THOSE NON-SECTARIAN SECTS

We have already referred to the protest that was entered after it was discovered by the Protestant churches involved that the Roman Catholic Church was getting an increase when they could get none. But, as already shown, there was nothing heard of the protest by any of the Protestant churches so long as they, with the Catholic Church, got their proportionate share of the public plunder. It was only when they discovered that the Catholic Church was getting something that they could not get that a protest was raised.TCPT 23.3

This illustrates the beauties of that idea of non-sectarian religion, that is made so much of nowadays, and which is demanded shall be taught by the State and the nation in the public schools. By this it is seen that the theory of the non-sectarian religion is apparently a very nice thing, and seems to work very well so long as each sect gets its proportion of the public plunder; but just as soon as one denomination gets a little advantage over the other, then the jealousy of all the others is aroused; that denomination instantly becomes “sectarian,” and whatever appropriation is made to it becomes an appropriation for “sectarian” uses. All the other “non-sectarian” sects then stand up nobly, and in righteous indignation virtuously “defend American institutions” from the encroachments of sectarianism.TCPT 24.1

In this we speak from the Record. Among the protests that were made in Congress on this subject when it was under consideration, was one from that so-called League for the Protection of American Institutions, which has its headquarters in New York City. From all that we can gather, it appears that the chief protest was raised and carried on by this League, and the following is a part, if not all, of the protest that was made. It was read by Senator Jones, of Arkansas, as a statement which had been sent to him by an “eminent man, a minister, resident of New York“:—TCPT 24.2

“Last year there was given to the Roman Catholics, for Indian education, $358,000. They demanded from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs $44,000 more, making a total of over $400,000. The request was denied, and the commissioner announced that he would not extend the contract system, and would make no contracts with new schools. On this the Catholics endeavored to defeat his confirmation, but did not succeed.TCPT 25.1

“Foiled in this raid upon the public treasury, they then attempted to accomplish their ends through Congress. In the Indian Appropriation bill as introduced into the House of Representatives there are two items, one appropriating $3,330 for a Roman Catholic school at Rensselaer, Indiana, and the other appropriating $12,500 for a Roman Catholic school to be opened among the Mission Indians in California.TCPT 25.2

“The special appropriations for the Roman Catholics in the Indian bill for last year were, for St. Ignatius school, in Montana, $45,000, and for Roman Catholic schools in Minnesota, $30,000. This made a total last year of $75,000. The, total amount this year is $95,830. In addition to this large sum, they will demand of the commissioner, doubtless, the same amount granted them last year.TCPT 25.3

“It should be remembered that in 1886 the amount of money secured from the government by the Roman Catholics was $113,000, and in 1890 had reached the large sum of $356,000. Is it not time that this perversion of public money to sectarian uses should cease?”TCPT 25.4

Now that would be an excellent protest if it were an honest one. It would be a strong one if, it were only fair. From this statement alone, nobody would ever get the idea that any church but the Catholic was engaged in this “raid upon the public treasury,” or had been a beneficiary of “this perversion of public money to sectarian uses.” Yet this statement was written and distributed to United States senators by a. Minister—clearly a Protestant minister. Was that minister Rev. James M. King, D. D., general secretary of the National League for the Protection of American Institutions? It was written by a minister who knew the facts. He knew that last year the Roman Catholics received $356,967, and must also have known that the Protestants received $204,993. He must have known that while the Roman Catholics asked an increase of $44,000, the Protestants also requested the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to increase the appropriation to them. He must have known, also, that in 1886, although the Roman Catholics received $118,343, the Protestants at the same time from the same source received $109,916; and that although in 1890 the appropriation to the Roman Catholic Church had “reached the large sum of $356,967,” the amount secured by the Protestants in the same time, and from the same source, had also reached the large sum of $204,993. Yet, in the face of these figures, showing the large amount of money received by Protestant denominations from the public treasury for church uses, he says not a word about it, and lays against the Roman Catholics only the charge of that “raid upon the public treasury,” as though they were the only guilty parties in the whole transaction.TCPT 25.5

Now if the Roma Catholics’ securing from the national government $118,343 was a “raid upon the public treasury,” the securing by Protestants from the same source “109,916 is just as certainly a raid upon the public treasury; and if the continuation and increase of the appropriation to the Roman Catholics up to the amount of $356,967 was a continuous raid upon the public treasury, then the continuation and the increase of the appropriation, from the same source, to Protestants up to the amount of $204,993 was just as certainly a continuous raid upon the public treasury. The only difference is that the raid of the Protestants was not quite so successful as the raid of the Catholics.TCPT 26.1

Nor is it exactly correct to put it in this way. The raid was not made by the party in two distinct divisions. They were united in solid phalanx in the raid, each division supporting the other. It was only when the Protestants found that the Catholics were securing the larger share of the plunder that there was any division at all among the invading hosts separated in two divisions—the “sectarian” and the “non-sectarian,“—and the Protestants, the “non-sectarian” division, suddenly discovered that there was a “raid being made upon the public treasury,”’ and that there was being carried on a “serious perversion of public money to sectarian uses.”TCPT 27.1

This is a hint, but a powerful one, of what would come of the “non-sectarian” religion which Senator Blair’s proposed amendment to the Constitution, Senator Edmund’s University bill, the National League for the Protection of American Institutions, the Presbyterian General Assembly, and the New York Methodist Conference demand shall be taught in the public schools, and established by constitutional amendment. It would soon end in the total destruction of the whole public-school system. If any such provision as this were enacted into law, just as soon as it was discovered that one denomination was getting some advantage over the others, there would be an all-around “protest;” the public-school system would be torn to pieces amongst the wrangling sects; civil government would be subverted to ecclesiastical control; and the State would be distracted, and out of the tumult one leading denomination would rise to power and supremacy, as was done in the making of the Papacy.TCPT 27.2

Is it indeed impossible to break this grasp which the churches already have in this country upon the State?TCPT 28.1