The Edgerton Bible Case

Argument Against the Court’s Decision

In Wisconsin, there were many unfavorable responses from the Protestant clergy and activists. Two opponents of the decision gave speeches in churches that were subsequently published and circulated. J.J. Blaisdell of Beloit College read a paper at a meeting of the Beloit Congregational Convention in Palmyra, Wisconsin on May 22, 1890. His paper was accepted by the Convention as an expression of its views and published.1 W.A. McAtee delivered addresses on the subject to the Presbyterian Church of Madison on May 4, 11 and 25, 1890. The addresses were revised and expanded and published by Tracy, Gibbs, & Co. of Madison in 1890,2 and were adopted and published by the Madison Presbytery in an attenuated form.3 Their arguments can be usefully categorized in five groupings: the decision is (1) illogical, (2) opposed to every acknowledged legal precedent and even the foundation of our legal system, (3) opposed to the intentions of the framers of the state constitution and established practice, (4) opposed to the rights of the majority and the rule of law, and (5) certain to lead to terrible consequences for the public schools and society in general. For the sake of organization, I shall put these in the mouth of McAtee (with footnotes to Blaisdell) since his argument is both more comprehensive and more in depth.

McAtee begins: The decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is illogical for at least two reasons. First, it ruled that only some parts of the Bible are sectarian, but even if we grant that to be true, it does not logically follow that the whole book should be banned.4

1. All immoral teaching is forbidden by law in public schools.

2. Some parts of Shakespeare’s plays are immoral, thus

3. Shakespeare’s plays as a whole are forbidden by law in public schools.

So we should equally reject the Court’s identical argument:

1. All sectarian teaching is forbidden by law in public schools.

2. Some parts of the Bible are sectarian, thus

3. The Bible as a whole is forbidden by law in public schools.

McAtee continues: The decision also is illogical because it misapplies the golden rule.5 The court claims that “Do as you would be done by; do not unto others what you not have them do unto you” means “if you would not have others oppress you in your conscience, if they should get the power, do not oppress them.” But it does not follow from the observance of the golden rule that we must ban the very book from which this law is learned.

McAtee continues: Moreover, the court stretches the meaning of words beyond all reason when it interprets school with optional Bible reading” to mean “a place of worship” or “a religious seminary” since the latter two expressions have clear meanings quite distinct from a school board run common school.6 A place of worship is a church or synagogue or similar building with similar purpose and a religious seminary is a school devoted to theological instruction. Neither a jail or fort or ship becomes a place of worship or a religious seminary when a guard or solider or sailor read aloud from a Bible, nor does a school when a teacher does so.

McAtee continues: But most importantly, the Bible or a translation of the Bible itself is not sectarian; only interpretations of the Bible are sectarian.7 Sectarian has a clear meaning too. It does not apply to non-Christian religious systems, and the basis for differences in beliefs amongst Christians is not which translation they use, but what interpretation they make of whatever translation they use. The Bible is what all sects have in common. It is what unites Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.. Moreover, the court misrepresents the views of Catholics too, for Pope Pius the Sixth in April of 1778 advocates Bible reading by all believers that they may draw from them purity of morals and doctrine and ought to be published in language suitable to everyone’s capacity so as to eradicate the errors which are so widely disseminated in these corrupt times.8

McAtee continues: Second, the court’s decision also wrongly rejects all five judicial precedents and even the foundation of American law. There are five relevant judicial precedents, and all five state Supreme Courts that have examined this issue—namely, Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa—have determined that their very similar constitutions do not preclude Bible reading in public schools.9 Donahoe v. Richards 38 Maine 376 (1854) found that Bible reading can even be required. Spiller v. Inhabitants of Woburn 94 Mass. 127 (1866) held that the reading of the Bible in public schools did not hurt or molest a student’s right of conscience or interfere in any way with his religious professions or sentiments. Board of Education v. Minor 23 Ohio 211 (1872) found that Bible reading and the singing of hymns is constitutional so long as it is optional. McCormick v. Burt 95 Ill. 263 (1880) rejected a lawsuit filed by a pupil against his teacher and school board for suspending him when he refused to discontinue his studies during reading of the Bible. Moore v. Monroe 64 Iowa 367 (1884) rejected the argument that reading from the Bible made the public school into a place of worship. No decision is cited to support the Wisconsin decision; it is frankly confessed that none can be.

McAtee continues: Moreover, belief in the Christian God is part of the foundation of our law.10 The founders of the country and this state were Christians acting from Christian purposes. For example, the preamble to the Wisconsin state constitution says, “We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare, do establish this constitution.” Ten thousand times have the English and American courts appealed to the Bible as the book of God and treasury of truth.

McAtee continues: Third, the court’s decision contradicts the intentions of the framer’s of the state constitution and established practice.11 The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (establishing what is now Wisconsin as part of the Northwest Territory along with other areas that eventually became states) provided for the establishment of free, public schools based in the Christian religion, including Bible reading, which brought the settlers here.12 The state constitution framers came from states in which the Bible was read and stated no objection to this practice in our territorial days. In fact, the Committee on Education during the 1846 Constitutional Convention unanimously rejected the clause, “No book of religious doctrine or belief, and no sectarian instruction shall be used or permitted in any public school.” The 1848 Convention, fully aware of the 1846 option banning all books of religious doctrine or belief, proposed only the clause prohibiting sectarian instruction, and this clause was accepted by the voters in Wisconsin. That the state constitution did not prohibit Bible use is evidenced by the fact that the state Board of Education immediately put the Bible at the head of the list of recommended books for school use in 1858, the fact that state legislature adopted the same language in creating the state university while allowing Bible reading, and the fact that the state university Board of Regents and faculty adopted the practice of Bible reading. Moreover, numerous experts have testified to the importance of the Bible in education.13

McAtee continues: Fourth, the court’s decision also violates the rights of the majority. First, it is based on a misunderstanding of the right of conscience.14 How can anyone’s right of conscience be violated when they are not compelled to act or believe in a mandatory way? Bible reading in Edgerton is optional, not required. The right of conscience is not violated by someone else doing what I disapprove of; it is violated when they require me to do what I disapprove of. Second, it recognizes it gives undue weight to the minority’s right of conscience.15 The minority has a right of conscience, but so does the majority have a right of conscience. And which right is the stronger, when the minority right of conscience conflicts with the majority right of conscience? To allow the minority to win is to establish a tyranny of the minority and to reject the democratic principles of American government.

McAtee continues: Fifth, and lastly, the court’s decision will have ruinous consequences for public education and society in general.16 First, the Bible ban logically applied precludes Bible reading not only in public schools but any public building at all, and not just Bible reading, but any religious activity, including prayer or hymn singing. No more prayers in state hospitals or the legislature, no more. No more public money devoted to maintaining two chaplains at the state prison.17 Education will suffer because the educator’s true aim is character, not culture, and how is character to be developed without the best source for moral truth and inspiration? Many notable men and even a resolution of the national convention of teachers in July, 1887 have testified to this truth.18 How will our children correctly solve the moral complexities of modern life and government without a strong and sure moral compass? A deluge of vices and crimes seems to be rolling over the land. It will not do to say it the job of church and home to develop moral character, for in too many homes there is no church or moral training. Our constitution itself proclaims that, “The blessings of a free government can only be maintained by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” What folly it is then for the state to omit all care of its very foundation stones. In this decision the court also locks the door upon the history of itself and all Christendom and throws away the key. How long will the system as we know it survive given this prohibition?

McAtee concludes:19 The case is not so wholly closed as many seem to think. First, it is possible that the court, in some future case to which this is sure to give rise, may reverse its own decision. The court itself, every few years, is reviewed by the people, and derives all of its powers from them. Second, the Constitution provides the means for its own amendment, and so for the correction of all misinterpretations of it. And third, the decisions is only self-executing in the one case in which the mandamus is directed to issue [i.e., the Edgerton School District], and no legal liability is incurred by those who, elsewhere, fail to conform to its terms….Courage, patriotism and religion are now appealed to as never before in our state’s history. Have we the virtue to save what has been so dearly won and so carefully transmitted to us? The virtue to hand it on, untarnished and unimpaired, to those who shall come after?

Blaisdell concludes:20 The narrowness of sectarian bigotry has had its day. Society has a duty to itself, for it has sacred burdens….We ought to be brothers in this day of great decisions. We stood shoulder to shoulder, one and all, and all alike in the battles of civil liberty; why not stand shoulder to shoulder in maintaining the conditions of civil liberty? We of this Convention are desirous of meeting our fellow citizens on that common ground…But religion—the religion of the Bible—is provided for in the Constitution of our Commonwealth as our birthright in the school-room, and our birthright everywhere.

Notes

1 J.J. Blaisdell, “The Edgerton Bible Case—The Decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.”

2 W.A. McAtee, “Must the Bible Go?: A Review of the Decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in the Edgerton Bible Case.”

3 Wm. F. Brown, “An Official Deliverance in Regard to the Late Decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Concerning the Bible and our Public Schools,” Janesville, Wisconsin, May 10, 1890.

4 McAtee, pp. 6-10.

5 McAtee, p. 57.

6 McAtee, pp. 22-26. Blaisdell, pp. 4-7.

7 McAtee, pp. 10-18. Blaisdell, pp. 3-4.

8 McAtee, pp. 53-56.

9 McAtee, pp. 48-53. Blaisdell, pp. 22-26.

10 McAtee, pp. 26-28, and 41-42.

11 McAtee, pp. 36-41, and 43-47. Blaisdell, pp. 27-29.

12 McAtee, pp. 38-41. Blaisdell, pp. 13-15.

13 McAtee mentions Edward Tileston, Daniel Webster, Edward Everett, George Bancroft, Robert C. Winthrop, F.C. Gray, George S. Hillard, William H. Prescott, Jared Sparks, George Ticknor, Henry Longfellow, William H. Seward, and Jonathan Spencer.

14 McAtee, pp. 18-19. and 21. Blaisdell, pp. 29-31.

15 McAtee, p. 68. Blaisdell, pp. 2-3.

16 McAtee, pp. 59-67. Blaisdell, pp. 15-18.