buckeye
2008-08-14 07:30:46 UTC
Bible study in schools
information about a early public school system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by his
service as the first president of the Washington D. C. public schools,
which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
Research by Jim Allison
On page 130 in his The Myth of Separation, David Barton makes the
following
claim:
Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the
first president of the Washington D. C. public school
board, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the
classroom. Notice why Jefferson felt the Bible to
be essential in any successful plan of education:
I have always said, always will say, that the studious
perusal of
the sacred volume will make us better citizens.
Barton's reference for Jefferson's service on the Washington D. C. school
board is J. O. Wilson, "Eighty Years of Public
Schools of Washington," in the Records of the Columbia Historical Society,
vol. 1, 1897, pp. 122-127. Barton's quotation
from Jefferson is taken from Herbert Lockyear, The Last Words of
Saints and
Sinners, 1969.
Apparently, Barton wants us to conclude that, since Jefferson was
president
of the board for a school system that used the Bible
for reading instruction, he must have approved of using the Bible in this
manner. In fact, some readers of this web site have
claimed in their e-mail correspondence with us that Jefferson
requested the
Bible to be used for reading instruction. But nothing
in Barton's source supports either of these claims. In fact, Barton's
source suggests that someone other than Jefferson was
responsible for introducing the Bible into the schools, and that this
policy was adopted after Jefferson had left Washington for
retirement in Virginia. Here are the facts:
On September 19, 1805, toward the end of Jefferson's first term as
President of the United States, the board of trustees of the
Washington D. C. public schools adopted its first plan for public
education
for the city. Given its resemblance to a similar plan
proposed several years earlier by Jefferson for the state of Virginia,
Wilson (Barton's source) suggests that it is likely that "he
[Jefferson] himself was the chief author of the...plan." The plan called
for the establishment of two public schools in which:
...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar,
arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify
them for the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall
receive such other instruction as is given to pay pupils,
as the board my from time to time direct, and pay pupils shall,
besides be instructed in geography and in the Latin
language.
As you can see, there is nothing in this plan that mentions religious
education or the use of the Bible in reading instruction. Nor,
we might add, was the Bible mentioned in any of Jefferson's plans for
public education in the state of Virginia, either before or
after his presidency (check out an extract from Leonard Levy's book
Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side for
documentation on this point). There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in
Barton's source that connects Jefferson to the practice of
Bible reading. So how did the Bible come to be used in the Washington
public schools? Remarkably, Barton's own source
provides an answer to that question.
In 1812 the board of trustees established a school that used a curriculum
developed by the British educator Joseph Landcaster,
who's system of education was becoming increasingly popular in the United
States. Wilson describes Landcaster as an
"enthusiastic but somewhat visionary schoolmaster, who adopted an
inexpensive method of educating, especially the masses of
the poor. The curriculum of his schools included reading, writing,
arithmetic, and the Bible." In an 1813 report to the board of
trustees, Henry Ould, the principle of the Landcasterian school, related
the progress his students had made in reading and
spelling:
55 have learned to read in the Old and New Testaments, and are all
able to spell words of three, four, and five syllables;
26 are now learning to read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two
syllables; 10 are learning words of four and five
letters. Of 509 out of the whole number admitted that did not know a
single letter, 20 can now read the Bible and spell
words of three, four, and five syllables, 29 read Dr. Watts'
Hymns and
spell words of two syllables, and 10 words of four
and five letters.
In other words, the first mention of the use of the Bible and a Christian
hymnal in the Washington public schools is in connection
with a curriculum adopted in 1812, three years after Jefferson has left
Washington and the school board for retirement in
Virginia. Contrary to Barton's implied claim, Jefferson was not president
of the school board when the Bible was being used
for instruction. Barton simply omits information he doesn't want his
readers to know, and so allows them to draw an conclusion
that his own source refutes. Barton, we conclude, is either sloppy or
dishonest in his use of evidence. Either alternative should
cause the reader to question the soundness of Barton's scholarship.
So what about Barton's quote from Herbert Lockyear's The Last Words of
Saints and Sinners? We tracked down the book
and discovered that it had no footnotes that direct the reader back to
either Jefferson's own writings, or to secondary accounts
of Jefferson's life; the quote, in other words, is untraceable. Moreover,
we've never seen this quote referenced in any scholarly
work on Jefferson's attitude toward religion, or in any account of
Jefferson's death (the context of Lockyear's book). If Jefferson
uttered these words, it has apparently escaped the notice of most
historians.
We have simply never encountered a legitimate scholar that reports an
unfootnoted quotation from a secondary source writing
some 140 years after the fact as the truth, especially when that quotation
seems not to be known to other scholars. If Barton
wants us to accept this quote as authentic, he should be able to indicate
to where it can be found in Jefferson's works, or else
point us to a secondary source that provides the relevant documentation.
Barton does neither. It's hard to resist the conclusion
that this quote was fabricated by Lockyear, and that Barton reports it
knowing full well that there are questions as to its
authenticity. [Newsflash: Barton now admits this quotation is fabricated!
Check here for details.]
Finally, we draw your attention to a last, nagging inaccuracy in Barton's
passage. While it's true that Jefferson was elected
president of the Washington public school board in 1805, Wilson (Barton's
source) goes on to note that Jefferson was
"prevented from ever discharging its duties by others of paramount
concern." Once again, Barton misreports his source; he
leaves out information that indicates that Jefferson was not as
involved in
the work of the school board as the title "president"
suggests. There is no good reason for Barton to omit this information
unless, of course, he wants to mislead his readers.
More info about jefferson and the Bible, religion in schools
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
[excerpt]
The omission was deliberate; Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of
Virginia: "Instead therefore of putting the Bible and Testament into the
hands of the children, at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently
matured for religious enquiries, their memories may here be stored
with the
most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history."(17)
Religion was also conspicuous by its absence from Jefferson's plan of
1817;
his Bill for Establishing a System of Public Education enumerated only
secular subjects. In an effort to eliminate possible religious
influence in
the public schools, Jefferson specified that ministers should not serve as
"visitors" or supervisors, and provided that "no religious reading,
instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practised" in violation of
the tenets of any sect or denomination.(18) Clearly, Jefferson opposed the
use of public funds for the teaching of religion in the public schools.
[end excerpt]
SEE the rest of
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
*******************************************************************
FISHER AMES
Fisher Ames was lamenting the decline of the use of the
Bible in schools and this was 1801. When he wrote this:
"Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook?
Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble .... "
Think about that, the Bible was being phased out as a school book in
Mass. a state with an established religion as early as 1801.
Jefferson designed a educational system for the lower grades that did
not include religion being taught in any form or fashion.
Fisher Ames wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL BOOKS
The Palladium, JANUARY, 27, 1801
IT HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM, of late years, to put a number of little books
into the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons. This
is very well, because it is right first to raise curiosity, and then
to guide it. Many books for children are, however, judiciously
compiled; the language is too much raised above the ideas of that
tender age; the moral is drawn from the fable, they know not why; and
when they gain wisdom from experience, they will see the restrictions
and exceptions which are necessary to the rules of conduct laid down
in their books, but which such books do not give. Some of the most
admired works of this kind abound with a frothy sort of sentiment, as
the readers of novels are pleased to call it, the chief merit of which
consists in shedding tears, and giving away money. Is it right, or
agreeable to good sense, to try to make the tender age more
tender'' Pity and generosity, though amiable impulses, are blind ones,
and as we grow older are to be managed by rules, and restrained by wisdom.
It is not clear that the heart, at thirty, is any the softer for
weeping, at ten, over one of Berquin's fables, the point of which
turns on a beggar boy's being ragged, and a rich man's son being well
clad. Some persons, indeed, appear to have shed all their tears of
sympathy before they reach the period of mature age. Most young hearts
are tender, and tender enough; the object of education is rather to
direct these emotions, however amiable, than to augment them.(2)
Why then, if these books for children must be retained, as they will
be, should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school
book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The
reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long;
and probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of
the mind. One consideration more is important. In no book is there so
good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same
book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the
standard of language as well as of faith. A barbarous provincial
jargon will be banished, and taste, corrupted by pompous Johnsonian
affectation, will be restored.
FOOTNOTE
(2) Probably Amaud Berquin, (ca.) 1749-1791 . The Looking Glass for
the Mind ... Stories and Tales Chiefly translated from L'Ami des
Enfants.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Works of Fisher Ames, by Seth Ames. Volume 1,
Edited and enlarged by W.B. Allen, Liberty Classics, (1983) pp 11-12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above shows an apparent decline of the use of the Bible in schools
in even in Mass.
Jefferson created the first secular University on the soil of this
nation and after his death Madison kept it that way.
********************************************************************************\
***
Additional 19th Century Cases
A look at additional 19th century cases that add insight and balance
to the
material above including Bloom v Cornelius (Ohio Supreme Court, 1853);
Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati, plaintiff in error, v Minor
(Ohio Supreme Court, 1872)
http://candst.tripod.com/caseadd.htm
Was school prayer widespread before 1962?
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/pray2c.htm
********************************************************
Additional information:
From: buckeye
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2001 4:34 pm
From that material: The National Reform Association and the religious
Amendments to the Constitution, 1864-1876, by Steven Keith Green, An
unpublished Masters thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
(1987) Pages 44-47
------------------------------------------------------
In 1870, the practice of Protestant Bible reading and religious
exercises in public schools received its first serious challenge. On
November 1, 1869, the Cincinnati city school board passed two significant
resolutions. First, it prohibited the reading of all religious books,
including the Bible, and religious instruction in public schools. It also
repealed a rule that required teachers to begin each day with a reading
from the Bible and the singing of a hymn. Before the new resolutions were
put into practice, a group of evangelicals, including members of the local
N.R.A., quickly obtained an injunction from the state Superior Court
against their enforcement, The school board appealed the matter to the
Ohio
Supreme Court.(87)
The Cincinnati case received national attention while awaiting
appeal.
Observers touted it as a test case for similar practices in other states.
People on both sides of the Christian Amendment issue payed special
attention to the outcome of the case. The N.R.A. saw the case as further
proof of the need for the amendment. Speaking in New York in April of
1872,
David McAllister decried the tactics of the opponents of Christianity who
sought to remove the Bible from public schools. "(I)f we had in our
national Constitution that acknowledgement we had in nearly every State
constitution, it would not only sustain the decision of the Ohio (Superior
Court) judge, but would greatly strengthen the friends of our Christian
system of education. And it is the aim of the association to have that
undeniably legal basis in our Constitution, so that there will never
be any
question raised about the matter, and so that when men stand up to resist
the Bible we may say, `No; we recognize the Christian religion as a
fundamental law of our Constitution,'"
While people awaited the outcome of the Cincinnati decision, the
tension surrounding the school issue mounted. In June 1872, the State
Superintendent of the New York public schools ordered several school
boards
on Long Island to suspend the practice of daily Bible readings and
religious exercises in response to Catholic complaints. Similar moves were
underway in Michigan and other northern states. For the first time, the
average Protestant became aware of challenges to his religious
way-of-life.
Finally, in December, the Ohio Supreme Court handed down its
decision.
The Supreme Court reversed the injunction of the trial court, reinstated
the schools board's resolutions, and dismissed the case. The Court
acknowledged that since the Ohio Constitution recognized that "religion,
morality and knowledge are essential to good government," the state
legislature could pass laws to protect the practice of every religion.
But,
said the Court, it could not agree with those who argued that "religion"
must mean Christianity or that Christianity was part of the common law of
the country. "Those who make this assertion can hardly be serious, and
intend the real import of their language. If Christianity is the law
of the
State, like every other law, it must have a sanction. Adequate
penalties
must be provided to enforce obedience to all its requirements and
precepts.
No one seriously contends for any such doctrine in this country, or, I
might almost say, in this age of the world."
"Religion is not," continued the Court in a reference to the
Christian
Amendment, much less Christianity or any other particular system of
religion - named in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States
as one of the declared objects of government; nor is it mentioned in the
clause in question, in our own Constitution, as being essential to
anything
beyond mere human government. . . (U)nited with religion, government never
rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more
widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both."
Not only was the Cincinnati decision a loss for the pro-Bible
reading
faction throughout the nation, it also was a slap in the face of
those who
supported the Christian Amendment.
SOURCE:
the Ohio Supreme Court had ruled in the Case of
Board of Ed of Cincinnati v Minor, et al., 23 Ohio State Rep 211 (1872),
The reference material used for that post was The Congressional Globe and
The National Reform Association and the religious Amendments to the
Constitution, 1864-1876, by Steven Keith Green, An unpublished Masters
thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, (1987)
==================================================
Another source:
Ohio and Religious Liberty in the Public Schools (P. 724)
The opinion in Board of Education v. Minor was rendered by Mr.
Justice Welch. The defendants had brought their action (Minor v.
Board of Education) to the Superior Court of Cincinnati to enjoin the
board from carrying into effect two resolutions adopted by the board,
November 1, 1869, which read as follows:
"Resolved, That religious instruction, and the reading of religious
books, including the Holy Bible, are prohibited in the common schools
of Cincinnati, it being the true object and intent of this rule to allow
the children of the parents of all sects and opinions, in matters of faith
and worship, to enjoy alike the benefit of the common-school fund.
"Resolved, That so much of the regulations on the course of study
and text-books in the intermediate and district schools (page 213,
annual report) as reads as follows, `The opening exercises in every
department shall commence by reading a portion of the Bible by or
under the direction of the teacher, and appropriate singing by the
pupils,' be repealed."
Two of the judges of the superior court, Hagans and Storer, decided in
favor of religion in the public schools, and enjoined the board from
carrying the foregoing resolutions into effect. The other member of the
court, Judge Taft, dissented. The case was then carried to the State
supreme court, which reversed the decision of the lower court. Stanley
Matthews, afterward a justice of the United States Supreme Court, and
George Hoadley, subsequently governor of Ohio, were of the counsel for the
board of education, and delivered clear and effective speeches at the
trial
of the case before the supreme court.
(SoURCE OF INFORMATION: American State Papers on Freedom in Religion. 4th
Revised Edition. Published in 1949 for The Religious Liberty Association,
Washington, D.C. First Edition Compiled by William Addison Blakely, of the
Chicago Bar. (1890) under the Title American State Papers Bearing on
Sunday
Legislation. pp. 864-65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
------
Now, what was the ultimate outcome of the decision?
Why was it a loss for the pro-Bible reading faction throughout the
nation,
it also was a slap in the face of those who supported the Christian
Amendment?
Unconstitutional? Perhaps those words were not used but the immediate
outcome was the same as if they had been used.
It was a case that was cited nationally time and time again as other state
courts began to reach the same opinions and did in fact state such
practices violated their state constitution.
If one reads the entire opinion (which I have and will be very happy to
post for you) you will see that word is all but said in those things that
were said.
I think one will find that case was a major set back, in many ways, for
those who were trying to link state and church.
I'll be sure to change any future references to Minor as meaning "you
can't do it" instead of "unconstitutional."
*American Council on Education, Committee on Religion and Public
Education,
The Relation of Religion to Public Education—The Basic Principles,
Washington, D.C., 1947. CS
The importance of this study is due both to the responsible auspices under
which it was made, and the representative character of the committee under
the chairmanship of Dr. F. Ernest Johnson, Professor of Education,
Teachers
College, Columbia University. The major conclusions of the committee are
that no religious indoctrination of any kind should be permitted in public
schools, nothing in the way of specific religious instruction; but
that the
religious phases of culture should be objectively included, where they
naturally occur in courses dealing with history, literature, art,
sociology, etc. Without such study our civilization past and present and
human personality cannot be fully understood, and without sympathetic
treatment of religious subject matter along with other factors, the
importance of religion would seem to be disregarded by the State.
Religious
instruction must be left entirely to home and church, but there is no
fundamental objection to a wisely conducted "released time" plan. This
study was published prior to the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court in
the Everson and McCollum cases.
*****************************************************************************
Georgia Lawmakers OK Bible As Textbook In Public Schools
buckeyeelo wrote:
There is nothing innocent about this. It is merely one more attempt to
get a foot or at least a toe in the door, thus establishing precedence
for returning religion to the classrooms of public schools.
All one needs to do is go back to Everson v bd of Ed and work forward
collecting each and every strict separation ruling handed down by the
USSC. You will then have the battle plan of the theocrats.
That is theior goal, to reverse each and everyone of those pro strict
separation rulings.
They would like to do it all at once by (1) having Everson overturned
or (2) having the incorporation of the Establisment Clause against the
states ended.
Failing in that they will work by passing laws that will result in
court challenges that will ultimately have a chance of overturning
each of those previous rulings one by one if need be.
They have already been doing it. That was how they managed to
"justify" the ruling they handed down in the Cleveland voucher case.
They overturned 3 or 4 previous anti aid to religion USSC rulings,
rather recent rulings at that, in a span of like 4 years.
That was a very rare event.
***********************************************************************
PRAYER AND THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS
http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/prayer.html
School Prayers: A Common Danger
from Christians in the Public Square
by John Warwick Montgomery
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar68.htm
Incorporating a Bible Study course into the high school curriculum
http://www.principalspartnership.com/biblestudy.pdf
Religion In The Public Schools: A Joint Statement Of Current Law
http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/04-1995/prayer.html
******************************************************************
How qualified is your typical public school teacher to use the Bible as a
textbook to teach literature, history, etc ?
The Bible is not an accurate history book.
What makes the Bible any better as a study in literature than many other
works?
The Bible is a religious book and nothing is going to alter or change
that.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
:|The Bible was the primary book used in schools.
In some, maybe, not in all by any stretch of the imagination.:| Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven
:|by his service as the first president of the >:|Washington, D.C.
:|public schools, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks
:|for reading.
The above is a myth by DAVID BARTON, but when corrected does give some:|by his service as the first president of the >:|Washington, D.C.
:|public schools, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks
:|for reading.
information about a early public school system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by his
service as the first president of the Washington D. C. public schools,
which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
Research by Jim Allison
On page 130 in his The Myth of Separation, David Barton makes the
following
claim:
Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the
first president of the Washington D. C. public school
board, which used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the
classroom. Notice why Jefferson felt the Bible to
be essential in any successful plan of education:
I have always said, always will say, that the studious
perusal of
the sacred volume will make us better citizens.
Barton's reference for Jefferson's service on the Washington D. C. school
board is J. O. Wilson, "Eighty Years of Public
Schools of Washington," in the Records of the Columbia Historical Society,
vol. 1, 1897, pp. 122-127. Barton's quotation
from Jefferson is taken from Herbert Lockyear, The Last Words of
Saints and
Sinners, 1969.
Apparently, Barton wants us to conclude that, since Jefferson was
president
of the board for a school system that used the Bible
for reading instruction, he must have approved of using the Bible in this
manner. In fact, some readers of this web site have
claimed in their e-mail correspondence with us that Jefferson
requested the
Bible to be used for reading instruction. But nothing
in Barton's source supports either of these claims. In fact, Barton's
source suggests that someone other than Jefferson was
responsible for introducing the Bible into the schools, and that this
policy was adopted after Jefferson had left Washington for
retirement in Virginia. Here are the facts:
On September 19, 1805, toward the end of Jefferson's first term as
President of the United States, the board of trustees of the
Washington D. C. public schools adopted its first plan for public
education
for the city. Given its resemblance to a similar plan
proposed several years earlier by Jefferson for the state of Virginia,
Wilson (Barton's source) suggests that it is likely that "he
[Jefferson] himself was the chief author of the...plan." The plan called
for the establishment of two public schools in which:
...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar,
arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify
them for the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall
receive such other instruction as is given to pay pupils,
as the board my from time to time direct, and pay pupils shall,
besides be instructed in geography and in the Latin
language.
As you can see, there is nothing in this plan that mentions religious
education or the use of the Bible in reading instruction. Nor,
we might add, was the Bible mentioned in any of Jefferson's plans for
public education in the state of Virginia, either before or
after his presidency (check out an extract from Leonard Levy's book
Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side for
documentation on this point). There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in
Barton's source that connects Jefferson to the practice of
Bible reading. So how did the Bible come to be used in the Washington
public schools? Remarkably, Barton's own source
provides an answer to that question.
In 1812 the board of trustees established a school that used a curriculum
developed by the British educator Joseph Landcaster,
who's system of education was becoming increasingly popular in the United
States. Wilson describes Landcaster as an
"enthusiastic but somewhat visionary schoolmaster, who adopted an
inexpensive method of educating, especially the masses of
the poor. The curriculum of his schools included reading, writing,
arithmetic, and the Bible." In an 1813 report to the board of
trustees, Henry Ould, the principle of the Landcasterian school, related
the progress his students had made in reading and
spelling:
55 have learned to read in the Old and New Testaments, and are all
able to spell words of three, four, and five syllables;
26 are now learning to read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two
syllables; 10 are learning words of four and five
letters. Of 509 out of the whole number admitted that did not know a
single letter, 20 can now read the Bible and spell
words of three, four, and five syllables, 29 read Dr. Watts'
Hymns and
spell words of two syllables, and 10 words of four
and five letters.
In other words, the first mention of the use of the Bible and a Christian
hymnal in the Washington public schools is in connection
with a curriculum adopted in 1812, three years after Jefferson has left
Washington and the school board for retirement in
Virginia. Contrary to Barton's implied claim, Jefferson was not president
of the school board when the Bible was being used
for instruction. Barton simply omits information he doesn't want his
readers to know, and so allows them to draw an conclusion
that his own source refutes. Barton, we conclude, is either sloppy or
dishonest in his use of evidence. Either alternative should
cause the reader to question the soundness of Barton's scholarship.
So what about Barton's quote from Herbert Lockyear's The Last Words of
Saints and Sinners? We tracked down the book
and discovered that it had no footnotes that direct the reader back to
either Jefferson's own writings, or to secondary accounts
of Jefferson's life; the quote, in other words, is untraceable. Moreover,
we've never seen this quote referenced in any scholarly
work on Jefferson's attitude toward religion, or in any account of
Jefferson's death (the context of Lockyear's book). If Jefferson
uttered these words, it has apparently escaped the notice of most
historians.
We have simply never encountered a legitimate scholar that reports an
unfootnoted quotation from a secondary source writing
some 140 years after the fact as the truth, especially when that quotation
seems not to be known to other scholars. If Barton
wants us to accept this quote as authentic, he should be able to indicate
to where it can be found in Jefferson's works, or else
point us to a secondary source that provides the relevant documentation.
Barton does neither. It's hard to resist the conclusion
that this quote was fabricated by Lockyear, and that Barton reports it
knowing full well that there are questions as to its
authenticity. [Newsflash: Barton now admits this quotation is fabricated!
Check here for details.]
Finally, we draw your attention to a last, nagging inaccuracy in Barton's
passage. While it's true that Jefferson was elected
president of the Washington public school board in 1805, Wilson (Barton's
source) goes on to note that Jefferson was
"prevented from ever discharging its duties by others of paramount
concern." Once again, Barton misreports his source; he
leaves out information that indicates that Jefferson was not as
involved in
the work of the school board as the title "president"
suggests. There is no good reason for Barton to omit this information
unless, of course, he wants to mislead his readers.
More info about jefferson and the Bible, religion in schools
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
[excerpt]
The omission was deliberate; Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of
Virginia: "Instead therefore of putting the Bible and Testament into the
hands of the children, at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently
matured for religious enquiries, their memories may here be stored
with the
most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history."(17)
Religion was also conspicuous by its absence from Jefferson's plan of
1817;
his Bill for Establishing a System of Public Education enumerated only
secular subjects. In an effort to eliminate possible religious
influence in
the public schools, Jefferson specified that ministers should not serve as
"visitors" or supervisors, and provided that "no religious reading,
instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practised" in violation of
the tenets of any sect or denomination.(18) Clearly, Jefferson opposed the
use of public funds for the teaching of religion in the public schools.
[end excerpt]
SEE the rest of
Jefferson, Religion, and the Public Schools.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jeffschl.htm
*******************************************************************
FISHER AMES
Fisher Ames was lamenting the decline of the use of the
Bible in schools and this was 1801. When he wrote this:
"Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook?
Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble .... "
Think about that, the Bible was being phased out as a school book in
Mass. a state with an established religion as early as 1801.
Jefferson designed a educational system for the lower grades that did
not include religion being taught in any form or fashion.
Fisher Ames wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL BOOKS
The Palladium, JANUARY, 27, 1801
IT HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM, of late years, to put a number of little books
into the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons. This
is very well, because it is right first to raise curiosity, and then
to guide it. Many books for children are, however, judiciously
compiled; the language is too much raised above the ideas of that
tender age; the moral is drawn from the fable, they know not why; and
when they gain wisdom from experience, they will see the restrictions
and exceptions which are necessary to the rules of conduct laid down
in their books, but which such books do not give. Some of the most
admired works of this kind abound with a frothy sort of sentiment, as
the readers of novels are pleased to call it, the chief merit of which
consists in shedding tears, and giving away money. Is it right, or
agreeable to good sense, to try to make the tender age more
tender'' Pity and generosity, though amiable impulses, are blind ones,
and as we grow older are to be managed by rules, and restrained by wisdom.
It is not clear that the heart, at thirty, is any the softer for
weeping, at ten, over one of Berquin's fables, the point of which
turns on a beggar boy's being ragged, and a rich man's son being well
clad. Some persons, indeed, appear to have shed all their tears of
sympathy before they reach the period of mature age. Most young hearts
are tender, and tender enough; the object of education is rather to
direct these emotions, however amiable, than to augment them.(2)
Why then, if these books for children must be retained, as they will
be, should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school
book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The
reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long;
and probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of
the mind. One consideration more is important. In no book is there so
good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same
book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the
standard of language as well as of faith. A barbarous provincial
jargon will be banished, and taste, corrupted by pompous Johnsonian
affectation, will be restored.
FOOTNOTE
(2) Probably Amaud Berquin, (ca.) 1749-1791 . The Looking Glass for
the Mind ... Stories and Tales Chiefly translated from L'Ami des
Enfants.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Works of Fisher Ames, by Seth Ames. Volume 1,
Edited and enlarged by W.B. Allen, Liberty Classics, (1983) pp 11-12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above shows an apparent decline of the use of the Bible in schools
in even in Mass.
Jefferson created the first secular University on the soil of this
nation and after his death Madison kept it that way.
********************************************************************************\
***
Additional 19th Century Cases
A look at additional 19th century cases that add insight and balance
to the
material above including Bloom v Cornelius (Ohio Supreme Court, 1853);
Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati, plaintiff in error, v Minor
(Ohio Supreme Court, 1872)
http://candst.tripod.com/caseadd.htm
Was school prayer widespread before 1962?
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/pray2c.htm
********************************************************
Additional information:
From: buckeye
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2001 4:34 pm
From that material: The National Reform Association and the religious
Amendments to the Constitution, 1864-1876, by Steven Keith Green, An
unpublished Masters thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
(1987) Pages 44-47
------------------------------------------------------
In 1870, the practice of Protestant Bible reading and religious
exercises in public schools received its first serious challenge. On
November 1, 1869, the Cincinnati city school board passed two significant
resolutions. First, it prohibited the reading of all religious books,
including the Bible, and religious instruction in public schools. It also
repealed a rule that required teachers to begin each day with a reading
from the Bible and the singing of a hymn. Before the new resolutions were
put into practice, a group of evangelicals, including members of the local
N.R.A., quickly obtained an injunction from the state Superior Court
against their enforcement, The school board appealed the matter to the
Ohio
Supreme Court.(87)
The Cincinnati case received national attention while awaiting
appeal.
Observers touted it as a test case for similar practices in other states.
People on both sides of the Christian Amendment issue payed special
attention to the outcome of the case. The N.R.A. saw the case as further
proof of the need for the amendment. Speaking in New York in April of
1872,
David McAllister decried the tactics of the opponents of Christianity who
sought to remove the Bible from public schools. "(I)f we had in our
national Constitution that acknowledgement we had in nearly every State
constitution, it would not only sustain the decision of the Ohio (Superior
Court) judge, but would greatly strengthen the friends of our Christian
system of education. And it is the aim of the association to have that
undeniably legal basis in our Constitution, so that there will never
be any
question raised about the matter, and so that when men stand up to resist
the Bible we may say, `No; we recognize the Christian religion as a
fundamental law of our Constitution,'"
While people awaited the outcome of the Cincinnati decision, the
tension surrounding the school issue mounted. In June 1872, the State
Superintendent of the New York public schools ordered several school
boards
on Long Island to suspend the practice of daily Bible readings and
religious exercises in response to Catholic complaints. Similar moves were
underway in Michigan and other northern states. For the first time, the
average Protestant became aware of challenges to his religious
way-of-life.
Finally, in December, the Ohio Supreme Court handed down its
decision.
The Supreme Court reversed the injunction of the trial court, reinstated
the schools board's resolutions, and dismissed the case. The Court
acknowledged that since the Ohio Constitution recognized that "religion,
morality and knowledge are essential to good government," the state
legislature could pass laws to protect the practice of every religion.
But,
said the Court, it could not agree with those who argued that "religion"
must mean Christianity or that Christianity was part of the common law of
the country. "Those who make this assertion can hardly be serious, and
intend the real import of their language. If Christianity is the law
of the
State, like every other law, it must have a sanction. Adequate
penalties
must be provided to enforce obedience to all its requirements and
precepts.
No one seriously contends for any such doctrine in this country, or, I
might almost say, in this age of the world."
"Religion is not," continued the Court in a reference to the
Christian
Amendment, much less Christianity or any other particular system of
religion - named in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States
as one of the declared objects of government; nor is it mentioned in the
clause in question, in our own Constitution, as being essential to
anything
beyond mere human government. . . (U)nited with religion, government never
rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more
widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both."
Not only was the Cincinnati decision a loss for the pro-Bible
reading
faction throughout the nation, it also was a slap in the face of
those who
supported the Christian Amendment.
SOURCE:
the Ohio Supreme Court had ruled in the Case of
Board of Ed of Cincinnati v Minor, et al., 23 Ohio State Rep 211 (1872),
The reference material used for that post was The Congressional Globe and
The National Reform Association and the religious Amendments to the
Constitution, 1864-1876, by Steven Keith Green, An unpublished Masters
thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, (1987)
==================================================
Another source:
Ohio and Religious Liberty in the Public Schools (P. 724)
The opinion in Board of Education v. Minor was rendered by Mr.
Justice Welch. The defendants had brought their action (Minor v.
Board of Education) to the Superior Court of Cincinnati to enjoin the
board from carrying into effect two resolutions adopted by the board,
November 1, 1869, which read as follows:
"Resolved, That religious instruction, and the reading of religious
books, including the Holy Bible, are prohibited in the common schools
of Cincinnati, it being the true object and intent of this rule to allow
the children of the parents of all sects and opinions, in matters of faith
and worship, to enjoy alike the benefit of the common-school fund.
"Resolved, That so much of the regulations on the course of study
and text-books in the intermediate and district schools (page 213,
annual report) as reads as follows, `The opening exercises in every
department shall commence by reading a portion of the Bible by or
under the direction of the teacher, and appropriate singing by the
pupils,' be repealed."
Two of the judges of the superior court, Hagans and Storer, decided in
favor of religion in the public schools, and enjoined the board from
carrying the foregoing resolutions into effect. The other member of the
court, Judge Taft, dissented. The case was then carried to the State
supreme court, which reversed the decision of the lower court. Stanley
Matthews, afterward a justice of the United States Supreme Court, and
George Hoadley, subsequently governor of Ohio, were of the counsel for the
board of education, and delivered clear and effective speeches at the
trial
of the case before the supreme court.
(SoURCE OF INFORMATION: American State Papers on Freedom in Religion. 4th
Revised Edition. Published in 1949 for The Religious Liberty Association,
Washington, D.C. First Edition Compiled by William Addison Blakely, of the
Chicago Bar. (1890) under the Title American State Papers Bearing on
Sunday
Legislation. pp. 864-65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
------
Now, what was the ultimate outcome of the decision?
Why was it a loss for the pro-Bible reading faction throughout the
nation,
it also was a slap in the face of those who supported the Christian
Amendment?
Unconstitutional? Perhaps those words were not used but the immediate
outcome was the same as if they had been used.
It was a case that was cited nationally time and time again as other state
courts began to reach the same opinions and did in fact state such
practices violated their state constitution.
If one reads the entire opinion (which I have and will be very happy to
post for you) you will see that word is all but said in those things that
were said.
I think one will find that case was a major set back, in many ways, for
those who were trying to link state and church.
I'll be sure to change any future references to Minor as meaning "you
can't do it" instead of "unconstitutional."
*American Council on Education, Committee on Religion and Public
Education,
The Relation of Religion to Public Education—The Basic Principles,
Washington, D.C., 1947. CS
The importance of this study is due both to the responsible auspices under
which it was made, and the representative character of the committee under
the chairmanship of Dr. F. Ernest Johnson, Professor of Education,
Teachers
College, Columbia University. The major conclusions of the committee are
that no religious indoctrination of any kind should be permitted in public
schools, nothing in the way of specific religious instruction; but
that the
religious phases of culture should be objectively included, where they
naturally occur in courses dealing with history, literature, art,
sociology, etc. Without such study our civilization past and present and
human personality cannot be fully understood, and without sympathetic
treatment of religious subject matter along with other factors, the
importance of religion would seem to be disregarded by the State.
Religious
instruction must be left entirely to home and church, but there is no
fundamental objection to a wisely conducted "released time" plan. This
study was published prior to the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court in
the Everson and McCollum cases.
*****************************************************************************
Georgia Lawmakers OK Bible As Textbook In Public Schools
buckeyeelo wrote:
There is nothing innocent about this. It is merely one more attempt to
get a foot or at least a toe in the door, thus establishing precedence
for returning religion to the classrooms of public schools.
All one needs to do is go back to Everson v bd of Ed and work forward
collecting each and every strict separation ruling handed down by the
USSC. You will then have the battle plan of the theocrats.
That is theior goal, to reverse each and everyone of those pro strict
separation rulings.
They would like to do it all at once by (1) having Everson overturned
or (2) having the incorporation of the Establisment Clause against the
states ended.
Failing in that they will work by passing laws that will result in
court challenges that will ultimately have a chance of overturning
each of those previous rulings one by one if need be.
They have already been doing it. That was how they managed to
"justify" the ruling they handed down in the Cleveland voucher case.
They overturned 3 or 4 previous anti aid to religion USSC rulings,
rather recent rulings at that, in a span of like 4 years.
That was a very rare event.
***********************************************************************
PRAYER AND THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS
http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/prayer.html
School Prayers: A Common Danger
from Christians in the Public Square
by John Warwick Montgomery
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar68.htm
Incorporating a Bible Study course into the high school curriculum
http://www.principalspartnership.com/biblestudy.pdf
Religion In The Public Schools: A Joint Statement Of Current Law
http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/04-1995/prayer.html
******************************************************************
How qualified is your typical public school teacher to use the Bible as a
textbook to teach literature, history, etc ?
The Bible is not an accurate history book.
What makes the Bible any better as a study in literature than many other
works?
The Bible is a religious book and nothing is going to alter or change
that.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************