The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-12-03
The Rihle in Public Schools.

The recent decision of the authorities OF
Cincinnati that the reading Of the Bible
should be dispensed with in the pubic
schools of that city has occaSloncd much
discussion ofthe question involved in that de-
cision. The press and the pulpit have taken
up the subject. Most of the secular papers
whose articles have come under our notice
have applauded the decision as wise.
Among all the arguments advanced, we
have seen few which went to the root OF
the matter-to the principle involyed-the
question of religious liberty underlying the
movement-and gave such good reasons Tor
iustifying the action taken in Cmcinnatl-as
one which appears in the Richmond feh-
qtous Herald for this week, 1t is from the
pen of either the Rev. DR.. FULLER or the
Rev, DR.. JETER-the latter, we suspcct-and
therefore entitled to great weight. we
quote 4 portion of it
owe must notice much more serious
objection to the forced reading OF the Bible
in public schools. A dangerous prlnclple
underies the practice. 1t Is TINS me ma
jortty has the right TO prescribe the ret'9t0uS
instruction 10 be airen IN the schools. Ii 1t
has the authority to require the reading OF
the Bible. it has the right to prescribe what
translation of it shall he read, what COM
mentary shall be used for understanding 1t,
what doctrines and precepts shall be taugnT
from it, and with what forms OF worship
he reading shall be associated. 1t is no.
thing to the purpose to affirm that the ad-
vocates of the practice reject these conse-
quences. They logically flow from the
principle on which it is based. IL ltS pre-
sent advocates do not follow it TO its legltl-
mate results. others will not be slow TO DO
it. Maioritics are not usually timid OF scrll-
pulous in the exercise OF their rights. lhcy
are more likely TO exceed than 10 come
short of the limits of their authority. We
live in a progressive age and progressive
country. If, now, teachers are compelled
to read the Bible in the public schools, II
will not be long before they will be required
to read other works supposed to be III mar
monv with its teachings. And why not! Ii
the majority can rightly demand the reading
of the Bible. it Iuay with equal justice or
dain that any books illustrative of 1t, or IN
accordance with its teaching, shall also ne
read. If it can rule in the Bible, it can rule
in or rule out what it chooses. Ii this pIln-
ciple is sound, not only must the puDlic
schools be religious nurseries, but Ihe Ieli-
zion lnculCated In Incm VIII pe VI wy =. ~
approved by the majority. we Shall nave
a piebald Professionalism taught in the schools
of Philadelphia, Unitarianism in those OF
Boston, Romanism in those of New Orleans,
Mormonism in those Of Salt Lake City, and,
probably, at no distant day, Conluclanism
IN some city Of California,
owe see in the principle under conslde-
ration the germ of religious tyranny. The
power that compels Roman Catholics, Jews,
and infidels, to pay taxes for the support OF
schools in which the Bible is read and
taught would not have to be stretched far
TO conlpel them to have their children
taught in these schools. Suppose this prin-
cipie be conceded to Romanists, and they
should gain the ascendancy in the country,
or any portion of it, what would, follow
They would net merely exclude the Bible
from the schools, but they would demand
chat their catechisms, creeds, and the lives
of the saints, shall take its place. For their
intolerance they would plead, and logically
plead, the principle for which so many Pro
testants now, as we think, enormously con-
tend, that the majority has the right to pre-
scribe what religion shall be taught in the
public schools"