oHUULD RELIGION BE TAUG
By Homan RH. Senso
(The author of the following article is a
native Filipino, and a leading educator in the
Philippine Islands. He wrote this just before
the Japanese attack on Manila, since which
time we have been unable to make contact
with him.—ED1TOR.)
wg 111 civil government has created
§ CR and maintained the public school
NE Le for self-preservation. Ignorance
E38 may prolong the existence of a
despotic form of government, but the sta-
bility of a nation where the responsibility
of government rests on all alike depends
upon the intelligent action of the masses.
Realizing this, our government has pro-
vided for the maintenance of free public
schools, by universal taxation,— Catho-
lics, Aglipayans, Protestants, Moros, and
infidels being taxed alike for their sup-
port. The public school rests upon the
foundation of political necessity. It has in
view, not only the happiness and well-being
of the individual, but the preservation of
the state, and 1s therefore a purely civil
institution maintained for political pur-
poses,—neither in the interest of, nor in
opposition to, religion. The public schools
as a part of our governmental policy come
under Lincoln's definition of government;
they are “of the people, by the people, and
for the people.”” They are neither by nor
for the Catholics, Aglipayans, Protestants,
Moros, nor the infidels, as such, but are for
the people, the whole people, without
reference to religion.
It 1s an undisputed principle in political
economy, that the state may appropriate
money raised by taxation to purposes which
are only of general necessity or of supreme
utility. It is on this principle that the state
refuses to require the teaching of religion
in the public schools supported by general
taxation. The teaching of religion 1s not an
object to be attained by the state, neither
can the objects of religion be attained by
the state to a degree, or in a way, superior
to those of private effort. All history proves
that the state, as a teacher of religion, 1s a
disastrous failure. In placing the common
school on a purely civil basis, the state does
not, in any way, antagonize religion. It is
simply an acknowledgment that the teach-
ing of religion is outside its jurisdiction—
that religion 1s a matter not to be handled
by a purely secular government.
While this view of the public school is
regarded by the majority as self-evident,
there are some who, because of this attitude
of our schools toward religion, declare that
they are “godless.” This comes from a mis-
conception of the province of civil govern-
ment, and the mission of the public school.
Had God delegated to civil government the
teaching of religion, a failure to do it by
means of the public school might merit
the above criticism. The state, in provid-
ing for the teaching of reading, writing, and
Page TEN
mathematics, without teaching religion, is
simply attending to its legitimate business,
which the church does when it attends to
the teaching of religion. The term *god-
less” cannot be applied with any more
consistency to the common school because
the Bible is not read and religion is not
taught in it, than it can be to schools of
phonography, telegraphy, or art, because
the Bible 1s not taught in them, or than the
term {raitor can be applied to the church,
because 1t does not teach the principles of
civil government, civil engineering, and
military tactics.
The fact that the state is wholly unquali-
fied, both in point of origin and object, to
teach religion, should forever settle the
question of religion in the public schools;
but besides being wrong in theory, the
teaching of religion in the public school is
possible of practice owing to the wide
diversity of opinion on the subject of re-
ligion which prevails among the patrons of
the public school.
While it 1s true that many of the people
here are outwardly favorable to religion,
there are some who neither practice nor
favor it. These certainly would not wish
their children to be taught religion in the
public schools. As taxpayers and support-
ers of these institutions, they have a right,
equal with that of all others, to the benefits
of such schools; and to ignore this right 1s an
injustice of which no good government will
be guilty.
If we limit the question to those who be-
lieve in religion, the difficulty 1s not
obviated; for the question then arises,
“What religion is to be taught?” Among
the numerous phases of belief which the
theology of the day includes, how shall it be
determined which is the proper one to be
promulgated by law? The state should not
favor one religion above another, and cer-
tainly could not do so without meeting the
united protest of a large number of her
citizens.
It may, however, be said that the design
18 not to teach in the public schools the
peculiar tenets of any denomination or sect,
but only the general principles of religious
belief which all sects hold in common. The
ill-fated bill proposing a religious amend-
ment to the American Constitution intro-
duced by Senator Blair in the Fifty-first
Congress of the United States contained
this provision and provided among other
things that only the ‘‘fundamental and
non-sectarian principles of Christianity”
be taught in the public schools. But even
this apparently liberal measure would dis-
criminate against the Moros, the pagans,
and the unbelievers, leaving them no
alternative but that of joining the ranks of
1ts opposers.
If we confine the question wholly to
Christian denominations, the difficulties of
The WATCHMAN MAGAZINE
the undertaking remain as pronounced as
ever; for when we come to consider these
“fundamental and non-sectarian principles
of Christianity,” we find in the first place
that Christendom has not yet defined what
the fundamental and non-sectarian prin-
ciples of Christianity are. To determine
these, therefore, would be the first thing
necessary, and this would require the united
action of all Christian denominations,
X¥ Betsy Ross
House, Phila-
delphia, Penn.
Chosen by the
flag committee of
the Third Con-
tinental Con-
gress, Mrs. Betsy
Ross made the
first generally ac-
cepted flag. Our
government, rep-
resented by the
flag, derives its
Just powers
“from the con-
sent of the gov-
erned.”” Mr,
Senson explains
the limitations
of cil au-
thority in the
public teach-
ing of re-
ligron,