Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    October 23, 1889

    “The Edmunds Resolution” The American Sentinel 4, 39, pp. 306, 307.

    ATJ

    THE SENTINEL has said considerable during the past year about the proposed amendment to the national Constitution establishing instruction in the principles of the Christian religion in all the public schools in the nation. The last few numbers have contained an argument made by one of the editors of the SENTINEL before the Committee on Education and Labor in opposition to that resolution. When the next Congress shall assemble, there will be a powerful effort made to secure the introduction of a resolution embodying the doctrines proposed in that, but in what shape the matter will be presented, it is of course impossible in advance to tell. The forces are being rallied, the different views are being brought together as much as possible, and the people cannot be too wide-awake nor too diligently engaged in the study of the subject, nor can there be too prompt action in opposing the movement. The Blair resolution is not the only one that is advocated. There is another called the “Edmunds Resolution,” so called because it was framed and presented by Senator Edmunds, of Vermont.AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.1

    The history of the Edmunds resolution is this, to begin at the beginning of the subject: April 19, 1870, Hon. S. S. Burdette, of Missouri, proposed an amendment to the United States Constitution upon this subject, reading as follows:—AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.2

    “SECTION 1. No State or municipal corporation within any State of the United States shall levy or collect any tax for the support or aid of any sectarian, denominational, or religious school or educational establishment; nor shall the legislature of any State, or the corporate authorities of any municipality within any State, appropriate any money or make any donation from the public fund or property of such State or municipality for the support or aid of any sectarian, religious, or denominational schools or educational establishments.AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.3

    “SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.4

    It will be seen at a glance that this only prohibits State aid to denominational or religious schools or establishments. It does not prohibit sectarian, religious, or denominational instruction in the public schools. It thus missed the mark so widely that it seems not to have been taken any notice of after its introduction.AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.5

    It was not long, however, before another step was taken. December 19, 1871, Hon. William M. Stewart, United States senator from Nevada, proposed an amendment to the national Constitution, reading as follows:—AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.6

    “SECTION. 1. There shall be maintained in each State and Territory a system of free common schools, but neither the United States nor any State, Territory, county, or municipal corporation, shall aid in the support of any schools wherein the peculiar tenets of any denomination are taught.AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.7

    “SEC. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.8

    This proposition seems to have excited some public discussion. It was strongly disapproved by many on the ground that such a measure was “both unnecessary and misleading”—unnecessary because no danger could arise in any State from such action; and mischievous because it would only tend to provoke a controversy which was uncalled for. Nothing seems to have come of Mr. Stewart’s proposition except the discussion referred to.AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.9

    Nothing more was done for four years. Then, however, December 14, 1875, Hon. James G. Blaine, then a member of the House of Representatives, proposed an amendment, as follows:AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.10

    ARTICLE XVI

    “No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or land so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.”AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.11

    August 4, 1876, Mr. Blaine’s resolution was reported back from the Judiciary Committee with two slight additions, one, of the words “or denomination” following the word “sect” in the second clause, and the other a sentence at the end, saying, “This article shall not vest, enlarge, or diminish legislative power in Congress.”AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.12

    It will be seen that Mr. Blaine’s resolution goes a step further than either of the ones which preceded it, in that it embodies in its first clause the substance of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting any State making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. As for the rest of his resolution, it is in substance the same as the other two, simply saying that no public money raised by taxation or derived from public funds for the support of public schools should ever be under the control of any religious sect or divided amongst religious sects or denominations. It does not prohibit the teaching of religion in the public schools, nor does it prohibit the use of public money for the support of religious teaching in the public schools. Therefore, as for any real value in that resolution, there was none except in its first clause.AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.13

    Yet, it was adopted by the House of Representatives after brief debate, by vote of 180 yeas to 7 nays, with 98 not voting. The resolution then went to the Senate, and, August 7, was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, with several substitutes which had been offered for it. Two days later, August 9, Senator Edmunds, of the Judiciary Committee, reported back the joint resolution with an amendment which was in fact a substitute, reading as follows:—AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.14

    ARTICLE XVI

    “No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under any State. No public property, and no public revenue of, nor any loan of credit by or under, the authority of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or municipal corporation, shall be appropriated to, or made, or used for, the support of any school, educational or other institution, under the control of any religious, or anti-religious, organization, or wherein the particular creed or tenets of any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination, shall be taught. And so such particular creed or tenet shall be read or taught in any school or institution supported in whole or in part by such revenue or loan of credit; and no such appropriation or loan of credit shall be made to any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination, or promote its interests or tenets. This article shall not be construed to prohibit the reading of the Bible in any school or institution; and it shall not have the effect to impair rights of property already vested.AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.15

    “SEC. 2. Congress shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to provide for the prevention or punishment of violations of this article.”AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.16

    August 11 this substitute was accepted for the House resolution by a vote of 27 to 15. August 14 the substitute was brought to vote upon its adoption. The vote stood 28 yeas to 16 nays. But as it requires a majority of two-thirds to adopt such a resolution, and as the vote fell two short of being two-thirds, the resolution was lost. This is the Edmunds amendment, and this is its history. And that was the last effort to amend the Constitution until May 25, 1888, when Senator Blair introduced his. And, as stated at the beginning, the Edmunds amendment is being advocated for introduction at the next Congress as well as the Blair amendment.AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.17

    We have not space here to discuss the merit of the Edmunds resolution; we can only say now that it is an excellent illustration of how not to to [sic.] say it, and leave the fuller discussion of it until our next.AMS October 23, 1889, page 306.18

    A. T. J.

    “Papal Protestantism” The American Sentinel 4, 39, p. 307.

    ATJ

    THE question of the Bible in the public schools has lately caused considerable discussion in Detroit. One preacher of that city, Rev. James M. Henderson, says on the subject:—AMS October 23, 1889, page 307.1

    “I am in favor of introducing the Bible into the public schools. The Bible, as the standard of Protestant religion, should be retained, and Catholics whose children attend our public schools should accept our Protestant Bible. I do not believe that any Catholic is ever willing to have as the basis of the religious training of his children the Protestant Bible, but the Catholic children usually attend Catholic schools. Parents of children who do attend our public schools should accept our Protestant Bible without sectarian comment.”AMS October 23, 1889, page 307.2

    This shows the real purpose of the effort being made all over the land, and even in the religious attack made upon the national Constitution. It is simply to have the State establish the Protestant religion and enforce upon everybody the dictates of the Protestant church rulers.AMS October 23, 1889, page 307.3

    Another preacher, Rev. Joseph W. Blanchard, sets forth the same doctrine in these words:—AMS October 23, 1889, page 307.4

    “The public school should suit the majority, as this is a country where majorities rule. The majority of the people of this country are Christians, therefore the majority should rule. There ought to be Christian teaching in the public schools. The Bible should be read without note or comment, and the simple fundamental principles of Christianity taught.”AMS October 23, 1889, page 307.5

    It is true that he uses only the terms Christian and Christianity to describe the religious teaching which they propose to force upon others; but he means only Protestant Christian teaching and Protestant Christianity. But it might not prove so in the end. Protestants might be in the minority in a little while, then it is probable that the Roman Catholics would be in the majority—it is so already in about a dozen of the States—and if the Catholic majority should force the reading of the Catholic Bible and Catholic instruction upon all the rest of the people at the public expense, that would probably put another face upon the matter. If some way could be invented by which these particular individuals could be compelled to take some of their own medicine administered by Roman Catholics, it would be an excellent thing. It might be possible in that way to reach their reason.AMS October 23, 1889, page 307.6

    Rev. F. Grenell sees the matter in a much better light, and says:—AMS October 23, 1889, page 307.7

    “Right is not decided by majorities, even though the majority be right.”AMS October 23, 1889, page 307.8

    Yet how fast this wicked principle of majority rule in matters of religion and the conscience, is growing. But this question “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 right of conscience at all. It is against the predominance and power of majorities that the rights of conscience are protected, and have need to be.” And those who call themselves Protestants are not the only people in the world who have a conscience.AMS October 23, 1889, page 307.9

    A. T. J.

    “The Commonwealth of Souls!” The American Sentinel 4, 39, p. 308.

    ATJ

    THE Christian Statesman of July 4, 1889, says that:—AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.1

    “The moral and religious needs of the army and navy of the United States have been brought before several church courts within a year or two, and action has been taken looking to—AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.2

    “1. The appointment of chaplains in such numbers as to provide for every post occupied by troops.AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.3

    “2. A movement to secure the convocation of the chaplains in annual session for conference about their work, and for devising new and improved methods.AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.4

    “3. The setting apart of the Sabbath on or immediately preceding the Fourth of July as Army and Navy Day, on which one service, at least, will be held in connection with that patriotic occasion, when special prayers shall be offered, and the attention of the congregations called to the duty of the church toward the naval and military forces of the country, which are maintained for the supremacy of authority and defense of our orders, who, by the manner of life required in the service of their country, imperil both soul and body for the common good.AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.5

    “4. That gambling be prohibited in the army and the navy.AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.6

    “5. That the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage be prohibited.AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.7

    “6. That the rights of Christian officers and men to a conscientious observance of the holy Sabbath be guaranteed against invasion by superiors in requiring any duty not exigent and unavoidable.AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.8

    “7. That a commission of five, with a corresponding secretary, be appointed to co-operate with like commissions from other churches in obtaining, as soon as possible, the legislation necessary to secure the above-mentioned improvement in the moral and religious condition of our soldiers and marines; and also to act as a board to examine and recommend for appointment to the position of chaplain, such ministers as may apply for such position.”AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.9

    When the legislation necessary to secure all that has been adopted, then, how far will the country be from a union of Church and State? How far from a church domination in civil affairs? But besides all this, whoever before heard of any man’s imperiling his soul for the public good? What good can any man do to the public by imperiling his soul ten thousand times? A man cannot do the public, nor himself, nor anyone else, any good by imperiling his soul. He can do only harm to himself, and, perhaps indirectly by his influence, to others. A man cannot imperil his soul except in the way of sin, and sin never can be for the common good, nor any other kind of good.AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.10

    Sin is the only thing that can ever imperil anybody’s soul. Suppose then that the commonwealth of souls were imperiled, and for the common good of souls the men in the army and navy, one and all, by some masterly stroke of sin, imperil their souls for the common good; what possible benefit could ever that be to any soul? It would only the more certainly imperil the souls of those who did it.AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.11

    But all this is consistent with the National Reform idea of the oneness of moral and civil things. Civil government is for the common good. If a man can imperil his soul for the common good, it must be that the souls of men are a part of the commonwealth, and when anyone sees the commonwealth of souls in danger he shall imperil his for the common good! Did such wild nonsense ever get into the brain of anybody but a National Reformer?AMS October 23, 1889, page 308.12

    A. T. J.

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents