Repository: UIHistories Project: Dedication - Wesley Foundation Social Center (1921) [PAGE 3]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

THE

STATE

UNIVERSITY

AND

RELIGIOUS

EDUCATION

When the federal constitution was framed, ii writers omitted any

provision for a r e l a t i o n s h i p hot ween the S t a t e and reli on. They look the view, or a p p e a r to have taken the view, that, the S t a t e i politieai entity should not u n d e r t a k e to interfere in m a t t e r s of COn-

clence. The various stales, as they have adopted their constitutions

on admission to the Union, have t a k e n t h e s a m e a t t i t u d e . Some criti< of our constitution and form of g o v e r n m e n t have, therefore, said at times that the federal constitution and the s t a t e constitutions were Godless and that our g o v e r n m e n t s were Godless g o v e r n m e n t s . Th< criticism is illogical and u n t r u e . It is illogical because to say the constitution is Godless b e c a u s e Cod is not mentioned In it is to a s s u m e the very point to be proved, namely, t h a t t h e Inclusion of religion provisions is a n e c e s s a r y part of a political constitution. It is unlru because the men who m a d e t h e constitution, the people who lived and live under it, and t h o s e who have had to do with its i n t e r p r e t a t i o n have been and a r e God-fearing and God-loving people. One might as well say that the c h a r t e r of an industrial or commercial corpor, Ion is Godless b e c a u s e t h e Deity is not mentioned in it. T h e omission simply indicates t h a t , in t h e opinion of those who framed the c h a r t e r or the constitution, t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n In question was not one in which religious provisions belong. T h e fathers of our c o u n t r y showed their wisdom in d e p a r t i n g a they did from the Old World custom of mingling politics and religion, a' trying to c o o r d i n a t e political and religious life by s t a t e action. I'n

loubtedly, they were led to take the view they did for two rea

One* of these was their profound conviction that religion is a ma er a individual conduct, a responsibility of the individual con ience; a r between the individual and his God and. perhaps, between the individual and Other individuals whose religious convictions a r e like his own. .Many of the E tiers of our colonies had gone through bitter tperiences In their a t t e m p t tO gain religious freedom. They knew wh It \ I tO have their religious beliefs dictated to them by political tUthority. Tl y knew what it meant to have other people give color to their I 1 1 -; and try to d i c t a t e limits to the action of their - n 1

en \, They had gone through the bitter stm le of trying t knov. God i they saw him ami understood him, In the fa > of at

t e m p t s of political a u t h o r i t h to m a k e them e ami u n d e r s t a n d ^\od

others v. aid hav< them. The o-called oml

Ion of c*od from the

mi tUtiOO WS . thcrefor< nothing more nor less than a recognition f the right Of *'\*iy individual tO freedom of religious opinion. It v. 4 Virtually a n e g a t i v e declaration that under that constitution n lid ever ho 6d lO m a t t e r s of reli] MIS belief

Moi

an f <

fathers Knew their hintorj

• ip •;

Th

the

wore not

||) m. w

far removed In time I'roin the bin