The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1869-11-30
Datlp argus.
THE BIBLE IN THE c0MMoN SCHOOLS

of Education, prohibiting the reading fthe
R;bIa IN the Common Schools has attracted |
to the subject 90 interest well nigh universal.
There is fortunately no general contest as
vet on the question, but unless those who
would like 10 see the Bible read in the
schools, yield to the demands of those
who are opposed to it, it requires not the
ken OF a prophet to predict severe and bitter
dissensions, not only damaging to the cause
of public education, but OF religion itself So
far as numbers weigh in the scale, there 10
no doubt but that very large majority OF
tax PAYERS prefer that the Bible should be
read in the schools, but We must not forget
that this is a matter OF vital importance and
constitutional right to people who differ from
the majority;and that in excluding the Bible
from our common Schools, We place all who
support them on precisely the same footing
The friends Of religion and the Bible can
no more demand that j. shall be read aho
taught in the schools, than one sect OF re-
ligionists can demand that their peculiar
sectarian views about baptism, COMMUNION,
and other sectarian tenets should be.
recent number of the New York Iri.
hume contained an article on this subject
from religionst who insists on the right
and duty of reading the Bible in the public
schools. and can not consider It's exclusion
in any other light than an assault on the
Bible and religion, by all who connlve at
it's exclusion. Wo are very glad to see
that the editor of the Tribune takes excep.
ton to his correspondents views, and makes
the publication, the occasion for announc.
ing the true, liberal and just.poicy on the
subject. We give below the comments OF
Mr.. Greeley in full which We endorse and
commend to our readers:
We print the above rcrJatim, Hs warn
ing to ell who love our Common Schools, Of
the breakers ust ahead. We are IN immi
nent danger of losing those Schools through
bigotry; and this bgotry is by no means
confined to one sect or one side of the
question. Let us consider
4. v. II. HsbuultS Nuht NhV ih'"'hh N"''
olics are hostile to the reading Of the Bible
in Schools. Suppose this 10 be 70, by what
authority, on what principle, does he pro
pose to defy that aversion and compel them
20 do what he assumes mint thry Will ohly
do under coercion? Who made MIN thelr
spiritual dictator
al. Whether the Roman Catholics dc
or do not object to Bible reading, IT il noto'
rious that others do. There Rre many who
do not believe the Bible inspired, or OF any
more authority than any other collection OF
ancient poems. legends, chronicles, tradI
tons, rhspsodieB where ia the authority tc
coerce these into having their children
taught TO regard the Bible with a reverence
which the parents do a0t feel? On what
principle do Won compel Hobrcwa TO have
their children instructed in the New Iesta
ment which they rrject2 In short, have
you any conception whatever Of religion
liberty and equality?
"lIl. c. IL. SAYS be believes so aud sC
concerning the Bible aud religion, rs he has
q perfect right to do, and no one has author
ity to gainsay him. But others believe
differently: what right has he to thrust hi'
convictions upon their children, any more
than they have to force their convictions
upon his children
'"IV. G. II. insists that certain funds
mental religious truths, as he holds them
ought to b. inculcatcd through our commo
schools Here he thinks he ia fighting til
Roman Catholics, while he is powerful
aiding them. Those of them who are form
ing an opposition TO our common scho'
system, are fully agreed with him III b
premises: they differ only in insisting tbt
theirs is the only true Church--that sav
lion is only found in her communion, an
that her dogmas ought consequently
be taught in Common Schools. And the'
conflicting pretensions threaten to rend OF
schools in twain Why can't you see tina
on your foundation the Catholic superStru
ture stands firm?
"V. In our view, the only practical mot
Of saving our common schools lies throuG
the utter exclusion Of religious inculcatio
thcrefrom. We have set apart every Sc
euth day for religious teaching; those wi
see ft are at perfect liberty to add porte
of each secular day out OF school houl
Then why not have the teachers say to t
pupils, Religion is subject of the We
deepest concern but we are not at hber
to teach it, because your parents are n
agreed as to it's nature and requirement
Yopr school hours must therefore be devOt
to other themes; but your parents Will DIR,
YOU how and where TO obtain due knowled
Of God and His laws outside OF this bn
ing. Sunday is set apart for rehgio
teaching and observsnces; be sure to j
prove it as your parents direct 1t seel
TO US that we must come to this, or
shall see our common schools torn TO frs
ments.
"undestand that it suits US to have
Bible read in schools where such readI
does not give offense. 1t WAS 80 read IN
schools we attended,; and we thought W
of it then, as we do now. But we have
right to force the reading of it upon thu
who object to it; for, if We are to assn
such right, we virtually create an EstabH
ed Religion, which is directly forbidden
the Federal Constitution. Such establi
ment does not depend on the much or
little that men are required TO believe or
sent to, but 90 their being required to
sent to any creed or religions form,
whatever. That Of c. II. NAV be excelIt
1t may be hberaIit may command
assent OF great majority; but i'll matt
Of conscience majorities, however Va
have no power to coerce or constrain
smallest and most insignificant; muori
When they shat seriously attempt 1t, Il
good bye, Common Schools!'
-sa~s------~--~-T-e-s~-sp.s
ruff Inu,,on Cbaea an I.ReoanYarr Rahe1