The Rock Island Argus and daily union. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1920-1923, 1920-05-20

u FL
|efature tat would 50. Every sue
cessful teacher Of literature knows
now necsosary II II for his or her
scholars y have the comnnents and
explanAtjuas ON the part or the
teacher. But the bible-a book
which has been written thousands
OF years $50 III languages mot
known TO III scholars and which u
given to th@n only In translation--
should be read without any such
comment.
Though the bible speaks to MS in
very clear and simple language, 1t
treats on such sublime things that
We Ia our sinful condition cannot
grasp them mmediately-even the
most learned theologian after many
years study will always find new
thoughts in the simple wordsAand
I this grand book is to be treated in
| our schools in manner suggested
by the National Reform associa-
ton! Why should this book suffer
such an ignomilyin one Of our coun-
try's greatest institutions, and be
denied what we readily concede to
any other textbook in use, be II
ever SO mediocre?
Let every Christian who prizes
the bible over all books in the
world look at the issue squarely
from this well taken viewpoint, and
he or she will say. mo, in such a
manner my dear bible shall not be
used. for that would be an abuse
OF the same; il it cannot be used
differently in our schools, then let
good enough alone, and have nc
bible reading at all in that institu-
tion."
/ Bound To Comment.
| However, We who oppose the in.
PRODUCTION Of bible reading in the
schools of our state. know fully
we'll that, notwithstanding the sin.
cerest intentions of not permitting
any comments, it cannot be avoid
ed that, in course of time, thu
teacher will make remarks ant
give explanations of the text. The
intentions may be ever SO good Al
present, to follow to the course in
Dictated. yet it has been shown thai
such reading without comment.
and explanations cannot be- up
held for any length of time. Ii
many instances the scholars will
force the teacher to give an ex
PLANTATION. And what then? Wha
kind of comments and explanation
would then be given? In the frs
place the serious question wodlt
. arise, what version should be used
the King James version, or on,
of the revised versions. or tn
Douay bible, which is in use in til,
Catholic church? Should the pu
Pill learn from the passage in tn
Book Of Job (Chapt. 19:25-26) &C
cording to the grand st. James edi
. ton that there is resurrection o
, the body. as we also confess in tn
, apostolic creed, or shall it, accord
ing to some of the revised version
{ learn to deny it? And what il tn
, Catholic citizen should protest, an
l rightfully protest. against both c
T these versions and demand tina
l the Douay version be used? Wha
5 right have We Protestants to fore
3 our bible version on our Catholi
: fellow citizens and his children
( Just as little as they have the rigl
to force their version upon US. S
introduction Of any Of the version
| would Immediately precipitate Cit
zens who otherwise lived peace
! fully side by side into a conflic
This is not imaginary, but take
: from real life, where the absurdit
has been committed of introducin
3 compulsory bible reading into tn
: public schools. But after the ques
/. ton about the version is settlet
with a lot of grumbling on eithe
side, what kind of different explar
atoms and comments would di
ferent teachers then give?
$ What OF Atheistc Teachers.
S Suppose the teacher is an agno.
= tic or atheist. as often the case
: would his scoffing remarks pleas
: the Christian parents? Would th