March 6, 1890
WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE
THE decision of Judge Bennett, as noticed last week, was that the reading of the Douay version of the Bible, according to Roman Catholic views, in the public schools, would be “sectarian instruction” within the meaning of the Constitution, and would be to inflict a wrong upon those who are not Roman Catholics. We say again, that if the reading of the Douay version, according to the Roman Catholic forms, in the public schools, would be sectarian instruction, then it is as certainly true that the reading of the King James version, according to Protestant forms, is also sectarian instruction.
It is a distinctively Protestant doctrine that the Bible, without note or comment, is the word of God. It is a distinctively Roman Catholic doctrine that the Bible as explained by the Church is the word of God. The latter is no more distinctively Catholic doctrine than the former is distinctively Protestant. The Roman Catholic doctrine on this point is not one iota more sectarian than is the Protestant doctrine. As is well known the Protestant position is defined in the motto, “The Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants.” This is virtually confessed by Judge Bennett when he says:—
It is a matter of history that from the time the King James version of the Bible was printed and published it has always been read by all Protestant denominations without hindrance, and that it has been used as a reading-book in the schools of England as well as in the common schools of this country.
Certainly it has been read by all Protestant denominations, and that because they are Protestant. Certainly it has been read in the schools of England, because England is distinctively a Protestant country; Protestantism is there established by law; none but a Protestant sovereign can ever sit upon the throne; the schools of England are Protestant schools; and the King James version is read in those schools because they are Protestant and because it is intended to keep them Protestant by inculcating Protestant doctrine. And when Judge Bennett presents this reason for sanctioning the reading of the King James version in the public schools of Wisconsin or any other State, he thereby argues that those are Protestant schools, and that it is proper to endeavor to keep them so by Protestant influence and the inculcation of Protestant doctrine; and this, too, at the expense of the Roman Catholics, by compelling them to pay taxes for the same. And that is sectarian as certainly as the like would be sectarian if done by Roman Catholics.
The School Board in their answer further,—
Upon information and belief, deny that the Roman Catholic Church is the only infallible teacher or interpreter of the Bible; but, on the contrary, aver upon information and belief, that every person has the right to read and interpret it for himself.
This raises an issue that is doubly false. (1) The plaintiffs did not attempt to assert, as this answer assumed, that they wished to oblige the School Board or anybody else to receive or to acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as the only infallible teacher and interpreter of the Bible. They only asserted that this was their conscientious belief, and asserted their right not to be compelled to receive instruction in the Bible from any other source; and that when they were so compelled their rights of conscience were invaded. (2) It avers that every person has the right to read and interpret the Bible for himself, when the whole issue at bar was whether a person has the right to read it for another, and to another, against his will; and whether a set of persons can compel others to hear it read.
Although upon both these points a false issue was raised in the answer, it yet remains that on both points the Catholics were right. Has not any man an inalienable right—civil, constitutional right—to believe that the Roman Catholic is the only infallible teacher or interpreter of the Bible? Has not any man an inalienable right to believe that when the Bible is read or interpreted by another, there is danger that those who hear will receive erroneous impressions, and that such impressions will be dangerous to their spiritual welfare? Has not any person an in-alienable right to believe these things? Is it not true that these things have a proper place in the realm of conscience? Is it not true, then, that these things may be conscientiously believed? Is it not a fact that the Roman Catholics do conscientiously believe thus?
On the other hand, it is not necessary to ask whether every person has not the right to read and interpret the Bible for himself, because the school board “aver” this. Very well, then. Does not the right of every man to read and interpret it for himself carry with it also the equal right not to read or interpret it at all? And does not the right not to read or interpret it likewise carry with it the right not to be compelled to hear it read? When, therefore, the Roman Catholics were compelled to hear the Bible read in the public school buildings of the city of Edgerton, Wisconsin, was not that a direct interference with the rights of conscience?
It is impossible for us to conceive how any fair-minded person can answer any of these questions in any other way than in the affirmative. Therefore, when the Constitution of Wisconsin declares “nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted,” and the Roman Catholics appealed for protection in this their constitutional as well as inalienable right, ought not their appeal to have been heard? Yet instead of their appeal being heard, they were twitted from the judicial bench with seeing to “control the conscientious beliefs and actions of others,” and with “creating discord.”
The Court held that such was not in any way any interference with the rights of conscience, and justified itself in the following form: The Constitution of Wisconsin says, “The right of every man to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed,” and the Court said:—
But what are those rights [the rights of conscience]? Simply a right to worship the supreme Being according to the dictates of the heart. Can it be justly said in this case that the children of the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs themselves, are in any way prohibited from worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience? Does the simple reading of the King James version of the Bible interfere with or take away this great right of the plaintiffs or their children?
That is to say that, although the Roman Catholics are compelled to hear read the Protestant Bible according to Protestant form in the public school-house, they are not prohibited from reading it, or hearing it read, according to Roman Catholic forms, wherever else they may choose; that although they are compelled, in the public school, to conform to the dictates of the Protestant conscience, and to pay for it at the same time, they are not prohibited from worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience wherever else they please. In other words, although every Roman Catholic has the “great right,” the constitutional right, “to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience,” he must at the same time conform to the dictates of the Protestant conscience when required to do so. Such are the rights of conscience in Wisconsin.
(Concluded next week.
Nothing but a H
THE eight-hour movement atbract4ng considerable atte here is a bit of attention that yet seem to have attracted: great objects proposed to be by it is to furnish employm who now have no work. Th there is such a vast number of ployed that the workday mu’ ened, thus making it necessar more men to do the work that t ~ and so secure work for the arm unemployed. But here are the Sabbath Union, and the Wo e tian Temperance Union ca campaign to secure laws “to
points a false Per, it yet re-the Catholics an an inalieninal right—to itholic is the rpreter of the mn inalienable the Bible is ther, there is ‘r will receive that such imo their spirit-person an in-se things? Is have a proper ace? Is it not may be con-.ot a fact that nscientiously necessary to not the right e for himself, .r” this. Very ght of every t for himself right not to and does not rpret it likeot to be corn-in, therefore, xompelled to public school ton, Wiscon-ference with mceive how iswer any of way than in ten the Con-n “nor shalle with, the at every person t for himself. doubly false. npt to assert, they wished i anybody else the Roman ily infallible Bible. They heir conscien-r right not to uetion in the e; and that 1 their rights
(2) It avers right to read himself, when rhether a per- for another, is will; and compel others
ct laws to prevent it? and how can it that there is such an Egyptian bondage enslaved toil as the Sunday-law advoes so lamentingly describe? In the proed efforts in behalf of the workingman, se two movements do not fit together all. And the reason is that one of them he Sunday-law effort—is a fraud. It is ue they claim that those are “forced labor” only on Sunday. But, in view the vast army of the unemployed, is it t true that there are a multitude of men o would be only too glad to have the portunity to work on Sunday for proper ages? The fact is, that poor plea in half of forced labor on Sunday has not solitary item of merit to support it. It nothing but a sheer hoax.
charged the itpiscc leaven and superstil the ordinances of r tained these. As p vince the Puritans liberty in such thir copalians produced servance of Sunda: of the Church am authority of the (Puritans therefore selves in observing ing the authority o authority upon wl rests.
This put the Pi they had to cast ab (themselves out. 7 the authority of tl they did that won] tion to observe a Directions of Scrip’ they found none, a give it up. There What could be do the inventive genii play. He came t, theory that, It is n day, but “a sevent required by the fo be kept for the Si the seventh day 1 day of Christ’s
seventh day fro seventh day is commandment, so from creation, a ~ resurrection and are “both of they prehended in the genus comprehen Thus the fourth to enforce the se until the resurre e the first day fro ie
This brought it relieved them which the answ had cast them. wonderful spre.
“All the Purit. trine, and list’ spending that p lie, family, and Says Heylin : i
from the judicial bench with seeking to “control the conscientious beliefs and actions of others,” and with “creating discord.”
The Court held that such was not in any way any intercerence with the rights of conscience, and justified itself in the following form: The Constitution of Wisconsin says, “The right of every man to worship Almighty’ God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed,” and the Court said:
But what are those rights [the rights of con-science)? Simply a right to worship the Supreme Being according to the dictates of the heart. Can it be justly said in this case that the children of the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs themselves, are in any way prohibited from worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience? Does the simple reading of the King James version of the Bible interfere with or take away this great right of the plaintiffs or their children?
That is to say that, although the Roman Catholics are compelled to hear read the Protestant Bible according to Protestant form in the public school-house, they are not prohibited from reading it, or hearing it read, according to Roman Catholic forms, wherever else they may choose : that although they are compelled, in the public school, to conform to the dictates of the Protestant conscience, and to pay for it at the same time, they are not prohibited from worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience wher-, ever else they please. In other words, al-though every Roman Catholic has the “great right,” the constitutional right, “to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience,” he must at the same time conform to the dictates of the Protestant conscience when required to do so. Such are the rights of conscience in Wisconsin.
A. T. J.