OCR Text |
Show W NECESSITY Of RELIGION RE-LIGION IN EDUCATION Archbishop Montgomery's Notable Address in the Greek Amphitheatre of the State University, Berkeley, Cal. (From Dominieana, San Francisco.) All thoughtful men confess tbnr, great economic 1 and social probbms press upon the age for solution. solu-tion. It may be said that the rights and duties be- tweeu man and man are regulated and directed bylaw, by-law, and. that this mibt solvo all suh problems. But, law is supposed to be iniplv the reflex of tlm character of . the individuals that make un the society so-ciety over which law presides. Xow, the two great factor that go to form rha character of the individual, and through the individual in-dividual the social body itself, are religion and education. ed-ucation. Practically, therefore, tlie solution of these problems rests upon the educator and the churchman. There ought, consequently, to be the most perfect harmony possible between these two great agencies when so much is at stake, so that their respective influence may not be weakened. We of this age and country happen to be surrounded sur-rounded by circumstances tbat generate honest differences dif-ferences of opinion. Owing to our differences of religious belief many are of opinion that religious instruction should be divorced from secular training train-ing in all schools supported by public taxation. Whereas the Catholic Church hob Is that a system ( that does so divorce religious and secular instruction instruc-tion is so far an imperfect system. Nevertheless she recognizes that differences of religion ought to be so provided for that the rights of all be preserved, pre-served, and she believes that if we interpret properly prop-erly the letter an-1 the spirit of our institutions a working plan may be found by which the state may profit by all the religious forces in if, and yet not compromise the principle of withholding state aid for the teaching of religion. If this can be done it ought to be done. Do I come here, then, this morning, to find fault with this university because you have not here a chair of theology? By no means. This is a state institution, as every public school under state control con-trol is a state institution, and as now organized religion re-ligion cannot be taught in any of these. The state, as such, has no religion, consequently cannot teach religion, and , cannot order it 'taught by anyone. What,' therefore, does this state pay for here? What does it demand to be taught '. What does it receive? It pays for and receives a certain secular instruction instruc-tion for the students, whieh it has prescribed. Xow, I say, let the state widen, broaden and deepen this system in this sense: Do not make a monopoly of secular instruction to the extent of exacting that public money be paid for secular instruction in-struction in those schools only where secular instruction in-struction is given. What the state wants is not, schools and faculties these are but a means to an end. What it wants and what it pays for is secular training. Therefore, throw open the work of education edu-cation to what we might call free competition; therefore advertise, as it were, for so much secular training and pay for it wherever given, no matter whether religion be taught there or not. The state is not hostile to religion. Suppose two schools on opposite sides of the street, the one a public school as now called, the other a private j school. In both, secular knowledge of precisely the same character is given. Why should not the state pay for the secular tuition in both, even if in one of them Methodism or Fpiscopalianism or Catholicity were taught? Secular education is what the state wants and what it. gets. Why should it concern itself as to who imported it? Will you say the state is then paying public money for the teaching of religion? I deny that one penny of public money goes for religious training. The secular sec-ular training demanded by contract with the state is given and self-sacrificing teachers find the time to teach something besides. In the two schools the state may act in precisely the same manner, prescribe the curriculum, examine exam-ine teachers presented by the private schools as well as those iu the public school. Examine the work done and pay for it when done, and not pay for it when it is not done. What would be the re- I suit of this method? Those who really believed in j dogmatic revealed religion would build schools at I their own expense and would offer to the school hoards teachers whose qualifications to teach thf? secular branches desired could be passed upon by ' j the state. And before one penny of public money be paid, the state could see that the secular instruction had been given. Having given that in- . j struction according to contract, these teachers in ! their own way would impart to their pupils just j that religious teaching the parents desire. And j this vexed question would be solved. f Xow, are those in the United States wishing j some such arrangement as this of sufficient iiura- , j hers to reasonably ask a respectful hearing? ; I I believe that at least one-third of the people do i I so desire. Beside the Roman Catholics and German Lutherans all'over the land who arc building and supporting a system of private schools at a great sacrifice, not in protest against secular training, hut in behalf of religious instruction along with secular, nearly all the leading Protestant denoin- f inations are crying out for "more religion in the f school." There cannot be more religion in the schools as now organized and endowed without i .gross violation of law. In the modification asked it is not a change of ! system as such, but a widening and broadening of j it. Those who are satisfied with the system as it if i would find it precisely the same for them. Th& f school where no religion is taught would remain. I believe that those demanding more religion ir i the schools are sincere, and though I am not then f spokesman, I cannot conceive on their part a rea- sonable objection to the plan here proposed. I can- ; f not conceive a reasonable objection on the part of ' anyone, for it is simply fair play, which we claim I to be the American motto. But let us go one step farther. Does the country coun-try need the preservation of religion? I have said the state as such has no religion, yet the state resu upon religion. The government at least has always acknowledged that fact. The Declaration of In- - - (Continued on ' Page 4.) THE NECESSITY Of RELIGION IN EDI CATION. (Continued Fro'm Page On.) dependence acknowledges a personal (bid. ih. ,, of nations, ruling over them with a beiiehVt nt providence, prov-idence, and appeals to him to vindicate ly victory the justice of revolt from the mother country. And when victory came our forefathers acknowlo-lp,! CJod as having answered their prayer. In both ol" t his inaugural addresses Washington, (be spnkf.--man of the nation, gave God the glory and declared this people, above all other peoples, indebted to providence for national life. And in his farewell address Washington declares that our hopes a- a free people, that the protection of our property, our lives and our reputation rests not on large armies, not on extent or fertility of soil, not on commerce; no, and not even on secular education, but on the religious obligations of an oath. These are his 'words: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports Let it simply be asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligations obli-gations deserts the oaths which are tjg instruments of investigation in courts of justice? Jkl let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded con-ceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid for-bid us to expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious principles." These are words pregnant with significance in this discussion. In following out this great truth here uttered by Washington every officer of the government, govern-ment, state and federal, from president to policeman, when inducted into office, calls God to witness that he will be faithful to his trust. The judge on th.-bench, th.-bench, the juror in the box, the witness on the stand, the attorney at the bar, all give us the same assurance assur-ance in the same way. If Washington was right, if the policy of the government is right, is it not worth while to preserve this sense of the religious obligations of an oath by all the agencies we have? Will someone say: "The state can do without religious re-ligious instruction in schools? The system of schools as now organized teaches a system of natural ethics which is quite sufficient?" Let Herbert Spencer answer. an-swer. In "Facts and Comments" he says: "In many cases the Agnostic is misled by the assumption as-sumption that a secular creed may with advantage forthwith replace the creed distinguished as sacred. That right guidance may be furnished by a system of natural ethics is a belief usually followed by the corollary that it needs only to develop such a system and the required self-control will result. But calm contemplation of men's natures and doings dissipates this corollary. It assumes a general intelligence capable ca-pable of seeing the beneficial outcome of certain modes of conduct, and it assumes that, having perceived the good results of this kind and the bad results of that kind, men will adopt the one and reject the l other. But neither assumption is true. The average .-4. .intellect cannot grasp a demonstration even when , the matter is concrete, and still less when the matter i is abstract. It cannot bear in mind the successive propositions, but collapses under the weight of them before reaching the conclusion. Dogmatic teaching alone is effective with such, and even that oftn fails. The dogma, 'Honesty is the best policy,' is commonly inoperative with the thief, since he always hopes to escape detection. Further, to hope that average men may be swayed by the contemplation of advantage to society is utterly Utopian. In the minds of tnose who form the slum population, and most of those immediately immedi-ately above them, will arise the thought: I don't care a damn for society.' And at the other end of the social scale, among those whose lives alternata between club rooms and game preserves, there will arise, if not so coarsely expressed, a thought, yet a thought: 'Society as it is serves my purpose very well, and that's enough for me.' "Thus the Agnostic who thinks he can provide forthwith adequate guidance by setting forth a natural natu-ral code of right conduct duly illustrated, is under an illusion." Such is the estimate that Herbert Spencer places on a code of natural ethics for the everyday things of life. Now, I do not believe that anyone will contend that a syntem of education that excludes a code of ethics based on the supernatural can rise higher than the natural merely. And I do not think that any on will contend that such an ethical system can give a religious sanction to an oath such as Washington claims our property, our reputation and' our lives depend de-pend upon for their security. Moreover, would it not seem that, if that "impersonal" "im-personal" something, called the State, which has no religion, and yet which depends co essentially upon religion, could give one unprejudiced thought to the subject of it3 own interest", it would be thankful to have religion inculcated by those who do believe in and are 'its teachers, especially when they propose to do so, not only without the cost of one cent to the state, but actually saving the State the cost of grounds and school buildings. And as a subject of mediation, for those especially who are so sensitive on the question of 'secterianism. and so fearful lest . the State be asked to pay for sectarian Instruction, did it ever occur to them that Agnosticism is as much a sect as Methodism? Agnosticism, Ag-nosticism, for the Agnostic, is his special belief about religion, 'just as much as Methodism is the belief of the Methodist about religion. And since the intent of the school system, in order to be fair to all. is theoretically theo-retically based on the idea that it will pay for the teaching of no man's religious belief, but practical! v without intending it. does as n. most tenderly the Agnostic's religious belief by the very exclusion of all instruction on supernatural religion, re-ligion, why should not the Methodist or any other Christian denomination consistently and logically find f . fault with a system that carefully provides for one V f sect the Agnostic and excludes the teaching held bv all others? Those who believe in the Christian religion are ' perfectly willing that the Agnostic should be protected pro-tected in his political and natural right of believing and following Agnosticism for himself, but it is a little lit-tle too much to ask them to support willingly, and without a murmur, a system of education whose practical prac-tical working is so utterly unfair, furnishing to the Agnostic the teaching of the Agnostic religion for his children, and discriminating against the Christian religion, re-ligion, and even taxing the teaching of the Christian Chris-tian religion, and all this on the high plane of absolute ab-solute fairness to all! To us it seems passing strange that the' other bodies bod-ies of Christians do not see the necessity of taking this logical, common sense and true view of the matter mat-ter as a means of self-preservation, and of making common cause .with us, instead of depending upon the hap-hazard reading of a chapter of the Bible in the schools, half the time by those who do not believe be-lieve in its sacred character; the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, led many times by those who do not believe in the Lord, and the delivery of a baccalaureate sermon to the graduating class, at the end of the year, by some minister of the Gospel. 1 Many take advantage of what thev call a true interest in our welfare in order, to rub gall into our wounds. The man who boast of his frankness frank-ness and of his hatred of flattery is usually not frank only brutal. : . To plod on perseveringlv and faithfully when wo are under a dark cloud, and. cannot see our way, no, not one .step before us, still to toil on in trust and love, this;.. is to give glory' to God and joy to the Sacred Heart. , 1 Seek to mingle gentleness1 in all your rebukes; ) v bear with the infirmities of others; make allowances allow-ances -for constitutional frailties; -never say harab things if kind things will do as welL |