Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1871-05-03
THE SCHOOL QUESTION,

We publish very cheerfully in another
column the reply of Father Finnegan to
the article of zone of very Many" pub
lished Sunday. The reply fairly makes an
issue which, so far rs We are concerned,
shall be vigorously pressed, but always in
the spirit of entire fairness and liberality.
A question that does not bear discussion is
not worthy OF public attention.
There can be no mistake as to the posi-
ton takenlby Father Finnegan. He asks
for his people division of the school money
of the city and county, and distinctly for
the purpose of maintaining Catholic
schools. This is just precisely what we are
opposed to, and what we understand zone
of very Many" to oppose. We most
positively object to a division of this
money for the Catholics, Methodists
Presbyterians or any other denomination.
We are opposed to scctaridn schools, but
more particularly do we oppose obolishinS
common schools and supplantng them
with schools for sects. We think the spi-
rit of our American institutions conflicts
most Enthusiastically with this policy. We
want our young men educated as 1mcri-
cans, without reference to religious doc
trines. We can not afford to carry denom-
national doctrines into our schools to fritz
ter away their power and pervert their OBJ
ject. Parents and ministers outside of the
school room can prosecute their religious
efforts and indoctrinate the young as zeal
ously as they choose, but the object of the
school system is to give to the young an
education. If the right to demand dirj-
sion of the schoolfund is once conceded ii
would entirely destroy the school system
of most of the States, n system which we
sincerely believe has done more to promote
liberal government and the general pros
perity of the people than any other influ-
ence.
There is a FEASIBILITY about the claim
now advanced which is apt to influence
superficial thinkers or observers, which we
cannot overlook. Our Government has
wisely separated entirely the Church and
State. 1t would be direct invasion of this
policy to now concede the right of any de-
nomination to demand a share of public
taxes for schools. 1t might as well be de-
manded fer asylums, courts. prisons.
Railroad corporations might as we'll ask
division of public money to educate engi-
neers or mechanics. 1t is the result this
apparently plausible demand leads to that
we must consider. 1t leads inevitably to
the utter destruction of common schools,
a feature of American institutions we can
not consent to eradicate.
We do not think schools ought 10 be
made obnoxious by intoxicating religious
doctrines, further than is necessary, to i'm
press upon the young those leading doc
trines of christianity which are implicitly
everywhere recognized in America. We
want to see our schools open and free to
Catholics as well as Presbyterians, but we
can never consent to abolish them because
they are not agreeable to either.
America is free, but it is not so free as
that we can consent to have it changed 80
as to become unti-American. Our Catholic
friends ask too much when they ask us to
give up our schools, simply because they do
not feel like patronizing them. They are
free 10 attend our schools, or free to estab-
lish their own, but not free to demand
what inevitably tends to destroy our com
mon school system and build up their
own. - q 49,
We say to Mr.. Finnegan that he is mt
perfect liberty to use orr columns for a
fair and liberal discussion of this question,
and we confess to a desire to have it dis
cussed, if it is really seriously contemplated
making such division, for we cannot con-
ceal the fact that there Il is great deal more
on both sides yet to present, and that it is
really one of the most important questions
this community has ever considered.
---% 90 %---