A Word About Sectarianism
That England in the present Century should be undergoing a hard-fought battle over the matter of religious control over her public schools proves the tenacity of sectarian clutch when Church and State join hands in bonds of government. The new educational bill which has passed a second reading in the House of Commons is a compromise measure which embraces a Nonconformist concession to the church of what is known as “the right of entry” which permits parents or guardians to request denominational instruction for their children during certain hours—teachers being expected to volunteer for this service. On its side, the church relinquishes control of the schools and the abolition of all religious tests for the teachers. The British public is still stolidly Episcopalian and that Church yields slowly any of its prerogatives. The bill, if enacted into law, will therefore not make in years any appreciable change in the practical status of the schools, but will enable those objecting to enforced religious teachings to have their sentiment respected. The use of public funds for denominational instruction is without doubt one of the most vicious forms of intellectual slavery to which any people may be forced to submit.
Yet this very slavery is openly advocated for America today by Cardinal Gibbons, of the Roman Catholic Church, who desires the public schools to be wholly denominational and supported by the government. Small wonder, then, that Mr. Roosevelt’s characterization as “bigotry” the refusal of anyone to vote for a Roman Catholic for the presidency has met with profound disapproval. Nowhere did he strike a “popular note” and protests have been dignified, but severe. In the selection of his creed, the citizen has been given unhampered choice, but in the restriction of those eligible to the high office of Chief Executive, the people will continue to consider the preservation of their institutions of paramount importance. To democracy everywhere, and in all the ages, the Roman Church, as an organization, has been the consistent foe. Centralization of authority in the hands of puppet monarchs under its control is its undeviating aim. No man who can submit himself to the domination of a priesthood, and all that it means, could be a safe president of a free republic.
In candidacy for any office, a man must expect the opposition to make capital even out of his religious affiliations, and it is true a few silly Protestant preachers tried to do this in the case of Mr. Taft, a Unitarian, but that the general mass of people gave his faith any adverse thought is ridiculous. The Protestant vote divides along political lines just as do those voters of no creed at all.