Sep C&S History lessons #10
Message #9359 of 9360
JUNE 19, 1890
WISCONSIN
Bible Reading in the Public Schools
`The favor with which this decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
was received by the public, by liberal Christians as well as by
unbelievers, is well expressed in the comments on and summary of the
case in The Independent, a leading religious journal of the country,
as follows:
"We have read, with hearty approval, the opinions recently delivered
in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in regard to the question of the
Bible in the public schools of that State, the full text of which has
been published in the Albany Law ,Journal. This reading only confirms
our opinion of this decision, as heretofore expressed.
"Mr. Justice Lyon delivered the opinion of the court, and Messrs.
Justices Cassoday and Orton delivered concurring opinions. The case
before the court was that of a petition for a mandamus, commanding the
school board in the city of Edgerton to cause the teachers in one of
the public schools of that city to discontinue the practice of
reading, during school hours, portions of King James's Version of the
Bible. The petitioners for the mandamus were residents and taxpayers
in Edgerton, and presumptively Catholics in their religious faith, al-
though this fact is not stated in these deliverances. They complained
of the practice above referred to.
"This petition brought squarely before the court the question whether
such a practice is consistent with the constitution of the State of
Wisconsin; and this question the court unanimously answered in the
negative. And, that our readers may the better understand the case, we
submit in the following order the several points decided:
"1. The first point is the construction of article X, section 3, of
the constitution of the State, which declares that `the Legislature
shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which
shall be as nearly uniform as practicable, and such schools shall be
free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages
of four and twenty years, and no sectarian instruction, shall he
allowed therein.' The court held 'that the reading of King James's
Version of the Bible in the public schools of the State during school
hours, is `sectarian instruction' within the meaning of this
constitutional prohibition, and hence inconsistent therewith. Mr.
Justice Lyon said that the prohibition `manifestly refers exclusively
to instruction in religious doctrines,' and in such doctrines as `are
believed by some religious sects and rejected by others.' The court
took judicial knowledge of the fact that King James's Version of the
Bible is not accepted and used by all `religious sects' in Wisconsin,
but is accepted by some of these sects and rejected by others. Hence,
as between them, all having the same constitutional rights, the court
held that version to be a `sectarian' book, and the reading of it in
the manner and for the purpose set forth in the complaint to be
forbidden by the constitution of the State.
"How any other conclusion could have been drawn from the premises, we
are not able to see. We presume that there is not a Protestant in
Wisconsin who would hesitate a moment on the point, if the book read
had been the Douay Version of the Bible, which is acceptable to
Catholics, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon. The reading of such a
book as a part of school exercises, whether for worship or religious
instruction, would be offensive to Protestants, and they would have
good cause for complaint, just as the reading of King James's Version,
which is sometimes called the Protestant Bible, is offensive to
Catholics. It should not be forgotten that, under the constitution of
Wisconsin, Catholics and Protestants have on this subject precisely
the same rights, and that neither can claim any precedence over the
other. The constitution of that State makes no distinction between
them, and determines no question relating to their differences, or any
other religious differences. It deals with all the people simply as
citizens, no matter what may be their religious tenets, or whether
they have any such tenets.
"2. The second point decided is that `the practice of reading the
Bible in such schools can receive no sanction from the fact that
pupils are not compelled to remain in the school while it is being
read.' On this point we quote, as follows, the language of Mr. Justice
Lyon:
" `When, as in this case, a small minority of the pupils in the
public school is excluded, for any cause, from a stated school
exercise, particularly when such cause is apparent hostility to the
Bible, which a majority of the pupils have been taught to revere, from
that moment the excluded pupil loses caste with his fellows, and is
liable to be regarded with aversion and 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 at a serious disadvantage in many ways with respect to the others.'
.."The plain fact is that not to compel the attendance upon such
reading, of the children of parents who object to it, for the sake
continuing the reading, is a virtual confession that the reading has a
`sectarian' character, as between those who desire it and those who
object to it. It is merely an attempt to get round what is apparent on
the face of the case.
"3. The third point decided is that `the reading of the Bible is an
act of worship, as that term is defined in the constitution; and hence
the taxpayers of any district who are compelled to contribute to the
erection and support of common schools, have the right to object to
the reading of the Bible, under the constitution of Wisconsin, article
I, section 18, clause 2, declaring that no man shall be compelled to .
.. . erect or support any place of worship.' This provision is in what
is called the `Declaration of Rights.' The opinion delivered by Mr.
Justice Cassoday on this point is, to our understanding, clear and
conclusive. Bible reading in public schools has the form and intention
of religious worship; and this being the fact, then to compel the
people by taxation to erect and support public schools, in which such
reading is a practice, is to compel them by law to erect and support
places of worship. The fact that these places are also used for other
purposes does not relieve the difficulty. The constitution expressly
declares that the people shall not `be compelled to erect any place'
that is used for the purpose of worship. To tax a man to erect and
support a public school, and then to introduce the element of
religious worship inro that school, is to make a combination which the
constitution forbids.
"4. The fourth point decided is that, `as the reading of the bible
at stated times in a common school is religious instruction, the money
drawn from the State treasury in support of such school is "for the
benefit of a religious seminary," within the meaning of the
constitution of Wisconsin, article 1, section 18, clause 4,
prohibiting such an appropriation of the funds of the State.' The
design of the clause referred to is to prevent the State from using
the public funds to defray the expenses of religious instruction; and
this design is frustrated just as really when these funds are used to
support common schools in which such instruction is given, as it would
be if these funds were used to support `religious societies or
religious or theological seminaries.' Mr. Justice Cassoday, in his
opinion, sets forth this point very clearly.
"We have thus given the pith of the argument on this subject as
stated by the three justices of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. We see
no escape from the conclusion reached, and have no desire to escape
it, since we thoroughly believe in its correctness everywhere. To the
argument that `the exclusion of Bible reading from the district
schools is derogatory to the value of the Holy Scriptures, a blow to
their influence upon the conduct and consciences of men, and
disastrous to the cause of religion,' Mr. Justice Lyon thus replied:
" `We most emphatically reject these views. The priceless truth of
the Bible are best taught to our youth in the church, the Sabbath and
parochial schools, the social religious meetings, and, above ail, by
parents in the home circle. There these truths may be explained and
enforced, the spiritual welfare of the child guarded and protected,
and his spiritual nature directed and cultivated, in accordance with
the dictates of the parental conscience. The constitution does not
interfere with such teaching and culture. [Mr. Justice Lyon continued,
although The Independent omits this section: "It only banishes
theological polemics from the district schools. It does this, not
because of any hostility religion, but because the people who adopted
it believed that the public good would thereby be promoted, and they
so declared in the preamble. Religion teaches obedience to law, and
flourishes best where good government prevails. The constitutional
prohibition was adopted in the interests of good government, and it
argues but little faith in the vitality and power of religion, to
predict disaster to its progress because a constitutional provision,
enacted for such a purpose, is faithfully
executed.''
"The doctrine of the constitution of Wisconsin, as thus settled by
the supreme court of that State, is, in our judgment, the true
doctrine for every State in the Union. It remits the question of
religious instruction, as to what it shall be, as to the agency giving
it, and as to the cost thereof, to voluntary, private and individual
effort, and devotes the public school, created and regulated by law,
and supported by a general taxation of the people, exclusively to
secular education. This principle is in harmony with the nature and
structure of our political institutions, and is, moreover, just and
equitable as between religious sects. It favors no one of them and
proscribes no one of them; and, while it leaves them all free to
propagate their religious beliefs in their own way, and at their own
expense, it gives to the whole people, at the cost of the whole, a
system of popular education that is certainly good as far as it goes,
and is nil that the State can give, without itself becoming a
religious propagandist. Catholics and Protestants alike ought to be
satisfied with it. There is no other basis on which the school
question can be justly settled as between different religious sects."-
New York Independent, July 19, 1890.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: New York Independent, July 19, 1890, p. 11.
American State Papers on Freedom in Religion. Fourth Revised Edition.
Published in 1949 for The Religious Liberty Association, Washington,
D.C. by the Review and Herald. First Edition Compiled by William
Addison Blakely, of the Chicago Bar. (1890) under the Title American
State Papers Bearing on Sunday Legislation. pp. 865-868
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
