The record-union., 1899-02-02
BIBLE IN THE SCHOOLS.
Important Decision by Michigan
Supreme Court.

supp CAAAC OVuA ts
(F'rom the Central Law journal, jan
uary 27th)
The reading of the Bible in public
schools as a supplementary text book
of reading where the teacher is not al
lowed to make comments and where
the reading takes place at the close
of school sessions from which, any pupil
may be excused, ON application of par
ents has been declared by the Supreme
Court of Michigan in Pfeiffer VS.. Board
of Education, not violation OF any OF
the provisions of the Michigan Constl-
tuition. This view is in harmony With
the leading adjudicated cases on the
subject The question came before the
Supreme Court of Maine as early as
1854. Donahue vs. Richards, 80 Me-,
$685. Though the provisions of the Con-
stitubion Of that State differed substan-
TALLY from that of other States, the
reasoning and conclusion of the Maine
court is of argumentaltive value. The
common schools, they say, are not for
the purpose of instruction in the theo-
logical doctrines of any religion or of
any sect. The State regards no one
sect as superior to any other, and TO
theological views as peculiarly entitled
to precedence. 1t is no part of the
duty of the instructor to give theologi-
cal instruction, and, if the peculiar
tenet of any particular sect were so
taught, it would furnish a we'll ground
ed cause of complaint on the part of
those who entertained different or OPP
pcsite religious sentiments. But the
instruction here given is not in fact,
and is not alleged to have been, in ar
ticles of faith No theological doctrines
were taught The creed of no sect was
affirmed or denied. The truth or false
hood of the book was not asserted. No
interference, by way of instruction,
with the views of the scholars, whether
derived from parental or sacerdotal
authority. is shown. The Bible was
used merely as a book in which in
struction in reading was given. But
reading the Bible is no more an inter
ference with religious belief than would
reading the mythology of Greece or
Rome be regarded as interfering with
religious belief or affirming the pagan
creeds A chapter in the Koran might
be read, yet it would not be am affirma-
ton of the truth of Mohammedanism,
or an interference with religious faith.
The Bible was used merely as a read
ing book, and for the information con-
tanned in 1t, as the Koran might be,
and not for religious instruction. If
suitable for that, it was suitable for
the purpose for which it was selected.
Nd one was required to believe, or pun
isled for disbelief, either in its inspira-
ton or want of inspiration, in the fidel-
ity of the translation or it's inaccuracy,
or in any set of doctrines deducible or
not deducible therefrOm. A similar
view was entertained by the Supreme
Court of Iowa in Moore VS.. Moore, ia
Iowa, 367. In treating of the effect
of the provision in the several State
Constitutions corresponding to that I'M
der discussion, Judge Cooley, in the
work above cited Constitutional Limi-
tations), says. at page 40: THE
Americans CONSTITUTIONS contain no pro-
visions which prohibit the authorities
from such solemn recognition of SUI
perintenddng Providence in public
transactions and enterprises as the re-
ligious sentiment of mankind inspires
and as seems meet and proper in finite
beings. Whatever may be the shade of
religious sbeMef, all must acknowledge
the Importance of recognizing in inn
.portant human affairs the superintend-
ing care Of the great Governor Of the