Summary: The Board of Education decided to dispense with devotional exercises in the schools because of disorder, teacher not wishing to run religious exercises and objections from the Catholics who did not want the Protestant service.
Maier Zunder, school board member "said the schools are moral and it was time to abolish the services".
A flood of public protest erupted including petitions, public meetings and letters. The following September, a "Bible slate" was proposed to 'put the Bible back in the Schools" for three open slots which were elected.
The new board voted to put the line back in the school manual restoring the morning devotional exercises.
An august distinguished self-appointed panel of clergy (the best in town including Yale president and past president) convened to try to come up with a service that would satisfy everybody. Interesting that grade level was not considered. They came up with a scheme which, if there were more than 30% Catholics, they would withdraw and have their own service.
No provision about who or how this would be done. Maier Zunder said very clearly in a newspaper interview that the plan was unworkable due to lack of space and he was strongly opposed to separating or labeling children by religion.
The plan was presented with great fanfare to the Board on Nov 2, 1877 and referred to the Committee on Schools, three members, Zunder and two Bible slate members. One of the Bible slate members sides with Maier to reject all plans.
Their decision was announced November 16, 1877 ending the affair.
I've started to look at the letters and, just like now, the two sides seem to be talking past each other. They cannot even decide on any common ground. Do you get that feeling now? People who want the government to be faith-based, ie Christian based cannot even acknowledge how that looks to the other side. I'm starting to inventory the arguments that both sides used but doubt I will have the time to really do this project.
I read an article last night that I found to be useful in understanding this dilemma ""The American Union" of Church and State; The Reconstruction of the Theocratic Tradition" by James MacLear from Church History 1959.
The article talks about the church leaders dealing with disestablishment in the early 19th century.
From Wikipedia
(The First Amendment) did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818
Connecticut did have an official church until 1818.
But, as the article points out, those who were involved with the official church's power managed to re-establish themselves by ignoring that disestablishment had ever taken place. Many powerful theologians and ministers continued to assert that the American government's role was to establish a state congruent with Christian principles and law.
Which powerful politicians say to this day. They assert that the original founders had explicitly put Christian principles into charters; that this was their intention which we should follow today. Also completely ignoring that disestablishment occurred.
That's why the two sides talk past each other. One side feels that there is a separation between church and state and that religion; any religion including Chritianity, has no place in the state. The other side argues that Christianity and the state have been inextricably entwined from the very beginning and we have to 'return to those values'.
Picture taken from http://www.patheos.com/ used without permission
No comments:
Post a Comment