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

The A6aNa7tc6 denies CnaC eQuC4tE0n 0lVOr-
ced from religion and religious culture is
futed the reasonings of Prof. Taylor Lewis,
cited by the Catholic World in proof that it
u, we win consider its denial. Prof. Lewis,
who is q Congregationalist or, what in this
controversy is the same thing, Presby-
terian, shows that no neutral position in
and that all education not religious is sure
to be Anti-religious. He who does not be-
lievs, doubts, and he who doubts denies, and
the human mind never is aud never can be
in state of equipoise between religion and
NO religion, and therefore our Lord says,
Gle that'is not for Me is against Me-" 1t
would be difficult to conceive how an edu-
cation that excludes all religion should be
otherwise than anti-reigious.
All education, the Advance holds, should
be religious, only in the sense that call
secular business should be done on religious
nrincinles." while it denies that the School
is tho place where theseprinciples are to be
taught. Secular business cannot he con-
Quoted on religious principles, unless bust
ness men, before engaging in business pur-
suits, have been taught those principles and
thoroughly imbued with them; and where
il this to 10 done, if not in the scAool3 To
rank the school as a secular Institution
along with manufactures, banks, mercan-
tile establishments &C., is simply to assert
what we deny, and is not a reason for ex-
Guiding religion from the schools, and is
far from proving that education divorced
from religion has any value, or that it is
not anti religious. The Advance, published
in city famous for divorces, may have
contracted an undue prejudice in their
favor, and fallen into the errer of thinking
that the farther they are carried the better.
We do not deny, and never have denied.
that the several branches of secular Learning
can be taught in schools from which reli-
gion is excluded what we have said, and
what the Catholic World has said ia, that
We attach no value to such instruction or
such teaching, when divorced from religion.
Secular learning, without religion, is Of no
value either to the dividual, or tOsociety
A mans whole life should be suberdinated
to the end for which God has made and re-
deemed him. Does tire Advance need to
be reminded that it profteth man nothing
to gain the whole world, if he lose his own
soulf We Catholics begin to buiad with
learning we do not value nor care to give
1t for it's own sake, for man should not live
for the secular as an end. We value it only
a. associated with and subordinated to re-
Ngion. AS this cannot be done except N
schools in which religion is the Informing
principle, the beginning and end of the
Instruction given. We are opposed to
purely secular schools, as we are to schools
in which we are not free to teach and prac-
tice oar own religion, or to schools IN which
. religion contrary to ours is directly or in
directly taught.
and morality are sepaEable. 2. That there
8 sort of Christianity in general, which
Catholics and ProtestaSts hold in. common
and that this common Christianity is
all that needs to be Taught in the public
schools. In neither of these suggestions
do We agree with it. 1t says, the State
must educate in the Fundamental morality
and rightly says that is "imPossible
without the recognition of the being and
providence of God" But this fundamental
morality cannot be separated from Chris
tan dogma, for all the Christian dogmata
are implied in the being and providence of
God. The State, then, cannot teach fun
damental morality. unless it can teach
theology and all that belongs to it. No
man can be religious without morality, and
no man can be moral without religion;
for morality is only the practice of faith,
and Professionals do not teach the same fan
damental morality, any mere than the
same religion
We would remind the Adsaaase that the
Puolic schooiH, whatever it may say to the
contrary, are, as far as religious at all, pure
~ Protestant; Tor Protestants can teach in
= them their religious principles, and we
cannot teach in them ours. Yet we have
as much right to. have our religieu taught
&c the pubic expense as they have theirs
y ne state Dy ATS constitution is no more
theirs than it is ours. Why ia it, then, if
we demand equal rights with them in the
pubic schools, their pulpits ring with
furious denominations of us, as if we were
0espolling them of their rights. and the
Protestant public made to believe that we
are seeking to Cypress their conscienoes z
As It possible that they do not see and fully
Understand their injustice towards usi
There is notaa Catholic country in Europe
where .PrQteGtants are taxed TO sunnort
Catholic achOels, and if they were. should
we ever hear the last of it : From the out
break Of RroteStantism, in the sixteenth
century down to this day, have not Pro-
testants Wade 1t q point to charge upon Ca
tholics the tyranny and injustice in matters
OF religion, of which Protestants alone are
guiltya
We confeso it seems to us hardly possible
that Professionals should not see the gross
injustice of their. conduct, and yet they
pretend that it is not 1hey who traRaple on
our rights, but we who are trying to tram
PIE on theirs. Do they not know better?
Or ls 1T that they hold that Catholics have
NO r1ghts, as citizens, that PrOtestants are
oouno to respect2 Do they claim to be
american citizens, and yet hold themselves
Tree 20 violate the American doctrine of
equal rights and religious liberty We
regret to be forced to say that such appears
to oe the Tact. They seem to suppose, be-
cause they are the majority and we the mi
nority of the American people, thew have
the right to trample on our rights at their
pleasure, even after having promised us
equality, and then to accuse us of tyranny,
of oppression, if we ask simply what is our