February 1926
*
T H E K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
66
risk of being charged with embracing a narrow dogmatism, unbecoming in the free atmosphere of a university. I res my case for the Fathers and the Bounders, now forever silent, upon the solid ground of the law they have left and which you will find as far back as the Territorial Code of 1877. They 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 they thought, what they believed and what they wished their descendants to respect and revere I com mend to your thoughtful consideration section thirty-one of that old Penal Code, still a part of our statutory law as section 9222, C. L. 1913, where they seek to protect from contumely, the Christian religion, the Holy Scriptures and the Triune God. They were not ashamed to let the world know what they believed; they would be ashamed and chagrined to know that any Institution they founded should tolerate contumelious or contemptuous treatment o f 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 an<^ laws, in my opinion con stitute but a small percentage of the faculty of any of these institutions, and that the great majority of the faculty mem bers honestly and fairly observe and follow the spirit of our The p it f i* that the majority of the faculty and even the institution itself, is made to suffer loss of public esteem, because of the conduct of this small minority. In fairness to the rest of the faculty, to the student body and the Founders and supporters of the institution, these teachers, who under the false plea of "academic freedom” undermine the stu dents’ belief in God, the Holy Bible and the faith of the fathers, should desist from these evil practices or else sever their connection with the state institution^- During the past couple of years as I have been traveling around the state, I have frequently learned of parents who had sent a beloved son or daughter to some one of the state Institutions, and upon the return of the son or daughter at the end of the year, in sorrow had learned that their chil dren had become scorners of religious truths and professed agnostics. I can understand the sad disappointment of the father and mother who, from the teachings of childhood and the experience of a life-time, have reached the conclusion that their faith and religious experiences mean more than anything else in life, and constitute, if followed by the chil dren, a greater guarantee of their success and happiness in life than anything else that might he given them— when they discover that some teacher whose salary they are helping to pay has sought to dynamite every foundation of the faith that is theirs.- One might assume that this is a very recent develop ment, but it happens that I personally know that such is not the case. I recollect quite distinctly that upon making a trip to one of our state institutions ten or twelve years ago I heard members of its faculty talking loudly and volubly in the presence of a number of students, viciously attacking and ridiculing religious doctrines and ancient leaders of the church, held in reverence by the great major it y of our people; elements of faith possessed by the parents who sent their children to the institution, and by whose hard earned money the scorners’ salaries were paid. It grieved me much to think that such a thing was possible, and I said to mysqlf and to others, that if I ever had the chance or power to hit that insidious violation of our con stitutional and legal guarantees, I would hit it with all the strength I possessed. (Continued on page 103) .
the family circle, or through denominational channels, out side of the walls of the state institutions. And so we find the management and instruction in the state institutions circumscribed by legal and constitutional limitations intended to safeguard the religious convictions of the students and of every citizen of the state. Among the measures expressing or defining these limi tations, the one of chief interest to us is the act creating the University. Concerning the subject now under consid eration, it says: “No instruction, either sectarian in religion or partisan in politics, shall ever be allowed in the University.’’ ^ And the Enabling Act, providing for the organization of the State of North Dakota, and adopted thirty-three years ago today, says: "No part of the proceeds arising from the sale or disposal of airy lands herein granted for edùcational purposes, shall be used for the support of any sectarian or denominational school, college or university;’ ’ and again, "The public shall be free from sectarian control.” And section 152 of the Constitution says: "No money raised for public schools shall be appropriated to or used for, the support of any sectarian schools.” While section 1388 of the Compiled Laws clearly indi cates the desire of the Founders to safeguard the students in the public schools from the influence of any pretended non-sectarian comment upon the contents of the Bible, with out the consent of the parents. From these quotations it appears that the Founders of the University and th'e state believed in the absolute separa tion of church and state, and intended that in the educa- tlonal system which the state maintained, there should be no infringement upon the province of the church or any attempt $o do, or to interfere with the work for which the church exists. It is agreed that these precautions were wise, and It is quite generally conceded today that those who teach in the state institutions should not engage in any religious instruc tion in or about the institution, and seldom, if ever, are the provisions of our Constitution and laws violated, as far as any positive religious instruction in any of our state insti tutions is concerned. A practice has grown up in some of the state institutions which is infinitely worse, and which constitutes just as direct a violation of the spirit of the provisions of our con stitution and laws as would any teaching of specific denom inational doctrines. This consists of attacks made by teachers in the class-room or upon the campus in the pres ence of students, upon fundamental doctrines of the church, and upon the elements of the faith of the Founders and sup porters of the institutions. The teachers who have been guilty of this practice seem to have assumed that the Enablfhg Act, the Constitution, and the laws are being violated only when the teachers at the state institutions advocate positive denominational doc trines and teaching. 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 intended to undermine that faith, do not constituta a violation of these constitutional and legal provisions. My conviction is that any such teaching, undermining the fundamentals of religious faith, and the sarcastic attacks upon the beliefs o f the so-called "old fogies ’ who still adhere' to them, constitute a still more vicious and damnable violation of the spirit of our Constitution and the faith and ideals of the Founders of this University than does any denominational propaganda. I say this at the
A; il
f
if
m;
4
til
V
■é
ft jj»
y
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter