Menace to the Nation: Why Jews Oppose Teaching Religion in Schools

Julius T. Loeb, “Menace to the Nation: Why Jews Oppose Teaching Religion in Schools,” Washington Post (Washington, DC), April 10, 1905.

MENACE TO THE NATION

Why Jews Oppose Teaching Religion in Schools.

RABBI LOEB TO REV. DR. M’KIM

Gross Immortality, Persecution, and Bloodshed the Inevitable Result of Union of Church and State — Impossible to Reconcile Conflicting Creeds — Jews Grant and Demand Religious Liberty. 

    Editor Post: The question of religious education in the public schools is at its height of controversy, and is as far from solution now as when first started. 

    It was my intention to keep out of the arena of polemics in this most serious and intricate question, the very mention of which is already breeding ill will among the various sections of the community. Yet I feel myself impelled to yield to the request of many that I state publicly my personal view of the much-discussed subject. It shall be my especial task in the outset to furnish the plain reasons as to why Jews, as citizens and as a religious community, are and should be irrevocably opposed to the proposed measure. 

    It is not out of disregard for the Bible and religious ethics that any one may dare oppose an exercise thereof in the public schools. But it is the motive power behind it which makes a religion a bone of contention and am menace to the public safety. 

    The Jew, more than all others, perceives the danger that is ahead of the movement to instill dogmatic creed into matters of state; to change the tendency of a public institution which hitherto has remained a sacred ground, a temple universal for the cultivation of a free and righteous citizenship—all equal under the law, all equal before God. From the practical experiences gathered in the long run of his captivity the Jew has acquired a keen sense to readily discern the evil consequences incurred by an injudicious action of this kind, which will move back the hour-hand of time and set at naught all the noble efforts of heroes and martyrs who lived and died in the cause of liberty. 

    The Jew is too well practiced and well familiar with such repeated history, which may again and again invade human society, despite its vaunted culture and civilization. The higher an ideal the more disastrous its vilification. Religion is the ideal of ideals, and as in the past, so in the future, its misuses will entail a series of misfortunes not only for those who are a direct object of race prejudice, but also for the community at large. 

Danger to American Institutions. 

    All liberty-loving citizens who are solicitous for the welfare of this country and fully appreciative of its blessings, equally dispensed to Jew and Gentile alike, must now rise in one mighty protest ere religious discrimination has deprived them of their right to protest, ere the superstructure of the American institutions has been shaken, ere the monster of dogmatism has crept into the body politic of this free republic and sapped its vital energies, ere the galling differences of religious creed have been laid bare to the tender mind and left thereon the deadly imprint of a two-edged sword—a one sided opinion and a cultivated hatred toward all else. Unless the movement die in its incipiency, there is every reason to fear the gravest danger for the American institutions. 

    More and more drastic measures will be gradually adopted under the direct or indirect influence of a dominant church, freedom of thought will be banished, and the people deprived of their religious and civil privileges. It needs but to introduce religion into state affairs and make Sunday’s day of rest compulsory on all citizens, and all the rest of things will follow to outroot the fundamental principles of Americanism and bring on a period of intolerance, hatred, and cruel persecution. 

    While the misdoings of the present is but of a casual nature, the prosed system of religious instruction is bound to become a standing evil of a national character; while the immorality complained of now is only affecting certain individuals in the community, the clash of conflicting creeds will result in a wholesale monstrosity, a frightful plague, smiting its thousands and spreading death and destruction on all around. 

    That this must be the outcome of a reunion of church and state is unquestionable. We have before our eyes most palpable proof of just such conditions not only in past history, but also in the daily occurrences of the present. 

    The technical terms sought by Dr. McKim, as, for instance, sectionary, lectionary, thesis of religious ethics, &c.. will not alter the situation. It is religion in the American public schools!

Destructive of Civil Liberty.

    His argument, again, that religion and state are different from church and state—that is absurd. There is no denial of the fact that the public schools are the product of American citizenship, and that this citizenship is its only ruling power, its government or state. Now, if an endeavor be made to merge the citizenship into one denominational creed, the dominant church will necessarily have the upper hand in the matter, and will mold its character for its own particular or personal ends, to the detriment of other religious communities who believe themselves to have an equal right to exist.

    The proposition to make a course of readings from both the Old and New Testaments acceptable to all is utterly impossible. The teacher engaged in the public school work is naturally affiliated with either one or the other of the respective denominations. If then you believe him to be conscientious enough not to belie or betray his own faith, you must expound the Biblical passages in accordance with his own accepted views and traditions. The Christian teacher will thus endeavor to inject Christianity, while the Jewish teacher will fain preach Judaism in the public schools.

    A lady school teacher of the Hebrew faith in speaking to me of the subject the other day has very wisely remarked: “Should religious and Bible study enter the curriculum of instruction, and this task be likewise intrusted to me, I shall read to my pupils the Decalogue in its pure and simple meaning, stating that ‘Thou shalt have no other gods’ is absolute and unconditional: that ‘Thou shalt make unto thee any graven image; as an object of worship, is binding now as in the old days of heathendom, and that all images of a meditator and ideals of an incarnate God are vestiges of paganism. As to the fourth commandment, shall peruse it without comment. If questioned as to Sunday observance, the answer will follow that it is a misconception from the very start and is unwarranted by divine authority.” To guard against and similar “free thought,” teachers of the Hebrew persuasion will eventually be thrust out of the American schools. Similar ostracism will be practiced against other sections of humanity who differ in part with the set form of moral duties as propagated by Dr. McKim and his particular church.

Church and State Separate.

    There is no possible way to reconcile religion with matters of state, or to justify Bible study in the American public schools. The main point of argument is, here, as to whether or not it were possible to reach one common plane upon which all may stand: to make religious education in the public schools acceptable to all and damaging to none. Dr. McKim says he has solved this problem. To my simple mind, however, this question is no less difficult to solve than would be an attempt to make out of all the existing creeds one joint religion. Yes, you can do that if you propose to strike the matter at its root, i. e., to strike a blow at the varying creeds in behalf of an “American religion;” to begin a cultivation of the young into a body of religionists in the same schools, and by the same means and methods as you cultivate them into a common citizenship. But this is exactly what the people do not want; each religious denomination claims preference in the matter and would fain call herself “the American religion;” each one scores its own substantial grounds for refusing to yield to any other persuasion.

    There can be none to oppose the principles of morality upon the basis of belief in an Almighty Ruler of the universe, who is the father of one as He is the father of all. But can you compel one to believe in gods instead of God? Or can you say, “Believe in a meditator and you are redeemed, or disbelieve and you are condemned to eternal peridition?” The New Testament as well as the Old are included in the resolution framed by Dr. McKim. How, then, will it ever be acceptable to, or compatible with the religious ethics of those who must not so believe, and with whom this belief can only be a breach of both religious and moral duty?

    The very fact that a conscience clause is needed to reserve the rights of parents to withdraw their children from the religious exercises, if repugnant to their ethical nature—this in itself makes it plain that there is something foul in the entire scheme that the American school is no place for religious teaching.

    I learn that in those places on the continent, where religion has been made a practice in the public schools, there Satan has already begun to show his signs, and children of the Jewish faith suffer maltreatment and galling contempt. 

A Square Deal to All.

    Jews will always be satisfied to retain their Bible and study it in their homes. In civil society they wish to be known as plain citizens, and not as religionists. They would not encroach upon the religious liberty of others, and justly demand that no encroachment be made upon their own.

    The provision in rule 46 of the school board that “each teacher should endeavor to inculcate obedience to the law of God,” is perfectly agreeable to Jews, as well as to the rest of their fellow-citizens. There is no Jew worthy of the name to oppose the teachings morality. Morality is none else ban an all-embracing faith, realization of an eternal law by which we are all bound as children of one common parentage, as creatures of one Universal God. But the moment you attempt to intrude upon the harmonious order of civil society by dictates of personal belief and dogmatic creed, the teaching must cease to be morality, and must have but a contrary effect. While we who believe in God and His sacred Word are all agreed that morals and religious duty are closely connected and identified with each other, we must not ignore the fact that morality is all-embracing, and cannot be monopolized by any one particular creed. It is the sense of justice to all, the obedience to established laws, and the equal protection under the same laws. And where this is not the case, the result is anything but gratifying. In Russia, for instance, only those who are identified with the dominant church are protected under the laws, and no others, even though they be religious and moral men and women. And what is the consequence? Gross immorality, bloodshed, and persecution; corruption and outrage of people and government alike. 

    On this free American soil we may grasp the meaning of an all-embracing morality so long as we dwell like brethren together; so long as we remain Americans in our social relations. 

    The alarming rate of criminality complained of is certainly not to be laid at the door of a lack of religious study. The world was never more religiously informed than it is now; but it must be ascribed to economical conditions, to the high society life, extravagance, and covetousness. Let a movement be initiated for a purer and simpler life, and it may not be amiss for Rev. Dr. McKim to set an example of mediocrity and a plainer mode of living.

    But when the evil spirit of gone-by ages rises again from the nethers of Sheol to sow hatred and dissension among brethren, then God save us all!

Rocks Threatening the Nation.

    At the first conference held for the purpose of considering the question at issue the Rev. Dr. McKim has taken particular care to impress us all with the knowledge that he is a son of those who fought for American freedom. I, a foreign-born, fresh from the shackles of tyranny, was eager, anxious, and expectant to hear the broad humane principles of Americanism propounded from the mouth of this proud scion of the great sires, the harbingers of liberty. But imagine my consternation at hearing the crude remark hurled by this gentleman: “Let the foreigner take this country as he finds it.”

    Still, as a Jew, always ready to forgive. I argued that the heat of discussion will often evoke things for which we can never hold one responsible. But when recently the same reverend gentleman in cold deliberation has burst forth in an anathema against Jews, Adventists, Germans, and such, he revealed to us his ultimate purpose. From this we have learned that the matter is not as pure and simple as we regarded it previously, but that behind it is that old imbroglio—the question of the foreigner, the rock against which many a nation went crashing into ruin. To the old Greeks everything was barbarian except themselves. To the Romans, however, Greeks were barbarians as well as any others except themselves. And both of these are no more. Thus were overthrown many other powerful nations of a remote past, and thus hath the arrogant Spain sealed her fate with the banishment of the foreigner.

    It is passing strange that this learned Christian divine fails to realize one simple truth set forth in the first pages of the Bible by way of the following narrative:

Oppress Not the Stranger.

    In the primitive ages of the world’s existence there was once a most beautiful and prosperous country. So prosperous it was that it soon became the admiration of the outer settlements. There were charming gardens of luscious fruit round about it; grotesque scenes of rich green fields and woodlands, vineyards, and olive groves; graceful streamlets washing its shores and watering the ground—a veritable garden of the Lord, even as the land of Egypt, when thou comest to Zoar. The proud possessors of that land, however, soon grew arrogant and presumptuous of their good fortune. They became exceedingly wicked and sinful before the Lord. They determined to vilify the stranger. They framed laws to the effect that no new settlers be admitted into the territory, nor let any one cross its borders. They even looked askance at the few people who recently came to sojourn there. One day two strangers visited their capital. These were naturally greeted with hooting and jeering. Both old and young joined in an attack upon them. A single individual, a kinsman of father Abraham, endeavored to harbor the visitors, and he prayed of his townsmen: “O brethren, do not act so wickedly!” “Away with thee!” came the answer. “Behold, this one came to sojourn, and he surely acts a judge, to define our constitutional laws, to prevent ostracism, and deprive us of our exclusive prerogatives. Now, we shall do more evil to thee than to them.”

    The sequel of this story is well familiar to all. This beautiful land now lieth waste and desolate; the whole soil thereof is brimstone and a burning desolation, which is not sown and beareth not, and in which no kind of grass springeth up. The Dead Sea alone is left to tell the shocking tale, the awful lesson afforded to all succeeding generations.

    This is the indefinite result of every attempt to vilify the stranger. In order to save this blessed country from a similar fate we shall cry out: “Halt! Oppress not the stranger; let no dissension enter the midst of the community and beware of religion in the public school.”

    RABBI JULIUS T. LOEB

    Adath Israel Congregation