The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-05-14
BIBLE IN THE SCHOOLS.

| BIBLE IN THE SCHOOLS.
Recently We fled our objection tc
the "coursc in theology which the
Deseret News reported had been be.
gun in the public schools in the Gran.
| ite district. and later transferred to
new building erected for the pur-
| pose The same article in the News
reported that the State University gave
credit for work in these classes in the
ology The assumption in all this was
that classes in theology are proper sub
jectS for study and instruction IN the
public schools. Which is, of course,
in direct opposition 10 the State Con-
s,itution and the laws, And quite
properly IL is TO be reprehended
An effort was made to change the
basis of the discussion 10 a question
of Bible historical study, and it was
affirmed that credit was given in the
State University for the study Of Bible
history. This is affirmed by an article
from Principal George a. Eaton Of the
Salt Lake City high school. In the
Utah EDUCATIONAL Review for March
there is paper by Mr.. Eaton dealing
with Preparation for College Some
keen criticisms are made upon the re-
quircmeits of number of the col
leges. and the Utah University is not
neglected in these criticisms. Among
other points that Mr.. Eaton presents
we find the following paragraph.
Oral expression calls for one unit. II
seems absurd 10 place this subject on the
credit list on par with the Mathematics
or other basic branches. The sante Is
true oi Bible history. Why this study
understand. II Is not even q. permitted
subject In the public schools: on the
ground that such teaching is liable to
be coIored by religious bias
The aptness and force of that can
hardly bo denied The truth is that
the Bible is essentially a religious book,
and even if taught for the history that
is in it, that teaching must necessarily
bo tiuged with more or less (and usu-
ally) sectarian bias. Taking the Bible
as a whole. including the Old Tests
ment and the New, the Jews, whose
have as much right in the
public schools as any. could fairly and
Justly object to the introduction OF
the New Testament, as peculiarly sec
tartan Christian document. the basis
and validity Of which they fervcntly
dispute
Then. If the Bible is to be taught,
what Biblel Shall it be the version
of the Church of England. known as
The Authorized Version, or the Revised |
Or the Baptist Version7 Or
he Swedenborgisn edition? Or shall |
t be the "Inspired Version7 Or |
shall we wait until the Jews Of this
country, thoroughly competent in schol-
irship. in traditional lore, and in the |
custody of their own sacred writings,
i've us the translation that they are |
And if the Old Testa.
nent. shall we have also tho Book of
Mormon? Ii so. it would be but step
o the Doctrine and Covenants; and
here You are.
The truth of il is that tho whole
ubiect Of the Introduction Of Bible
tudy in the public schools is so fraught
With contention and valid objections
hat the course of wisdom is to leave
he Bible out Of the public schools al.
ogether. since its introduction, where
Introduced at all. is necessarily ac-
with the idea that it is es.
and peculiarly n work of au-
hOrity, inspired of God, and binding |.
pom all. And vet there are so many
ifferent versions, such varying ideas
bout it, so many confusing interpre-
ationS aud such wide difference Of
pinion as TO what ought TO be taught
rom it or what ought not. that the
ook is best left out; and this is also
he plain requirement Of the Consti.
Dtion and the Laws