +of him. But John forbade him, saying, +<em>I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest +thou to me?</em>”</p> + +<p>Yet John himself admits that he did not +know him:</p> + +<p>“<em>And I knew him not</em>: 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 +<abbr title="1">i</abbr>, 33).</p> + +<p>There is also another very material contradiction +as to what the centurion at the cross +said:</p> + +<p>“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, ‘<em>Truly, this was the Son of +God</em>’” (<abbr title="Matthew">Matt.</abbr> <abbr title="27">xxvii</abbr>, 54).</p> + +<p>Luke gives an entirely different version:</p> + +<p>“Now when the centurion saw what was +done, he glorified God, saying, <em>Certainly this +was a righteous man</em>” (<abbr title="23">xxiii</abbr>, 47).</p> + +<p>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 <abbr title="2">ii</abbr>, +16). “If righteousness come by the law, then +Christ is dead in vain” (21). “Therefore, we +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</span>conclude that a man is justified by faith without +the deeds of the law” (Romans <abbr title="3">iii</abbr>, 28).</p> + +<p>“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith +without works is dead” (James <abbr title="2">ii</abbr>, 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).</p> + +<p>“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, +and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty, +<em>but by my name Jehovah was I not known to +them</em>” (Exodus <abbr title="6">vi</abbr>, 3). “<em>And Abraham called +the name of the place Jehovah-jireh</em>” (Genesis +<abbr title="22">xxii</abbr>, 14).</p> + +<p>These are but a few of the contradictions +of the Bible, selected at random from hundreds.</p> + +<p><abbr title="14">XIV.</abbr> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</span>that period is passed he may drink all he +wishes. (See Numbers <abbr title="6">vi</abbr>, 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, <em>when ye +go into the tabernacle of the congregation</em>, lest +ye die” (Leviticus <abbr title="10">x</abbr>, 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 <abbr title="31">xxxi</abbr>, 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.”</p> + +<p>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” (<abbr title="Deuteronomy">Deut.</abbr> <abbr title="29">xxix</abbr>, 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, <em>or for wine, or for strong drink</em>, 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</span>to do so? On the contrary, “until that day +that I drink it new in the kingdom of God” +(Mark <abbr title="14">xiv</abbr>, 25). We admit such temperance +passages as are to be found in Proverbs <abbr title="20">xx</abbr>, 1, +and in Isaiah <abbr title="5">v</abbr>, 11. These refer strictly to the +abuse, not to the moderate use of alcoholic +liquors.</p> + +<p>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” (<abbr title="First">1</abbr> Timothy +<abbr title="5">v</abbr>, 23); “Go thy way, eat thy bread with +joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart, +for God now accepteth thy good works” (<abbr title="Ecclesiastes">Eccles.</abbr> +<abbr title="9">ix</abbr>, 7); “Corn shall make the young men cheerful, +and new wine the maids” (<abbr title="Zechariah">Zech.</abbr> <abbr title="9">ix</abbr>, 17); +“They shall plant vineyards and drink the wine +thereof” (Amos <abbr title="9">ix</abbr>, 14); “Wine maketh glad +the heart of man” (<abbr title="Psalms">Ps.</abbr> <abbr title="14">xiv</abbr>, 15); “Wine, which +cheereth God and man” (Judges <abbr title="4">iv</abbr>, 13); “In +the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine +to be poured unto the Lord for a drink offering” +(<abbr title="Numbers">Num.</abbr> <abbr title="28">xxviii</abbr>, 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 <abbr title="3">iii</abbr>, 9, 10).</p> + +<p>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 <abbr title="9">ix</abbr>, 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 <abbr title="19">xix</abbr>, 30–38). David got drunk +himself and danced before the ark in a state of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</span>nudity, after giving each of all the people “a +flagon of wine” (<abbr title="Second">2</abbr> Samuel <abbr title="6">vi</abbr>, 14, 16, 19). Yet +God said, “David ... a man after mine own +heart, which shall fulfill all my will” (Acts. +<abbr title="13">xiii</abbr>, 22). God also gives David two other unqualified +certificates of character (See <abbr title="First">1</abbr> Kings +<abbr title="14">xiv</abbr>, 7, 8; <abbr title="15">xv</abbr>, 5). When Solomon erected the +great temple he gave his laborers “twenty thousand +baths (nearly 17,500 gallons) of wine” +(<abbr title="Second">2</abbr> Chronicles <abbr title="2">ii</abbr>, 10). Jeremiah, one of God’s +favorite prophets, tempted the Rechabites, who +were total abstainers, to drink (See Jeremiah +<abbr title="35">xxxv</abbr>, 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 <abbr title="2">ii</abbr>, 15).</p> + +<p>The first miracle of Jesus was the transforming +of water into wine (John <abbr title="2">ii</abbr>, 3–11), and in +Luke <abbr title="7">vii</abbr>, 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.”</p> + +<p>Bible advocates of temperance sometimes +quote the following passages from Paul, as evidence, +to them, of Bible teaching of total abstinence.</p> + +<p>“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink +wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, +or is made weak.” (Romans <abbr title="14">xiv</abbr>:21.)</p> + +<p>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.” +(<abbr title="First">1</abbr> Corinthians <abbr title="8">viii</abbr>:13).</p> + +<p>It will be noticed in the first that <em>flesh</em> 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 +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</span>warning his hearers against meat offered to +idols and that wine is only mentioned incidentally. +But when you turn to <abbr title="First">1</abbr> Timothy, <abbr title="5">v</abbr>:23, +Paul imperatively says, “DRINK NO LONGER +WATER, BUT USE A LITTLE WINE FOR +THY STOMACH’S SAKE, AND THINE OFTEN +INFIRMITIES.”</p> + +<p>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, +“<cite class="nonitalic">The Bible</cite>,” pages 398–399; to the article on +“Wine and Strong Drink,” in that monument +of scholarship, “<cite class="nonitalic">The Encyclopedia Biblica</cite>”; to +that well-known orthodox work, Smith’s “<cite class="nonitalic">Bible +Dictionary</cite>,” and to “<cite class="nonitalic">Religion and Drink</cite>,” by +<abbr title="Reverend">Rev.</abbr> E. A. Wasson.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</span></p> + +<p><abbr title="15">XV.</abbr> 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:</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> + <div class="poetry"> + <div class="stanza"> + <div class="verse indent0">“Slowly the Bible of the race is writ,</div> + <div class="verse indent1">And not on paper leaves or leaves of stone;</div> + <div class="verse indent1">Each age, each kindred, adds a verse to it,</div> + <div class="verse indent1">Texts of despair or hope, of joy or moan;</div> + <div class="verse indent1">While swings the sea, while mists the mountains shroud,</div> + <div class="verse indent1">While thunder’s surges burst on cliffs of cloud,</div> + <div class="verse indent1"><span id="TN7">Still at the prophet’s feet the nations sit</span>.”</div> + </div> + </div> +</div> + +<p>No volume can be made large enough to contain +this BIBLE, yet to it all other books must +conform.</p> + +</main> + +<div class="transnote"> +<h2 class="nobreak">Transcriber’s Note</h2> + +<p> +Some inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, and punctuation have been +retained. +</p> + +<ul> +<li> +A <a href="#TABLE_OF_CONTENTS">table of contents</a> was added. +</li> +<li> +<abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 8: added “in” after “belief” (<a href="#TN9">Action or conduct indicating a belief in</a>) +</li> +<li> +<abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 12: changed “of” to “to” (<a href="#TN10">on earth peace to men of good will</a>) +</li> +<li> +<abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 24: changed “depotism” to “despotism” (<a href="#TN1">never rises above the merest despotism</a>) +</li> +<li> +<abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 24: changed “in” to “is” (<a href="#TN11">Much less is Christianity or any other system</a>) +</li> +<li> +<abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 24: changed “almightly” to “almighty” (<a href="#TN2">It is not almighty and we are not to look</a>) +</li> +<li> +<abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 31: changed “summonded” to “summoned” (<a href="#TN3">The teacher, summoned as a witness</a>) +</li> +<li> +<abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 32: changed “ther” to “their” (<a href="#TN4">put to death for participating in their production</a>) +</li> +<li> +<abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 41: “<a href="#TN5">Wicliffe’s</a>” left as-printed; this name has many variant spellings. +</li> +<li> +<abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 46: changed incorrect citation “xl” to “xlvi” (<a href="#TN6">Gen. xlvi. 23</a>) +</li> +<li> +<abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 61: changed “prohpet’s” to “prophet’s” and “nation’s” to “nations” (<a href="#TN7">Still at the prophet’s feet the nations sit</a>) +</li> +</ul> + +</div> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 78962 ***</div> +</body> +</html> diff --git a/78962-h/images/cover.jpg b/78962-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..32e5e5a --- /dev/null +++ b/78962-h/images/cover.jpg |
