The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1870-05-15

hearts of the people. The more distinctly
people understand the dogma Of religion,
tho moro Aaeafly will they be abao~so w0r-
ship G6d ,se4A mo man can truly love God
especially His mercy and goodness. Why,
the very existence of God is a dogmatic
fact. Are we to 60 into school and say !:
"Practice religion, dear cbiidreV, but it is
not allowed for US to say there ia q God;
II is not allowed that we should tell
YOU OF our Lord, to, tell you what our
Of passages of the Bible, as all this is un-
lawful ]" What can a child know Of re-
ligion if eliminated from dogma Religion
without dogma is myth. But we are
told We don't wish to Danish religions
we wish to continue it in the proper places,
in church or.at home" Now, one thing has
guments that have been brought forward
by the advocates of the secular system, and
it is this--the utter want of practical
knowledge of the working of education on
the part of those men; they know nothing
of the working of education. We have
been engaged in this work for years-we
have been teaching and managing schools
for twenty years, and some of us for thirty
years-dAd what has been our experience Z
l can speak of my own experience, and
also of the experience of my own brethren.
Going about daily, as VIC do, among the
very poor classes of society, | am able to
state to you that it would be utterly i'm
possible to teach children religion anless it
were taught to them in school. Many of
them are the children Of hard working pa
rents. How is it possible for men of this
kind, worn out with toll, and perhaps
obliged to spend the few hours at home in
bed, in order to get the necessary strength
aud vigor which long hours of labor had
worn outflow is it possible for snch men
to set about teaching children religion
Then, again, it is difficult thing for
clergymen on Sunday, after the hard work
of the day, to give sufficient time to the in
struction of children. There is another OBJ
that the State has no power and no au-
thority to teach religion. We grant that
to the full. We don't ask the State to teach
religion, and the State has never attempted
to teach it. We ask the State to leave us
to teach it, and not to interfere with our
religion, Again it is said, "Why, are we
to be called upon to pay for q religion in
which we don't believe Z" Now, think
must characterize this argument, as 1 may
characterize them all as being mere clap
trap it shows but q very poor appTecia-
ton of the intellect and. requirements Of
the audience which they address when
those people think that such arguments as
these will weigh with them. This argu-
ment is simply falsehood and fallacy.
We don't ask any one to pay for religious
teaching We don't want any man to pay
for such teaching, and no one is called upon
to pay for religious teaching. If they OBJ
ject to pay for religion they hate, object
to pay for the absence of religion. But it
is mere wasting of words, as there is no
one asking for payment for teaching re-
ligion. Another difficulty has been started.
l read in paper this very day that the
Government must teach all religions or
none and this is, they say, the dilemma.
The State cannot teach all religions, and,
therefore, it must teach none. That was
the way they argued. 1 don't acknowledge
the dilemma. l say let the Government
teach none; and we don't ask it to teach
any. We ask them to leave religion alone,
as there is no necessity for the Government
to teach all religions or none.