Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-12-14
CHURCH AND STATE.
VIEWS OF REV. DR.. JETER.

VIEWS OF REV. DIR. JETER.
lo response to request to furnish the Rich
mond Dispatch with his views OF those portions
of the Presidents message which refer to the
taxation of church property and to public edu-
cation, Rev. DR.. j. B. Jeter, senior editor of
the Religious Herald, and one of the most dis
tineuished Baptist clergymen of the South, on
Saturday said:
Il have been able to bestow but little con-
sideration on the parts to which you refer.
will give you my hastily formed views Of them
without attempting to support them by argu-
ments.
First, then, 10 regard to public education
| must say can see no good reason why the
Federal Government should ntermeddle with
it. To say nothing of the difficulty of compeIl-
ing poor States, with scattered population,
to furnish adequate means for the education of
all the children within their limits, it seems
emiDently proper, if there are State Govern
ments, that they should have the entire con-
troll OF popular education within their respec
tive territories. They may be supposed to be
best acquainted with their resources and the
necessities, tastes, and wishes of their constt.
uents.
ITO compulsory education, by Federal or
State Government, | am earnestly opposed.
The right to teach involves the right to decide
right to prescribe ''a religions, atheistic (f
there be any such) and pagan" in its public
schools, then it has an equal right to require
that Christianity or Mohammedanism shall be
taught. The Constitution does not create
rights, but merely defines and limits such
as are admitted to exist 1t changes, as
the history of our country has shown, with
the views, interests, and capriees of the
people. The principle involved in compul-
sorry education by the State lies at the founda-
tion of all despotism and tyranny !: it is that
the people are not to be trusted to educate
themselves and their children but must, Tor
their own good, be taken under Government
tutelage. With many doubts as to its ultimate
advantages favor system of public educa-
tion by State authority, Of which parents and
guardians may avail themselves in the instruc-
tiou Of their children so far as their interests,
tastes, and circumstances may permit; but
would greatly prefer the abolition of the sys-
tenn to compulsory education.
with the views of the message in regard
to church property in the main | agree, but do
not clearly perceive why they should have
been presented by the President. The General
Government derives no portion Of its revenues
from direct taxation on property. 1t will be
time enough to discuss the propriety of taxing
church property by the Federal authority
when it is proposed to tax other property. At
present the question is theoretical, not prao
tical.
''As, however, the Governor of this State bas
suggested the desirabeness of taxing church
property for the support of the Government,
will offer few remarks Oh the subject: am
an advocate of clear separation Of Church
and State. By how mucn the State RENTS of
poses burdens on other interests for the SUD.
port of religion. The right to impose taxes
arises from the necessity Of revenues to enable
Governments to accomplish their legitimate
purposes; and they should be laid equally on
all property and all interests sharing in gov
ernmental protection unless there be clear
reasons, affecting the public good, to depart
from that rule. Church property is protected
by Government, and should bear its share of
the burden of supporting it.