i ?. -vwfpr "y v rv ,
The Commoner
APRIL, 1922
:-U
5.
t.
VI
Religious Instruction and the State
( Address by Governor It. A. Nostos of North
nntnta delivered at State University, February
??, 1922, Founder's Day.
One of the speeches, tonight, deals with the
Mihiect of our debt to the founders, and in
Sneaking to you about the university and the
state I assume that it was the expectation of the
rommittee that I would discuss this subject in
qucli a way as to show whether in the growth of
the university, and in. its service to the state it
had justified the faith of the founders, and at
least in a measure discharged this indebted-
n The men who founded the university were
largely the same as those who six years there
after established the state, adopted our consti
tution and enacted the main body of our laws.
It might therefore be well to ascertain what ex
pression they have given in the fundamental law
and in our statutory enactments to these prin
ciples and ideals, and by what agencies and
means they hoped and expected to carry them
Into effect.
In section 149 of the constitution and in Sec
tion 1382 of the Compiled Laws, the aims and
purposes for our educational system are ex
pressed in the following language: Moral instruc
tion tending to impress upon the minds of pupils
the impoirtance of truthfulness, temperance, pur
ity, public spirit, patriotism, international peace,
obedience to parents, due deference for old age,
and respect for honest labor shall be given by
each teacher in the public schools.
It is therefore apparent that the founders de
sired not only to promote industrial, scientific,
and agricultural growth and development of our
state and to prevent the illiteracy of our people,
but also desired by means of' our free public ,
schools, including the university, to increase the
general intelligence of our people, and to pro-'
mote the patriotism, integrity and morality of
our voters by instruction that would tend
to impress - upon the growing mind the
vital importance of truthfulness, temper
ance, purity, public spirit, patriotism, inter
national peac.e; obedience to parents, due defer
ence for old age and respect for honest labor of
every kind. These founders had discovered from
practical experience in dealing with men and in
subduing nature, that the development of our
citizenship in these traits of character was essen
tial to the growth and stability of our state
and the permanence of our institutions. And so
they laid such strong emphasis upon these funda
mental requirements.
As a graduate of the university and as a man
vitally interested in the welfare of the state, I
take much pride in the fact that during the life
of the University, the institution has continued
to emphasize the value of these high ideals
which lie at the foundation of the successful
development of any great institution.
Not only were the founders men of high ideals
and lofty purposes, who knew the" value of the
simpler virtues of life in developing a fine and
noble character in our people, thus insuring the
strength and permanence of our institutions, and
who therefore sought to -inculcate these through
the educational system of the state, but they
were also men of religious convictions, general
ly members of some church, and men who pur
posed building a Christian civilization in cur
Btate.
They realized, however, that where denomi
nations are many, and doctrinal differences fre
quently quite pronounced, that it would be wis
dom to prohibit religious instruction in the pub
lic schools, and to let such instruction be taken
care of in the family circle, or through the de
nominational channels, outside of the walls and
campus of the state institutions.
And so we find the management and instruc
tion in the state institutions circumscribed by
certain legal and constitutional limitations in
tended to safeguard" the religious interest of the
fiuidents and of every citizen of the state.
rom these limitations it is quite apparent
uat the founders of the university and the state,
ueueved in the absolute separation of church
ana state, and intended that in the educational
system which the state provided, there should
ue no infringement upon the province of the
"lurch or any attempt to do, or to interfere with
me work for which the church exists,
ana agreed that these precautions were wise,
wui it is quite generally conceded to.day that
rmt who teach in the state institutions should
X, ?uage in any religious instruction in or
ln.ut l,he InQtitution, and I am pleased to say
conoff. om if ever are the Provisions of our
QBututiooi and laws violated, as far as any
wihTh reli?ious instruction in any of our state
institutions is concerned.
f ?Uti a ?ratIce lms grown un in many of the
state institutions which is infinitely worse, and
which constitutes just as direct a violation of tho
spirit of the provisions c.f our constitution and
laws as would any teaching of specific denomina
tional doctrines. This consists of attacks made
by teachers in the class-room or upon the
campus in the presence of students upon funda
mental doctrines of the church, and upon ele
ments of the faith of the founders of tho insti
tutions, and of the men and women who furnish
the financial support of these state institutions
and who send their children hero to them for in
struction and guidance.
The teachers who have been guilty of this
practice seem to have assumed that the enabling
act, the constitution, and the laws are being
violated only when tho teachers at the state in
stitutions advocate positive denominational doc
trines and teachings. They seem to think that
sarcasm and sneering attacks upon the faith of
the founders and their descendants and the
teaching of doctrines especially designed and in
tended to undermine that faith, do not consti
tute a violation of these constitutional and legal
provisions.
My conviction is that any such teaching, un
dermining the fundamentals of religious faith,
the sarcastic-attacks upon the beliefs of the so
called "old fogies" who still adhere to them,
constitute a still more vicious and damnable
violation, of the spirit of our constitutions and
the .faith and ideals of the founders of this uni
versity than does any denominational instruc
tion. I say this at the risk of being charged with
embracing a narrow dogmatism, unbecoming in
the free atmosphere of a university. I rest my
case for the fathers and tile founders, now for
ever silent, upon the solid ground of the law
thev have left and which you will find as far
back, as the Territorial Code of 1877. Thoy have
in these old statutes embalmed, we trust forever,
their faith and what I confidently believe they
hoped would be the faith of their posterity. If
you want to know what thoy thought, what thpv
bel'eved and what they wished their desecend
ants to repect and revere, I commend to your
thoughtful consideration section thirty-one of
the old Penal Code, still a part of our statutory
law as Section 9222, C. L. 1013. where they seek
to protect from contumely the Christian relie'on.
the Holy Scriptures and the Triune God. They
were not aslampd to let the world know what
they believed; they would be ashamed nnd
chagrined to know that anv institution they
founded should tolerate contumelious or con
temptuous treatment of those things that men
and women hold most dear.
I may say here that the men and women who
thus violate the spirit of the constitution and
laws, in my opinion constitute but a small ner-cer-tas-e
of the faculty of any of these institutions
and that the greo.t maioritv of the faculty mem
bers honestly and fairly observe and follow the
spirit of our laws.
Mv objection is not to the faith or religious
beHef. or lack of religious belief of the professor
that is his own concern. He has the same
rights and should enjov the same freedom that
I claim for myself, and for the students at the
stnte institutions. He may believe anything he
pleases with reference to God. the Bible, and the
elements of our faith, but he has no right to ex
press that belief in the classroom or upon the
camnus in the presence of the students, and espe
cially do I object to the making of any
of these statements for the purpose of
undermining the faith of the students,
or belittling the faith and religious beliefs of
their fathers. If these teachers desire employ
ment in our state institutions, and compensation
from our tax moneys, they should bo willinK to
observe not only the letter, but the spirit of the
constitution and laws of this state, and that
means not only that they shall re rain from re
ligious instruction but also from the demonstra
tion of anti-religious sentiments.
The teacher who is worth retaining is a lead-
er a model to his students. Let him scrupu
lously Refrain from expressing sentiments to his
ii hut immature followors that may under
mine X breakdown that faith which the ex-
Hi n world shows s the only sure
SESE3.S 3Kih to build individual d a-
"TbaSW'S but fair to the people of this
taVr Vd who 3 ImnVJoTr
?:.' . tbat ui,on reachinB
tho university thoae young raon and women will
bo oncouragod to attend tho church of thoir
fathers, and that nothing will bo done directly
or indirectly for the purpose of undermining
thoir faith. If later, and in maturo years tho
student desires to leavo tho church of hie
fathers or to forsake church altogether, let it
be the result of the serious reflection of a
maturo mind, rather thon as is now.froquontly
the case, tho result of tho studonto dosiro to fol
low the stylo of a professor in the hope that
"marks might follow fawning."
I am speaking now with all sincerity, and on
behalf of tho fathers and mothers of our state,
builders of the commonwealth who still share
the faith of their fathers.
It seoms I can seo and hear theso stern pio
neers of tho prairie state we love; some loft
thoir eastern homes where culturo, learning and
simple faith, inherited from colonial ancestry,
prevailed; othors came from foreign lands to
breathe tho air of liberty, bringing with them
homely virtues of honesty and truth; but all
were men who through the privations of pioneer
days, when sometimes tho only codo was tho
code of honor which generations of virtuous an
cestors had cultivated in their hereditary char
acter, retained a fundamental roverenco f6r their
Creator, a roverenco which tho freedom of the
frontier never lessened. I can see them, hear
them as they moot in their legislative assemblies
to write the law; I see the seamed faces; I hoar
the rough words, as one by one thoy write tho
statutes that, insure liberty and education to
tlioir children. They, tho founders, call to us
through tho mists of the past. There shall be
no sectarian instruct'on in our free schools, im
posing upon the minds of our children doctrines
and dogmas distasteful to them; neither shall
there be in the name of that liberty wo prize
abovo possessions and within tho walls of those
free schools we have established, any insidious
undermining of that reverence for God and His
inspired Word which through all the tribulations
of frontier life we havo found the only safe rule
of life and conduct, upon which we seok to pro
tect from the sneer of the one who "in his heart
has said there is no God;" may we heed this call,
hear its message and carry it with us through
the years.
I want to make my remonstrance against theso
practices just as strong as it is possible for mo
to 'make it. I am sure that all that will bo need
ed is to call tho attention to tho members of
the faculty to this matter and to invite a careful
reading of the law establishing the university,
and of the constitution and subsequent laws of
our state, in order to have this fault speedily
corrected, and no further cause for complaint -appearing.
With the disappearance of this cause for com
plaint, will also come, I am sure, a more earnest
effort to Impress upon the growing mind the vital
importance of obedience to parents, due defer
ence for old age, and respect for honest labor
of every kind, as urged in our constitution and
laws, and that In this task we will meet with in
creasing success in gaining an acceptance for
these splendid principles and in making them a
part of the ideals and character of these future
citizens of the commonwealth.
EVOLUTION IN PRACTICE
An evolutionist teaching in a theological sem
inary recently discussed the miracles of the
Bible in the presence of his class. He said of
miracles that they are "scientifically lmprobaM
historically unreliable, practically undesirable,
therefore unbelievable." This is the natural at
titude of one who rejects the Bible, but why
should one be connected with a theological
seminary if he entertains such views'' It tho
miracles are taken out of the Bible, what becomes
of the virgin birth and the resurrection? It
the virgin birth is rejected, how would this pro
fessor describe, in the language cf the street,
the parentage of the Saviour?
If the resurrection is rejected, what about ho
concluding verses of tho last chapter of Matthew
in which Christ sets' forth His claim to power?
Some evolutionists have not the courage to
follow their doctrine to its logit'mate conclus'on.
Those who accept evolution as if it were a FACT
will find it difficult to accept anything In the
Bible of real value.
This is a free country and anyone can think
as he pleases; he can believe or not believe any
thing in connection with religion; bui if one
does not believe why should he not bo frank
enough to reject the Bible? If evolutionists re
ject the essential principle of the Christian faith,
why do thoy contend that that teaching is coii
sistent with Christianity? Why not admit tbat
evolution is the very antithesis, of Christianity
and Christianity's greatest foe?
W. J. BRYAN.
;
.
.
11
i
4
V
Al
' v
tf
i
n
i
'?
.
!UfrrifcV bC' " r.!