Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564956
label
[Education] - Guidelines for Moral Instruction in California Schools, 1969
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564956
contentType
document
title
[Education] - Guidelines for Moral Instruction in California Schools, 1969
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564956
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
2099352a08468adc
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Education] - Guidelines for Moral
Instruction in California Schools, 1969
Box: P34
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
GUIDELINES FOR MORAL INSTRUCTION
IN CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS
A Report Accepted by the State Board of Education
May 9, 1969
CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Max Rafferty - Superintendent of Public Instruction
Sacramento
1969
Contents
PREFACE
A SOLDIER'S LETTER -- Which Way America?
iii
CHAPTER
I
THE CHARGE -- AN INTRODUCTION
1
The Resolution
1
Preparation for the Guidelines
2
The Advisory Committee on Guidelines for
Moral Instruction
4
II
MORALITY AND THE LAW
8
The Theological State
8
Good Moral Character
10
Moral Turpitude
10
III
MORALITY AND THE NATURAL LAW TRADITION
15
John Adams
16
Aristotle
17
Sir Edward Coke
17
William Blackstone
18
Cicero
19
IV
MORALITY AND THE RELIGIOUS TRADITION
22
John Swett
24
V
MORALITY AND THE CHALLENGE OF SECULAR
HUMANISM
33
Humanism in the Eighteenth Century
33
Humanism in the Twentieth Century
35
The Contemporary Humanists
40
Humanism and Progressive Education
42
Humanism and "Sex Education
43
Humanism and the Behaviorists
50
Humanism and Social Sciences
56
Humanists and Marxists
58
Humanists and Evolutionists
62
VI
TEACHING ABOUT RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
65
APPENDIX A
71
APPENDIX B
74
i
the 4
TO
of
and
OCT
the DE
$ of
to
the
a be to
la the State at
the
GO
to
of the
Preface
A Soldier's Letter
Which Way America?
Dear Family,
I don't know when mail from home has meant so much to me. As I write,
the sun is setting on one of those beautiful Pacific days, that more than make
up for the rainy ones. It has got me to thinking about our country.
The American people have emerged today with more power and prestige
than any country in the family of nations. Mankind is knocking at our gates,
seeking wisdom from our leaders, the hope of peace from our people. Before
we can fulfill our destiny, to lead mankind to sanity and harmony, we shall
have to rebuild the fiber of our national life.
Suppose we as a nation find again the faith our Father's knew? Suppose
our statesmen learn again to listen to the voice of God. Then we shall know
once again, the greatness of a nation, whose strength is in the spirit of her
people, whose strength is in her obedience to the moral law of God.
America! Choose the right road! Unless there is born again in our people
the spirit of sacrifice, of service, of moral responsibility, my comrades and
I who will fight on the beaches, and those of us who will die here, shall have
been exploited and betrayed, and fought and diedin vain.
It is the eleventh hour. By your choice, you will bless or blight mankind
for a thousand years to come. Which road will it be
America?
1
This was the last letter an American solider wrote his family prior to
his death. It has been put to music by Sing Out America youth groups which
perform throughout the country. We think the question posed by these
inspiring young Americans " Which way America? is the question asked
by all America today.
iii
Chapter I
The Charge - An Introduction
THE RESOLUTION
On July 11, 1968, the State Board of Education adopted a resolution direc-
ted to Max Rafferty, Superintendent of Public Instruction. It reads as follows:
Members of the State Board of Education are well aware that you have
consistently endeavored to keep before the citizens of California the
approaching dangers of a breakdown of discipline and morality in Cali-
fornia's schools.
We also know that you are aware of recent incursions into some school
districts by non-professional groups and organizations whose activities
fall within the prohibitive clauses of sections 12951--12955 of the Edu-
cation Code.
Since, moreover, there seems to be some confusion in the schools as
to the meaning of Section 7851 of the Code calling upon all public school
teachers "to impress upon the minds of the pupils the principles of
morality, 11 it seems imperative at this crucial period of our history to
clarify for public school employees what is traditionally meant by the
terms "manners and morals, " as employed in Section 7851 of the Education
Code.
Therefore, in accord with your concern, and with the approval of the
State Board, we hereby request that your staff prepare for Board con-
sideration a set of "guidelines" for teachers and administrators, designed
to identify those principles of morality established by tradition and heri-
tage as well as enforced by the laws of this State and of the United States.
We specifically want to identify that kind of behavior and activity alien to
our heritage, and/or unlawful or contrary to public policy.
It is evident from the wording of this resolution that the State Board of
Education asks the California State Department of Education to perform two
essential tasks:
1. Identify those "principles of morality mentioned in Section 13556. 5
(formerly Section 7851) of the Education Code, which are intended for
discussion in classroom situations.
2. Identify the nature of the "incursions" into the public schools of ideas
promoted by organizations or groups that are "alien to our heritage"
and "contrary to public policy.
Since the adoption of the July resolution, the State Board thereafter found
it necessary to ask the Department of Education to collect and evaluate
materials on so-called "sex education" courses which have been instituted in
1
2
some districts of the state. This latter investigation was initiated as a
result of an avalanche of letters from irate parents complaining of the
"pornographic" nature of some of the materials that have found their way
into the classroom and which are allegedly affecting the morality of
California's students.
Thus, the two resolutions, that of July, 1968, and that of November, 1968,
were considered by the Department staff as part of the same assignment.
Their task was not only to deliniate and identify those "principles of morality"
according to our heritage and traditions but also to identify those courses or
materials which might fall within the "prohibitive" sections of the Education
Code; for instance, sections 9001 and 9002, which prohibit the teaching of
sectarian religious preferences in the public schools, or Section 9031 pro-
hibiting indoctrination in Communism. These guidelines, therefore, serve a
twofold purpose. They attempt to answer those many questions presently
plaguing teachers and administrators in a revolutionary age. They attempt
to answer the fundamental question raised by that young soldier who recently
gave his life for the American cause in Vietnam: which way America?
PREPARATION FOR THE GUIDELINES
In order not to "remake the wheel, 11 the staff decided to collect information
elsewhere on the nature of "guidelines for moral instruction. 11 A survey was
made of all 50 states of the Union. The following questions were asked:
1. Whether your State Department of Education has prepared "guidelines
for moral instruction" to be used by the schools of your state.
2. Does your state have a committee of laymen studying the means of
"teaching moral principles?"
The following answers were given:
1. Thirteen states identified an ongoing program of moral instruction or
in the process of starting one.
2. Four states indicated no committee on guidelines but are interested in
what California is doing.
3. Twenty-four states replied they have neither guidelines nor a committee
studying the issue.
Then a survey was made of the 1, 100 districts in the state of California.
The questions asked of these districts were:
1. Do they have guidelines identified for our purposes?
2. Whether such guidelines or related materials are under preparation.
3. Whether they integrate "moral instruction" with the curriculum.
3
4. A space was provided for "other."
The responses to these were:
1. Some 40 districts replied they had guidelines or other prepared
materials.
2. Seventy-four districts responded that such materials are under prepa-
ration.
3. Four hundred seventy-seven replied they integrate such instruction
throughout the curriculum. Many of the replies to question number 3
were that the instruction was more "incidental than directed."
To question number 4, "other," responses were many and varied:
1. Some complained that they do not have materials.
2. Others said that they have no policy.
3. Others that it was done through extra curricular activities.
4. Others said it was taught by precept and example.
5. Others said that they used county materials or adopted the courses of
study of other counties.
To ascertain the level of preparation of teachers in this area, another
questionnaire was sent to all public and private teacher-training institutions
in California.
The letter sent to the heads of teacher-training departments described the
Department's goals and specifically quoted from the State Board Resolution
of December 17, 1963, which followed the U.S. Supreme Court decision on
school prayers. The following paragraph is from the 1963 resolution and
was quoted in the letter to the colleges:
Our schools should have no hesitancy in teaching about religion. We
urge our teachers to make clear the contributions of religion to our
civilization, through history, art and ethics. We want the children of
California to be aware of the spiritual principles and the faith which
undergird our way of life. We are confident that our teachers are com-
petent to differentiate between teaching about religion and conducting a
compulsory worship service. This point of view, we believe, is in
accordance with the tradition handed down by our fathers and reaffirmed
by the United States Supreme Court.
The following questions were then asked:
1. Do you offer courses in comparative religions of the world?
2. Do you require such a course, or courses, of your teacher credential
candidates?
4
How would you meet the requirements for such preparation as sug-
gested by the American Association of School Administrators?
a. By no requirements -- leaving it to the individual teacher
b. By requiring some course in comparative religions
C. By requiring courses in philosophy and ethics
Their responses were as follows:
1. Twenty-nine institutions answered in the affirmative.
Twenty-one answered negative.
2. Four answered in the affirmative.
Seventeen answered negative
To the a, b, and C answers which referred to the admonition that admini-
strators are urged to use "the prudence that would put direction of the project
in the hands of public school educators who are intimately aware of the possi-
bilities and limitations under which the materials may be used":
a. Eighteen responded that it is left to the individual teachers
b. Four responded by requiring courses in comparative religions
c. Twelve responded by requiring courses in philosophy and ethics
Since there was no space for "other" in the letter sent to the teacher-train-
ing institutions, some deans submitted additional information not covered
by the questions. Most of these comments concern the difficulty of adding
new requirements (if this is under consideration) and the need to drop some
requirements. Other comments were that such training is offered in history
courses, literature courses, philosophy courses, and so forth.
The few "guides" we received from out of state we found to be not as well
developed as the "moral and spiritual values" guides developed by Ventura
and Los Angeles counties. They were thus of little value to this study. Most
of the guides that California districts submitted were sketchy and did not
develop subject matter but usually stated requirements of the law.
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON GUIDELINES FOR MORAL INSTRUCTION
One other step decided upon by the Department and approved by Dr. Raf-
ferty was the appointment of a committee of professional people and legislators
to sit with the staff from time to time and examine the materials that are
included in these documents. Such a move was thought necessary and useful
because of the direct nature of the subject. These individuals appointed by
Dr. Rafferty are:
5
The Honorable E. Richard Barnes
Assemblyman, 78th District
California Legislature
The Honorable John L. Harmer, Attorney
Senator, 21st District
California Legislature
The Honorable Floyd L. Wakefield
Assemblyman, 52nd District
California Legislature
Mrs. Rosemary Howard
Chairman, Interfaith Congress on Religion and Education
San Jose, California
Herbert Ellingwood
Legal Affairs Secretary
Office of the Governor
Formerly, Legislative Representative -- - State Bar of California
Harry Corkin, Attorney
Executive Secretary, United Christian Service Foundation
Sacramento, California
Rev. Robert Williams, Pastor
Church of Reflections
Knott's Berry Farm
Buena Park, California
Hardin B. Jones
Professor of Medical Physics
Assistant Director, Donner Laboratories
University of California
Berkeley, California
Edwin F. Klotz, Chairman
Special Assistant to the State Board of Education
At the first formal meeting of the Advisory Committee on Guidelines for
Moral Instruction in California Schools (December 4, 1968) Dr. Rafferty
reviewed the "general breakdown" of moral standards in recent years that is
of concern to everyone and told the committee that theirs was a most delicate
task, that "you are probably the most important committee now working in the
State Department, 11 and that "never until this time, to my knowledge, has any
formal attempt ever been made to try to set up a code of ethics on morality,
which by necessity has to be pretty largely separated from any sectarian
religious bodies. Dr. Rafferty added, "I'm not sure it can be done."
The advisory committee is not sure it has done all that could be done,
because it recognized that the challenge reaches beyond the pale of the
6
classroom situation. Their inner sentiments were reflected in the form of
a resolution adopted at their first meeting following a lengthy discussion.
It was addressed to the Federal Communications Commission expressing their
concerns and urging that the government initiate corrective action on the
federal level. That resolution was later issued by Dr. Rafferty's office as
a news release, January 6, 1969, and reads as follows:
WE, the undersigned, members of the California State Department of
Education's Advisory Committee on the adoption of Guidelines for Moral
Instruction in California Schools, take this opportunity to express our
profound concern for the lack of self-discipline being displayed by the
motion picture industry, television, and the public media in general, on
matters of decency and morals.
WE applaud the hearings recently conducted by the Congress concerning
the diet of violence offered the American public on television.
WE lament the growing tendency of the motion picture industry to lure
Americans to neighborhood drive-in theaters by appealing to their basest
instincts in matters of sexual conduct.
WE lament that the entertainment pages of daily newspapers sheepishly
accept pornographic techniques to sell their seedy films to the public.
WE lament that judicial decisions governing the definition of "porno-
graphy" or "obscenity" have opened the doors to vast publishing endeavors
to present our young people with the most corrupt literature of the ages,
as though it were the "normal" behavior of healthy citizens.
WE observe that this laxity of moral standards has pervaded our colleges
and that the most obscene scenes that man can imagine are enacted on
college stages and passed off as "drama."
WE discover now that what is described as "sex education" has become
established even in our elementary schools and that materials are being
used to "educate" third and fourth graders which would make most adults
blush.
WE, therefore, the undersigned, appointed to assist the Director of
Education for the State of California to identify those standards of morality
which are inherent in our culture and heritage, and recognizing that a
beginning must be made to reverse this trend, are determined to lead
California out of the moral decay in which it is presently descending.
WE, therefore, call upon the Federal Communications Commission to
investigate the kinds of materials used on public and educational television
which offend the decency of Americans and to help public school authorities
to promote "the manners and morals" which the Legislature of this State
has, by law, mandated to be taught in the schools.
7
FINALLY, we assert that the schools cannot perform this task when
beyond the classroom society is permeated with pictures, films, books
and television programs which tend to undermine the very moral structure
the schools are by law required to preserve and revere.
THE Federal Government has established itself as the responsible agent
to constrain radio and television. Therefore, we urge that your office
launch an investigation designed to reestablish proper codes of conduct
which alone can assist educators in their monumental tasks.
Signed - - Members of the Committee
It is evident that the Department's Advisory Committee on Moral Guide-
lines saw the issue as broader than anything the educational system could
influence, much less control. The schools could not by themselves reverse
the present trend towards moral decay unless all agencies of the country
cooperated and set general goals -- governmental and nongovernmental
agencies, news media, publishers, clergy, courts, and the population as a
whole.
The consensus of opinion of the advisory committee was, as Dr. Rafferty
noted, that a "moral crisis" was sweeping the land and that all aspects of
American behavior were affected. This moral crisis is reflected in the
increased use of drugs at colleges as well as increased sexual promiscuity
and illegitimate births and incredible increases in crimes of violence, espe-
cially among teenagers. It was the consensus of the committee that such a
moral crisis is at root a spiritual crises, and that to analyze the problem it
was necessary to ask the essential questions about right and wrong. They
noted the Board resolution of 1963 related morality with America's history
and tradition. They wanted to identify those ideas "alien to our heritage'
and contrary to public policy. Obviously such a mandate required a study
in depth of America's spiritual heritage, as well as of "first principles. " It
necessitated an examination of those ideas and ideals which motivated our
Founding Fathers. When Mr. Corkin observed that, "I always think that
America was built upon the Bible and we have as a result the highest civili-
zation the world has known, the basic issue was raised -- the relationship
of moral standards to our religious heritage and tradition. This committee
reaffirmed, in other words, the declaration of the State Board of Education
in 1963 quoted above: "We want the children of California to be aware of the
spiritual principles and the faith which undergird out way of life."
The problem, as the Department staff sees it, is that few school districts
in the state have taken the initiative to fulfill the spirit of this declaration of
1963. It is to correct this condition that the staff and its advisory committee
have made specific recommendations, not only as to content but as to action.
The Department believes it has approached its assignment successfully.
We hope that all school officials examine this document carefully and apply
its spirit and the techniques herein described to their individual situations.
The staff feels they have developed the proper yardstick by which to measure
the valid and the invalid, the moral and the immoral, the alien and the
unalienable.
Chapter II
Morality and the Law
THE THEOLOGICAL STATE
When President Eisenhower signed the legislative act giving legal force
to the change in the "Pledge of Allegiance" by adding the two words "under
God,' he reasserted what most Americans have long assumed: that God is
as much a legal part of the American heritage as He is a traditional entity,
loved and worshipped as befits the individual citizens' comprehension of His
Person.
This is not to say that all Americans believe in God or accept this heritage.
But it is to say that legally and traditionally the American Republic was, and
is, established upon a firm belief in divine providence.
There was, for example, considerable debate over adopting the Preamble
of the Constitution of the State of California in 1849 because it was considered
too close to being a "prayer." Charles Botts, a delegate from Monterey, took
exception to it and insisted that, "The closet is the proper place for devotion,
not the ballot box."
The majority of the delegates disagreed with Botts, however. After all,
each session had begun with prayer; one day by a priest, another day by a
Protestant minister. "If we can by supposition, said one delegate, "get a
prayer out of those who are not in the habit of praying, we should by all means
do it. "1
California's Preamble is similar to all the 50 states of the Union where it
invokes a dependency for its citizens upon divine law:2
We the people of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom, and in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish
this Constitution.
The only change made by the delegates at the 1879 convention, and which
remains to this day, was the addition of the words "and perpetuate."
Thus, "the blessings of freedom," by constitutional law, are dependent upon
obedience to the higher law of God. This is essentially the meaning of the
Preamble to our basic law and from which all our freedoms flow. (This
1 J. Ross Browne, Report of the Debates in the Convention of California
on the Formation of the State Constitution, in September and October, 1849,
Washington, D. C. 1850, p. 417.
2
Benjamin Weiss, God in American History. Grand Rapids, Mich. Zon-
dervan Publishing House. 1966. This publication contains the preambles of
all 50 states of the Union.
8
9
concept is pursued in depth in Chapter III.) It is something that the school
administrator can begin with, because, as the legal officer of the school, he
must begin with "what is, with what the law says. Unfortunately, there are
few statutes which specify the meaning of "morality" within this context which
he is bound to protect and promote. He would have to start with Article IX,
Section I of the Constitution of the State of California and understand the
intention of California's founding fathers when they adopted it.
A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the
preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature
shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual,
scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.
It was not until 1943, however, that the Legislature moved to implement
that constitutional mandate. At that time Education Code Section 7851 (now
Section 13556. 5) was adopted.
13556. 5. Each teacher shall endeavor to impress upon the minds of the
pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, patriotism, and a true
comprehension of the rights, duties, and dignity of American citizenship,
including kindness toward domestic pets and the humane treatment of living
creatures, to teach them to avoid idleness, profanity, and falsehood, and
to instruct them in manners and morals and the principles of a free govern-
ment.
Perhaps school officials, like judges, need to look behind the words, and
to the intentions of the legislators who adopted the laws, in order to best
fulfill their responsibilities according to tradition and heritage.
In the case of Section I, Article IX of the Constitution of the State of
California, the men at the Constitutional Convention in 1849 frequently referred
to articles on public education already adopted by other Western states. These
states, in turn, traced their allocations of public lands for education to the
provisions first proposed by Jefferson during the periods of the Confederation;
for instance, the Ordinance of 1785 which "reserve the lot N. 16 of every
township for the maintenance of public schools' and the additional Ordinance
of 1787 which included Article the Third: "Religion, morality and knowledge
being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools
and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. 11
There is no question, therefore, that one of the primary functions of public
education, according to the original purposes for establishing public schools,
was to teach religion and morality as essential to the success of good govern-
ment.
In a later chapter we shall examine the nature of this religion and morality.
For the moment let us cite those statutes which use the words moral, morality,
and immoral in connection with education.
10
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
Section 13126 of the Education Code specifically requires candidates for
teaching certificates "to submit reasonable evidence of identification and
good moral character. "
Section 13129 provides the grounds for dismissal of teachers who are
addicted to intoxicating beverages, to narcotics, guilty of fraud, and "(e) Has
committed any act involving moral turpitude.'
Section 13202 of the Education Code reads:
The State Board of Education shall revoke or suspend for immoral or
unprofessional conduct, or for persistent defiance of, and refusal to obey,
the laws regulating the duties of persons serving in the Public School
System,
Other sections of the Education Code, beginning with Section 12910, provide
for the dismissal of teachers who have fallen into wayward behavior. Teachers
can be dismissed from the ranks of those who hold certificates for sex crimes
(Section 12911) as defined in the Penal Code Section 647; that is, for "lewd and
lascivious conduct and for narcotics offenses (Education Code sections
12912. 5ff). There are, of course, mandatory revocations for major crimes,
and any school official who is "knowingly" a member of the Communist Party
will suffer loss of his credential.
MORAL TURPITUDE
The problem confronting educators and administrators today is that, while
law identifies crimes based upon "immoral acts,' contemporary definitions of
"moral" and "immoral" have brought about a kind of stalemate to the point of
public acceptance of homosexual behavior. Some of the reasons for these
changes, if indeed they are changes, will be examined in Chapter V.
The issues remain one of definition of standards, however.
What is good moral character?
What is immoral?
What is obscene?
What is pornographic?
If one searches the reasons why these questions seem to go unanswered
these days, one would ultimately wind up on the steps of the U.S. Supreme
Court in Washington, D. C., for the answers.
Consider the term: "moral turpitude.' Webster traces the word "turpitude"
to the Latin turpitudo, from Turpis, vile, base. Hence, it means "inherent
11
baseness: depravity; also a base act. 11 But, as the advisory committee
observed the very first day of its meeting in December, 1968, there are
movies, books, magazines, and nonprofit institutes that sell a philosophy
of life which rejects traditional standards of "morality." This philosophy,
or religion, called Secular Humanism has penetrated deep into institutions
of higher education where California's future teachers are entertained by
campus-sponsored "dramas," such as The Beard, Ergo, Hair, and so forth.
This "new morality" illustrates the progress made in convincing college stu-
dents that there is literally no such thing as "a base act"; and if this is true,
there is difficulty in ascribing such acts as "moral turpitude."
The suggested changes made by the Teachers Professional Standards
Commission, appointed by the State Board of Education, are indicative of
these changes in attitude toward the term "good moral character. 11 Some of
those changes are as follows:
Penal Code sections 220-221
Assault with Intent to Rape. (Mandatory
Action) Permanent Revocation. (Discre-
tionary Action) Nonpermanent Denial.
Change to:
(Mandatory Action) Nonpermanent Revo-
cation. Recommend thorough legislative
statutory revision.
Penal Code Section 288a
Oral Sex Perversion. (Mandatory Action)
Nonpermanent Revocation. Permanent
Revocation, Permanent Denial.
Change to:
(Discretionary Action) Nonpermanent
Revocation or Suspension. Permanent
Denial. Recommend legislative statutory
revision.
Penal Code Section 314
Indecent Exposure. (Mandatory Action)
Permanent Revocation. Permanent Denial.
Change to:
(Discretionary Action) Nonpermanent
Revocation or Suspension. Nonpermanent
Denial. Recommend legislative statutory
revision.
Penal Code Section 647
Loitering In or About Public Toilet for
(Subdivision (d) )
Lewd Acts. (Mandatory Action) Perma-
nent Revocation. Permanent Denial.
Change to:
(Mandatory Action) Nonpermanent Revo-
cation. (Discretionary Action) Nonperma-
nent Denial.
12
The arguments for changing the penalties incurred by some of these
"offenses are that moral attitudes have changed and that, therefore, moral
standards for school teachers should also change. Hence, the question again
arises: What is that "good moral character¹ by which all public officials are
judged, be they teachers or not?
The question was posed by members of the advisory committee to the
Board, but their answers were not those of the relativists or the secular
Humanists. Their admonitions to the Department staff encouraged a look
behind the fads of the moment, of the moral decay observable around us.
They urged, instead, what the State Board wanted to know: What are those
standards according to our tradition and heritage?
The advisory committee members observed that behind statutory and
constitutional law lies the uncodified law of human behavior upon which
statutory laws rest. Statutes, they observed, largely protect those standards
that are traditionally a part of a society. Law, in other words, is a protective
function. It punishes only when the established traditions are disregarded.
Crime by definition is "a public offense"; that is, an offense against estab-
lished morals and standards. Laws, in other words, do not create morality,
but they do identify what is immoral or "wrong" by establishing penalties
against infractions.
The teacher can surely identify what is a public offense by reciting the Ten
Commandments as the standard of morality for America and for most of the
Western world, because the Decalogue is the unwritten law of the land, the
intellectual infrastructure upon which statutory laws rest. Let us illustrate
this by reciting some Penal Code sections and the particular moral standards,
traceable to the Decalogue, which they protect. 3 The table reaffirms the
assertion of Louis de Bonald, the eighteenth century enemy of Voltaire: "Laws
come from an earlier time and like man himself, they existed before they
were born. " (Bonald was quick to observe, moreover, that "bad laws have a
beginning, but the good, emanating from God, are as eternal as He.")
Commandment
Penal Code Section
Third Thou shalt not take the name
Prohibits vulgar, profane or
of the Lord Thy God in vain.
indecent language: 415
Fourth Remember the Sabbath Day to
Disturbing religious meetings: 302
keep it holy.
3 This comparison is a brief example of what could be explored in more
detail. Other than the Penal Code, the following professional codes also lean
heavily on the Decalogue as representative of the moral standards which
citizens of California wish upheld: the Business and Professional Code; the
Welfare and Institutions Code; the Health and Safety Code; and of course, the
Education Code.
13
Commandment
Penal Code Section
Fifth
Honour thy Father and thy
Failure to provide for parents: 270c
Mother.
Sixth
Thou shalt not kill.
Assault: 149, 221, 240, 244, 245
Battery: 242, 243
Murder: 187-190, 190.1, etc.
Mayhem: 203, 204
Attempts to kill: 216, 217, 217.1,
218, 219, etc.
Duels: 225-231
Suicides: 401
Seventh Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Rape: 220, 261-264, 266b
Abduction: 265, 267
Seduction: 266, 268, 269
Prostitution: 266a, 266e-h, 273f,
etc.
Pandering: 266
Adultery: 269a, 269b
Failure to provide: 270, etc.
Abortion: 274-276
Bigamy: 281-284
Incest: 285, 359, 785
Eighth Thou shalt not steal.
Bribery or unlawful receipt of money
or property: 67, 67-1/2, 68, 70
72, etc.
Extortion: 518-524, 526, 527
Fraud: 154, 155, 156, 157, etc.
Forgery: 470-476, etc.
Kidnapping: 207-210, 278, 784
Robbery: 211, 211a, 212-214
Burglary: 459-461, etc.
Lotteries: 319-326
Gaming: 330, 330a-c, etc.
Counterfeiting: 366, 477-481
Larceny: 384a, 484-487, etc.
Embezzlement: 424-428, 431, etc.
Ninth
Thou shalt not bear false wit-
Perjury: 118, 118a, 119, etc.
ness against thy neighbor.
Falsifying evidence: 132-136
Libel: 248-257, 964
Slander: 258-260, 784a
Tenth
Thou shalt not covet thy neigh-
The mental act of coveting is not a
bor's house, wife, servants
crime, but the fulfillment of that
or property.
desire would lead to theft, adul-
tery, kidnapping, rape, arson, or
similar crimes.
14
Therefore, to understand morality according to our traditions and heritage,
it is imperative that we begin with those concepts which were so basically a
part of the thinking of America's Founding Fathers. The bases of moral con-
duct in America as in the Western World as a whole, we will find in two major
traditions: (1) that of natural or higher law as developed by reason; and (2)
that of moral absolutes as expressed in the Judeo-Christian religion. 4
A third source will be referred to as well: those codes of conduct which
govern primitive people and which are handed down from one generation to
another, largely by verbal tradition. 5
In all three instances, however, there is evidence that the moral law is
inseparable from the inherent nature of mankind as a whole.
And there is inescapable evidence that, in all three areas of discovery of
the moral law, ultimately moral man is found to be a reflection of his perfect
Creator, God.
4
The official philosophy of the State Department of Education, as enunci-
ated by Dr. Max Rafferty, June 16, 1965: "Education in Depth maintains that
there are positive, eternal values, and that the main purpose of Education is
to seek out these lasting values
"
5
Here the discipline of anthropology can be utilized by classroom teachers.
The connection of man with spiritual origins and destiny is common to all
primitive peoples and cultures. Fortunately Frank Hamilton Cushing, an
Indian affairs official who lived many years among the Zuni, put into English
Zuni religious myths. "Outlines of Zuni Creation Myths, 11 was first published
in the 13th Annual Report 1891-92 by the U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology,
Washington, D. C., pp. 325-447. It reflects in a remarkable way the story
of Genesis, and even of the Biblical wanderings of the Jews.
Chapter III
Morality and the Natural Law Tradition
A divine conception of the universe pervades the spirit of American civiliza-
tion as it does of world civilizations in general. It is that man's blessings-all
his freedoms-stem from a source that is higher than man.
This is the concept of higher law, or natural law, or divine law, as invoked
by America's men and heroes since the beginning of our history. The Declaration
of Independence incorporates this thesis, as every school boy should know. It
claims it is necessary for people "to assume among the powers of the earth, the
separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle
them
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
11
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
One of the problems of our time is that not every school boy does know the
significance of these theological declarations as they apply to the American
heritage.
The leading theorists on college campuses today seem to discredit the entire
theory of natural law by asserting it was nothing but an idealistic reflection of
a passing agrarian society, something of a figment of the imagination of one
man, Thomas Jefferson.
Roland Van Zandt, whose work is a source book for contemporary social
science teachers, refers to the "group of growing scholars and specialists who
have come to see that our traditional theories are indefensible even though these
theories are still generally subscribed to by the populace as a whole and those
members of society who are closest to the centers of power and are responsible
for the maintenance of that society. Mr. Van Zandt avoids theological premises
(see Chapter V) and considers the whole traditional order of American society
based upon "antiquated assumptions. 1
Mr. Van Zandt and the scholars of his school either miss the main thrust
of history as reflected in the American experiment, or they choose to ignore
it. What they ignore is the thesis that what is valid for all mankind is as valid
today as it was in the age of Gilgamish; namely, that the moral laws which
govern mankind remain constant, whatever the political or economic changes
in social structure that may take place as a result of technological changes.
It means, in other words, that a moral system governing the behavior of men
precedes and supercedes the political structure. It means that an intellectual
order is the infrastructure upon which an economic and political order rests.
The basic rights of free men are nowhere found where man is enslaved.
Such rights, in other words, to property, to freedom of movement within
one's own country, or the right to emigrate to another country. The cher-
ished American freedoms of speech, of press, of privacy, of conscience,
1
Roland Van Zandt, The Metaphysical Foundation of American History,
The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1959, p. 59.
15
16
or of trade and commerce are unknown in countries which have denied God.
Of supreme importance is the right of parents to raise and educate their chil-
dren. This is one of the first rights lost to free men under twentieth century
Communist or Nazi regimes, for example.
All such rights are accepted as commonplace to most Americans whose
thinking is rooted in natural law. To avoid instruction in the meaning of these
profound theories is tantamount to ignoring the foundation of Western Civiliza-
tion.
JOHN ADAMS
For instance, those rights were spelled out long before 1776. Listen to
John Adams, in 1765:
Let the bar proclaim "the laws, the rights, the generous plan of power"
delivered from remote antiquity, inform the world of the mighty struggles
and numberless sacrifices made by our ancestors in defense of freedom.
Let it be known that British liberties are not the grants of princes or
parliaments but original rights, conditions of original contracts, coequal
with prerogative and coeval with government; that many of our rights are
inherent and essential
Let them search for the foundations of
laws
and government in the frame of human nature, in the constitution of the
intellectual and moral world. There let us see that truth, liberty, justice,
and benevolence are its everlasting basis; and if these could be removed,
the superstructure is overthrown of course.
2
These views were repeated in the Declaration of Rights in 1774, which
declared that "the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by
the immutable laws of nature, have the following rights,' which were then
identified as those of "life, liberty and property.' This document, like that
of 1776, proceeded to identify in detail the infractions committed by the British
government against rights guaranteed to a free people by natural law precepts.
As Clarence Carson points out, our Founding Fathers were very much at
home with the philosophical systems of the ancient Greeks and Romans. "The
framers of the Constitution, he observed, "did not merely echo or imitate
this ancient material, they applied it to the task in hand and transmuted it
into workable form."
For the first time in modern history, in fact, a people, forced by circum-
stances to examine the first principles of freedom, actually incorporated in
their structure of government, in the Bill of Rights, a philosophy of govern-
ment based upon natural law concepts. To say, as the debunkers of American
history are saying, that such an enormous contribution to the history of man
was merely an "abstraction" and "unnatural," as Mr. Van Zandt and his school
assert, is one of the most twisted interpretations of a nation's history that
the most gifted writer on utopias could ever attempt.
2
Clarence B. Carson, The American Tradition. Irvington-Hudson, N. Y.
Foundation for Economic Education, 1964, p. 16.
17
Let us look at some of the sources read and digested and applied by America's
Founding Fathers.
ARISTOTLE
The first mover, then, exists of necessity; and in so far as it exists
by necessity, its mode of being is good, and it is in this sense a first
principle
On such a principle then, depend the heavens and the world
of nature
If then, God is always in that good state in which we some-
times are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet
more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the
actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God's self-dependent
actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living
being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal
belong to God; for this is God.
3
And readers of Aristotle will discover how much the peripatetic liked to
quote the eighteenth century poet Hesiod on the origins of the world; a paragraph
which sounds rather like Genesis and prophetic of the Incarnation:
First of all things chaos made, and then
Broad-breasted earth
And love, 'mid all the gods pre-eminent.
It is very true that much of Aristotle and Cicero and Seneca came to our
Founding Fathers from the English theorists Sir Edward Coke and William
Blackstone. Coke, a sixteenth century writer, was our country's link with
the ancient world through his concentration on the middle ages.
SIR EDWARD COKE
The law of nature was before any judicial or municipal law (and) is
immutable. The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of
the nature of man infused into his heart for preservation and direction;
and this is the eternal law, the moral law, called also the law of nature.
And by this law, written with the finger of God in the heart of man, were
the people of God a long time governed before the law was written by Moses,
who was the first reporter or writer of law in the world.
God and nature is one to all and therefore the law of God and nature is
one to all.
This law of nature which indeed is the eternal law of the Creator, infused
into the heart of the creature at the time of his creation, was two thousand
years before any laws written and before any judicial or municipal laws
3
Introduction to Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. XII. New York: Modern
Library, n. d., p. 295.
18
were made. Kings did decide cases according to the natural equity and were
not tied to any rule or formality of law.
4
WILLIAM BLACKSTONE
William Blackstone echoed Coke and was without doubt the most oft-quoted
philosopher among American patriots during the trying days of the independence
movement:
When the Supreme Being formed the universe and created matter out
of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which
it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be.
This, then, is the general signification of law, a rule of action dictated
by some superior being; and, in those creatures that have neither the power
to think, nor to will, such laws must invariably be obeyed, so long as the
creature itself subsists, for its existence depends on that obedience.
But laws, in their more confined sense and in which it is our present
business to consider them, denote the rules, not of action in general, but
of human action or conduct, that is, the precepts by which man
endowed
with both reason and free will, is commanded to make use of those faculties
in the general regulation of his behaviour.
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws
of his Creator for he is entirely a dependent being
a state of dependence
will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him on whom he depends
as the rule of his conduct
in all those points wherein his dependence
consists
Consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything,
it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will.
This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.
For as God, when he created matter, and endowed it with a principle
of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that
nation, so, when he created man, and endowed him with free will to conduct
himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human
nature, whereby that free will is in some degree regulated and restrained,
and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws
The Creator is a being not only of infinite power and wisdom, but also of
infinite goodness
he has so intimately connected, so inseparably inter-
woven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual,
that
happiness cannot be attained but by observing the former; and if
the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce [happiness].
4
Moral Leadership, The Protection of Moral Standards and Character
Education Program, United States Navy and United States Marine Corps,
Navpers No. 19589, 1957, p. 196.
19
This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law; for the
several articles into which it is branched into our systems, amount to no
more than demonstrating that this or that action tends to man's real
happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of
it is part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that
action is destructive of man's real happiness, and therefore that the law
of nature forbids it.
This law of nature being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God
himself, is of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding
over all the globe in all countries and at all times; no human laws are of
any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all
their force and all of their authority mediately or immediately from this
original.
5
CICERO
But it was the great Roman orator Cicero who was most often quoted by
men who blazed new routes in moral and political history in the 1770s. It
will be readily seen from the following how much of a debt they, as well as
Coke and Blackstone, owed to him:
There is in fact a true law -- namely right reason -- which is in
accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and
eternal. By its commands this law summons men to the performance of
their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. Its
commands and prohibitions always influence good men, but are without
effect upon the bad.
To invalidate this law by human legislation is never morally right, nor
is it permissible ever to restrict its operation, and to annul it wholly is
impossible.
Neither the Senate nor the people can absolve us from our obligation to
obey this law, and it requires no Sextus Aelius to expound and interpret it.
It will not lay down one rule at Rome, and another at Athens, nor will
it be one rule today and another tomorrow.
But there will be one law, eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times
upon all peoples; and there will be, as it were, one common master and
ruler of men, namely God, who is the author of this law, its interpreter
and its sponsor.
The man who will not obey it will abandon his better self, and, in denying
the true nature of a man, will thereby suffer the severest of penalties, though
he has escaped all the other consequences which men call punishment.
6
5
Ibid., pp. 196, 197.
6
Ibid., p. 196.
20
"Right reason," experience, experimentation, applied to the physical world
has allowed mankind to discover and harness the laws of physical nature to
apply to his comfort and pleasure. Right reason, experience, and experimen-
tation has also presented to mankind over the course of human history a structure
of moral order which, if followed, leads to peace and happiness and, if ignored,
leads to strife and tyranny.
Our Founding Fathers fully believed, therefore, that moral codes of law
were as discernible as were those laws governing the actions of physical forces.
They bound all men -- at all times in all countries. Through sheer "reason,"
given to man alone of all God's creatures, these laws are manifest. Our Found-
ing Fathers often quoted Plutarch's injunction: "to follow God and obey reason
is the same thing. IT Right reason would lead men to discover those laws govern-
ing human behavior, just as reason and experimentation revealed to man those
laws governing the movement of heavenly bodies, or of gravity, or of heat, or
the composition of matter. If all flowed from God, it was reasonable to expect
that He would enlighten man more and more as his reason was continuously
applied to experience. Because of this, perhaps, Roscoe Pound, America's
greatest teacher of law in the twentieth century, remarked about those from
whom our forefathers learned:
The Seventeenth Century policy as set forth in Coke's doctrine, was the
one we accepted at our Revolution and put into our constitutions. When
these instruments declare themselves the 11 supreme law of the land" they
use the language of Magna Carta as interpreted by Coke; namely, that
statutes could be scrutinized to look into the basis of their authority and
if in conflict with fundamental law they must be disregarded. This doctrine
was as much a matter of course to the American lawyer of the early Revolu-
tion as the doctrine of the absolute binding force of an act of Parliament is
to the English lawyer of today.
So steeped were the Eighteenth Century colonial lawyers in Coke's
teachings, that the controversial literature of the era of the Revolution,
if it is to be understood, must be read or interpreted by a common law
lawyer. Indeed, he must be a common law lawyer of the Nineteenth Century
type, brought up to read and reread Coke and Blackstone until he got the
whole feeling and atmosphere of those who led resistance to the home
government.
7
The one outstanding element which held together the spirit of our Founding
Fathers in those dark days of resistance to tyranny from abroad was the element
of humility as creatures of God. As Hamilton commented on the difficulties
which confronted them in their struggle for freedom: "It is impossible for the
man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand
which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical
stages of the Revolution. 118
7
Ibid., p. 198.
8
Federalist Papers, #37.
21
Today, as Americans are reflecting more and more upon those intellectual
foundations upon which our society and culture was established, they would be
less than sensible if they did not heed Roscoe Pound's advice and reexamine
those sources of wisdom which form one side of the triangle of our heritage.
By so doing, they would recognize the deep significance of that oft-quoted but
seldom examined phrase of Thomas Jefferson: "Endowed by our Creator with
certain unalienable rights.
Fortunately for the Department staff, Assemblyman E. Richard Barnes, for
over 20 years a chaplain in the U.S. Navy, became a member of the Advisory
Committee on Guidelines for Moral Instruction. He brought to our attention the
"moral leadership" program of the Navy and Marine Corps, from which some
of the preceding quotes were taken. Here was a prepared and tested outline
of techniques to teach young men the nature of man and his relationship to God,
his neighbor, his country, and his world. It was not only approved by all
denominations of chaplains of the Navy but approved as well by the federal
government as an educational program.
An analysis of the Navy's series of booklets on the subject of moral education
convinced the committee that much of the Department's task on this particular
phase of the guidelines had already been done. Accordingly, the chairman of
the committee wrote to the Chief of Navy Chaplains, Washington, D. C., asking
whether there would be any problem involved if the California State Board of
Education decided to use the Navy's materials as part of their moral guidelines
project.
Rear Admiral James W. Kelly, Chief of Chaplains, replied, "Your Committee
is indeed welcome to utilize as much of this subject matter as desired for the
propsed Guidelines. There are no copyright laws involved in the reproduction
of this material." In another communication the Admiral added, "I am pleased
in your interest in the Character Education program of the Navy and Marine
Corps, and I wish you success in the implementation of a similar program in
the California schools.
Rear Admiral Kelly managed to obtain for us 10 copies of the document
This Is My Life. 9 It is suggested by the staff that chapters I, II, III and V
are especially appropriate to the purposes assigned by the Board resolution of
July, 1968.
9
This is My Life, United States Navy and Marine Corps Character Education
Program, Series Four, NAVPERS 15884, Washington, D.C.
Chapter IV
Morality and the Religious Tradition
Every school boy is taught that America's first European settlers were
Christians, whether they were Anglo-Protestants in the North or Catholic
Christians sweeping up from the South. Moreover, both denominations carried
to the New World with them a missionary zeal to convert to Christianity the
Indians they found in the New World.
In 1493 Columbus wrote concerning his discoveries of the Indies:
Let Christ rejoice on earth, as he rejoices in heaven in the prospect
of the salvation of the souls of so many nations hitherto lost. Let us also
rejoice, as well on account of the exaltation of our faith, as on account
of the increase of our temporal prosperity of which not only Spain, but
all Christendom will be partakers.
1
It took several centuries for the Spanish missionary zeal to reach the
shores of California where Gaspar de Portola and Junipero Serra led the
northernmost exploits of the Spaniards to complete what Columbus had started
three centuries earlier.
Meanwhile, the English plans to colonize and civilize the eastern portions
of the New World were not without a Christian missionary zeal. Wrote Richard
Hakluyt in 1584:
It remains to be thoroughly weighed and considered by what means and
by whom this most godly and Christian work may be performed of enlarging
the glorious gospel of Christ, and reducing (leading) of infinite multitudes
of these simple people that are in error into the right and perfect way of
their salvation. The blessed apostle Paul, converter of the Gentiles,
Romans 10, writes in this manner: "Whosoever shall call on the name of
the Lord shall be saved. But how shall they call on him in whom they have
not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not
heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they
preach except they be sent?" Then it is necessary, for the salvation of
those poor people who have sat SO long in darkness and in the shadow of
death, that preachers should be sent unto them. But by whom should these
preachers be sent? By them no doubt who have taken upon them the pro-
tection and defense of the Christian faith. Now the Kings and Queens of
England have the name of Defenders of the Faith. By which title I think
they are not only charged to maintain and patronize the faith of Christ, but
also to enlarge and advance the same. 2
1
Edwin Scott Gaustad, A Religious History of America. New York:
Harper & Row Pubs., 1966, p. 7.
2
Ibid., p. 28.
22
23
We can know our heritage and our traditions through our documents -- by
reading the biographies of our heroes and by recording the impact of America
upon the world scene.
The compact signed aboard the Mayflower by the Puritans upon arriving at
Plymouth was "for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith.'
The primary purpose of education in America's early history was precisely
to prepare young Christians to familiarize themselves with the "book," the
Bible, as Justice Brewer of the U.S. Supreme Court said: "The American
Nation, from its first settlement in Jamestown to this very moment, has been
permeated by the Bible.
Abraham Lincoln once declared: "In regard to the great Book, the Bible,
I have only to say that it is the best gift God has ever given to man
But
for this Book we could not know right from wrong."4
Daniel Webster elaborated on this theme: "The Bible is a book of faith, and
a book of doctrine, and a book of morals, and a book of religion, of special
revelation from God.
In our times Adlai Stevenson found it necessary to observe that: "The
Christian faith has been the most significant single element in our history and
tradition.
Even the courts have, in recent years, in their zeal to protect the rights of
individuals, found it necessary to reassert America's religious heritage as
the major support of the individual because he is a creature of God. In Zorach
V. Clauson, the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that Americans "are a religious
people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." And in the case of
U.S. of America, V. Daniel Andrew Seeger, (an appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court to reverse conviction of refusal to submit to induction into the Armed
Forces, No. 206, Docket 28346, U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit 1964)
the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Daniel Seeger on the
following grounds:
It has been noted that the principal distinction between the free world
and the Marxist nations is traceable to democracy's concern for the rights
of the individual citizen as opposed to the collective mass of society. And
this dedication to the freedom of the individual of which our Bill of Rights
is the most eloquent expression, is in large measure the result of the
nation's religious heritage.
3
Benjamin J. Weiss, Great Thoughts. South Pasadena, Calif. : National
Educators Fellowship, 1968, p. 7.
4
Ibid., p. 9.
5
Ibid., p. 13.
6
Ibid., p. 39.
24
The court added, "Indeed, we here respect the right of Daniel Seeger to
believe what he will largely because of the conviction that every individual is
a child of God; and that Man, created in the image of his Maker, is endowed
for that reason with human dignity.
These comments only reaffirm what the State Board of Education resolution
asserted in December, 1963: the courts of our country have leaned again and
again upon America's religious heritage in order to arrive at decisions which
protect individual liberties.
How was the issue of religion in the public schools in California dealt with
in the past? It may be instructive for us to examine how the famous California
Superintendent of Public Instruction John Swett fused the issues of religion
and morality to the satisfaction of the public in his day.
JOHN SWETT
It is a curious circumstance that just about 100 years ago, John Swett found
it necessary to defend the public schools against charges that they were not
teaching morality to the children. His thirteenth report to the California State
Legislature for the year 1863 is replete with arguments for his defense and
supplies our generation with some materials that could well be examined for
our purposes. There are here excellent examples of how the natural law
precepts fused and mixed with the Christian ethic and how materials were
designed to fulfill the obligations of the schools as those officials of that day
saw it.
"That moral training is an important part of public school education, no
one will deny,' wrote Swett. And he added, "And that it receives all the
attention which its importance demands, few will affirm. 11
Swett continued:
Now, the moral faculties of the child, like the intellectual, need daily
development from the feeble germs of childhood. We do not expect a little
child to learn arithmetic or grammar by repeating rules and formulas;
neither ought we to suppose that the same child will appreciate, understand,
and assimilate, the great foundation principles of right and wrong which
should be its rule of action through life by the mere process of repeating
mottoes, maxims, or commandments.
It is not enough to tell children it is wicked to lie, or to make them
commit to memory the commandment forbidding it; the enormity of the
offence must be pressed home by familiar illustrations, by simple stories
or anecdotes, until their feeble moral powers can comprehend its meanness
and its wickedness. The moral faculties, like the intellectual, are of slow
growth; they need daily culture until the habit of right thinking and right
doing is formed. There are evil tendencies in the child's nature to be
repressed; there are the germs of good qualities to, be warmed into life and
quickened in their growth; and this is the work of skillful teachers during
many years.
25
Abstract doctrines of religious belief will never do this. The moral
nature grows with the intellectual -- as knowledge dawns upon the mind, so
comes the distinction between right and wrong. Any teacher who should
attempt to make his pupils thoroughly understand cube root by committing
to memory the rule without performing a single example under it, or who
should attempt to teach them a knowledge of grammar by requiring them to
memorize all the rules, without writing or speaking a word, would be far
wiser than he who attempts to develop the moral natures of children by
formal precepts alone. It is not the best way to make a boy honest to
require him to repeat, "Thou shalt not steal,' from morning till night,
neither is it the surest way to fortify him against a habit of profanity simply
by telling him it is wicked to swear. Hundreds of parents have found this
out to their sorrow. The form is too often mistaken for the reality, and
the shadow for the substance.
Simply reading the Bible in schools may be an aid to moral training, but
there is no substitute for it. The vital point is, not whether the Bible shall
or shall not be read, but whether the dormant germs of moral and religious
life shall be warmed and quickened by the soul of the teacher.
The difference between the English and the Douay version of the Scrip-
tures, about which there has been so much contention, makes no essential
difference in human nature, or in the great principles which underlie all
morality and all religion.
Do the public schools make any provision for moral culture, and if so,
what is it? The State Board of Education has placed on the State series
of textbooks Cowdery's Moral Lessons, to be used in school by teachers.
It seems a little strange, when so much attention has been given to text-
books in all school studies, that there is only one little work on morals
adapted to the minds of children, and based on philosophical principles of
development. Of larger works in ethics there are many, but this little
book of Cowdery's seems to be the only textbook suitable for use in schools
of the lower grades. It contains some thirty lessons on manners and morals,
each lesson having a maxim, which is illustrated by stories or anecdotes,
followed by questions on the principle inculcated. The following are the
subjects of the lessons:
1. Do unto others as you would have others do to you.
2. Repay all injuries with kindness.
3. A little wrong done to another is great wrong done to ourselves.
4. The noblest courage is the courage to do right.
5. Be slow to promise, but sure to perform.
6. Honor thy father and thy mother.
7. Think the truth; speak the truth; act the truth.
8. Do good to all as you have opportunity.
9. Speak evil of no one.
10. Carefully listen to conscience, and always obey its commands.
11. We must forgive all injuries, as we hope to be forgiven.
12. Learn to help one another.
13. The greatest conqueror is the self-conqueror.
26
14. Swear not at all.
15. Be faithful to every trust.
16. Be neat.
17. Right actions should spring from right motives.
18. Labor conquers all things.
19. Be honest in 'little things,' upright in all things
20. A person is known by the company he keeps.
21. Learn to deny yourself.
22. Live usefully.
23. Be kind to the unfortunate.
24. Do right and fear not.
25. Be patient and hopeful.
26. Be merciful to animals.
27. It is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong.
28. It is more blessed to give than to receive.
29. Think no thoughts that you would blush to express in words.
30. Live innocently if you would live happily.
31. We must learn to love others as we love ourselves.
32. The good alone are great.
Willson's Readers are adopted in the State Series. Are they destitute of
"moral lessons?" Turning to the pages of the Second Reader, designed for
primary schools, I find such lessons as these:
Never tell a lie;
Story of the railroad thief;
God is near;
Don't kill the birds;
Man and his Maker;
The angry man;
Lazy Slokins, the schoolboy --
Work and play;
drunkard the thief;
Praise ye the Lord;
The works of God;
The Ten Commandments.
Are not these the best kind of "moral lessons?" The Third Reader, for
the next higher grade of pupils, contains the following reading lessons, among
many others of a like nature:
My mother's Bible;
Joseph and his brethren;
The Creation;
The story of Moses;
The beginning of sin;
David and Goliath;
Cain and Abel;
David, Saul, and Jonathan;
The flood;
Solomon the wise king;
The Ark and the dove;
Solomon's Proverbs;
Abraham and Lot;
Be honest, and dare to tell the truth;
Abraham offering Isaac;
Idleness and industry compared;
Isaac and Rebecca;
Honesty is the best policy;
Jacob and Esau;
The first temptation.
Swett concluded this demonstration with a question in defense of the public
schools:
Here are found the most instructive and interesting stores of the Bible,
told to children in a pleasing and simple style. Are the public schools
27
any more "godless" than those in which the New England catechism, the
Catholic catechism, or the Episcopal catechism, all containing a skeleton
of church creeds, are learned by rote, without reference to understanding?
Yet zealots and bigots cry out against the public schools that they do not
teach the existence of a God, that they do not give instruction in the principles
of morality, that they do not recognize the truth of the Bible. These illustra-
tions are sufficient to refute the charge that the public schools pay no attention
to moral instruction. 7
Swett obviously did not feel that mere recitation of what was right and what
was wrong was going to do the job, but the example, "learning by doing, is a
technique as old as Adam and as applicable to the "moral faculties" as it is
the intellectual. Hence, he quoted several other superintendents of his day
from other states who described his views. The following is that of his colleague
from Illinois, the Honorable Newton Bateman:
It should be proclaimed in every school that there are original, immut-
able, and indestructible maxims of moral rectitude -- great lights in the
firmament of the soul which no circumstances can affect, no sophistry
obliterate; that to this eternal standard every individual of the race is bound
to conform, and that by it the conduct of every man shall be adjudged. It
should be proclaimed that dishonesty, fraud, and falsehood are as despicable
and criminal in the most exalted stations as in the most obscure, in politics
as in business; that the demagogue who tells a lie to gain a vote is as infamous
as the peddler who tells one to gain a penny; that an editor who wantonly
maligns an opponent for the benefit of his party, is as vile as the perjured
hireling who slanders his neighbor for pay; that the corporation or the man
who spawns by the thousand his worthless promises to pay, under the name
of banking, knowing them to be worthless, is as guilty of obtaining money
under false pretences as the acknowledged rogue who is incarcerated for the
same thing under the name of swindling; that the contractor who defrauds the
Government, under cover of the technicalities of the law, is as much a thief
as he who deliberately and knowingly appropriates to his own use the property
of another.
In a word, let it be impressed in all our schools that the vocabulary of
heaven has but one word for each wilful infraction of the moral code, and
that no pretexts or subterfuges or sophistries of men can soften the import
or lessen the guilt which that word conveys. Tell the school children that
the deliberate falsifier of the truth is a liar whether it be the prince on his
throne or the beggar on his dunghill; whether it be by diplomatists for reasons
of state, or by chiffoniers for the possession of the rags in the gutter. Tell
them that he who obtains money or goods under false pretences is a swindler,
no more or less, be the man and the circumstances what they may. Tell them
that he who irreverently uses the name of the Deity is a blasphemer, whether
7
Thirteenth Annual Report Of The Superintendent of Public Instruction of the
State of California for The Year 1863, pp. 144-147.
28
he be a Congressman or a scullion. Tell them that he who habitually drinks
intoxicating liquors to excess is a drunkard, whether it be from goblets of
gold in the palatial saloon, or from tin cups in a grog shop. Tell them that
he who speaks lightly or sneeringly of the honor of woman is a calumniator,
be his pretensions to gentility what they may. And SO with the whole catalogue
of vices and crimes, till the line of demarcation between good and evil shall
be graven so deeply upon the mind and conscience that it can never be obli-
terated. 8
If those words seem a little harsh and puritanical to our generation, they
nevertheless reflect the orientation of the leading school officials of their day.
But the point remains that up until recently, schools have been teaching the
essentials of morality by involving the specifics of our moral heritage accord-
ing to the Bible. Although this was not codified as law, there were moves in
1879 to clarify Section 1 of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of California
by the following amendment: "The standard of moral instruction in our public
schools shall be that set forth in the Bible, precluding sectarianism. "9
This amendment was not adopted for a variety of reasons, not the least of
which was the effort of some delegates to the 1879 convention to abolish that
entire section of the state constitution requiring "moral improvement. The
proponents of that section, however, prevailed over its opponents. Some of the
following remarks by the winning side are evidence of the reasons underlying
why that section remained in the Constitution and remains there today despite
efforts by the 1968 Constitution Revision Commission to erase it from history:
Mr. WINANS. Mr. Chairman:
Public education forms the basis of
self-government and constitutes the very corner stone of republican institu-
tions. Ignorance is the parent of vice, and vice soon hardens into crime.
Education is the parent of intelligence and virtue. Crime has its temples
in the penitentiaries which bristle over the land. Education has its temples
in the school houses which rear their stately domes within the cities, or
spread their simple structures, white and glowing in the sunlight, through-
out the towns and villages, over the hillsides and amid the valleys of this
broad domain. As the school houses multiply the penitentiaries decrease.
In the earlier Constitutions of the original States the subject of education
was merely mentioned. It was declared in the form of a principle, but did
not concentrate into any form of legislative enactment. It was merely the
broad declaration of a high principle, but as the time advanced and the
condition of the people improved, and the nation augmented, this subject
began to increase in consequence, and center into the new Constitutions
as they were from time to time adopted, in the form of section after section,
8
Ibid. pp. 149-150.
9
Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of
California, Vol. I, Supt. State Printing, Sacramento, 1880, p. 146.
29
until at last, it attained to the dignity of a complete article in every Constitu-
tion. In all of the Constitutions of the States, it is a noticeable fact, that the
declaration of abstract principles upon which they are founded is confined to
an original article entitled a "Declaration of Rights, 11 and in regard to the
articles upon education that figure through the several Constitutions of the
States there is this marked difference, that they are always premised by an
original section declaratory of the importance and magnitude of the service,
and declaratory of the principle which it involves. This is entirely excep-
tional in all the other departments of constitutional enactment. 10
Mr. Winans may have expected too much of education when he suggested
that as "school houses multiply, penitentiaries decrease," but he did under-
stand why those general words in Section 1, Article IX were needed to assure
continuity of the Republic.
Delegate Cross at that convention also distinguished these basic needs from
the equally necessary function of transmitting to all segments of education the
nature of our heritage:
Mr. CROSS. Mr. Chairman:
The section as here proposed by the
committee certainly does involve the expenditure of public funds for encour-
aging education not limited to reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, grammar,
and geography, but this to encouraging the promotion of intellectual, scientific,
moral, and agricultural improvement. The section as presented by the com-
mittee takes the position of the latter class, while the amendment represents
the sentiment that education at public expense should be limited to the common
English branches. This amendment proposes the education merely of children.
For my own part, I believe that if there is in the State of California one boy
or one girl of whatever age, a young man or a young woman who is disposed
to devote his or her time to the acquisition of knowledge, that it is for the
interest of this State to furnish the instruction. I believe it is for the interest
of the State, and if it is for the interest of the State we should not impair the
power of the State to act for its own interest.
The emphases on principles and the goals of general education were stated
by delegates Wickes and Lampson:
Mr. WICKES. Mr. Chairman: I am in favor of the retention of section
one of the report of the committee. I do not care whether it is called a
preamble or not. I take a Constitution to be a philosophic and historic as
well as a legal instrument. Judge Cooley, in his work on Constitutional Law,
says that a Constitution contains the principles upon which the government
is founded. We have here in this first section the principles, in a modified
for n, that underlie a system of general education. Here, now, is a republican
form of government in which the people are sovereign. This Government must
10
Ibid., p. 1087.
30
have the means of perpetuating itself, therefore the people must be educated.
Again, we must have good rulers, and good legislators to make the laws.
These rulers and these statesmen must come up from the ranks of the people;
hence the people must be liberally educated. Again, the people must under-
stand the importance of the laws that are made; hence the people must be
liberally educated. This section expresses that idea: A general diffusion
of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights
and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage, by all suitable
means, the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural
improvement. The better and more liberally the people are educated, the
more inventions and discoveries will be made. Again, to raise great men
you must raise the mass of the people. All must rise together. Another
reason why I am in favor of a liberal education, ranging from the primary
to the university grade, is that it breaks down aristocratic caste; for the
man who has a liberal education, if he has no money, if he has no wealth, he
can stand in the presence of his fellow-men with the stamp of divinity upon
his brow, and shape the laws of the people -- shape our republican institu-
tions by his intelligence and speech. 11
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman: I have but one word to say in reference
to this section. It seems strange to me that gentlemen should object to say-
ing that 'a general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation
of the rights and liberties of the people. I wish, myself, I could see it
doubly stated. The idea of striking out this declaration, or objecting to it,
is strange to me. If I was to strike out either one of the lines, I would
strike out the last two and leave that standing as a declaration to the people
of America. It reads clear and distinct, and goes on from where I stopped:
'The Legislature shall encourage, by all suitable means, the promotion of
intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement. All four
of these come in strictly under the true principle of education. The gentle-
man, in his amendment, leaves out one of them, the scientific. I see no
reason for striking out a single word from that section one. It stands
exactly as the words that are spoken by every parent, at his fireside, to his
child. I think that this Convention could find fault, perhaps, with other sec-
tions of this article, but on that section I see no reason for discussion. It
is the true principle, that comes from the heart of every parent, that the
diffusion of knowledge and intelligence is essential to the preservation of
the rights and liberties of the people. The Legislature will do what they
see fit to do. I do not think that a single word, even the word 'scientific,'
ought to be stricken out. The Legislature will provide in reference to it. 12
There are several important points that could be made about these remarks
made by legislators nearly a century ago. First, they were fully aware of the
early laws of the confederation which set aside lands for public education
designed to spread knowledge for the preservation of our Republic. Second,
they were aware that religion and morality were an integral part of that know-
ledge to be diffused.
11
Ibid., p. 1, 088.
12
Ibid., p. 1, 089.
31
In short, those legislators of 1879 included all segments of education under
the constitutional mandate that "the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable
means the promotion of
moral
improvement. It should be evident to
everyone that at that time it included higher education, as well as K through 12.
Today "higher education" includes the 14 university campuses, the 19 state
college campuses, and the 89 junior college campuses. Nevertheless, the
constitutional mandate is still there. It is necessary that this interrelationship
of all educational institutions be stressed. Because to redirect public instruc-
tion towards heritage and tradition as the ultimate rationale for the very existence
of public education (the thesis of these guidelines), it is obvious that the changes
must commence in the institutions of higher education. It is in these institutions
where teachers and other professional citizens are trained in the techniques to
transmit this heritage to our children and to posterity. In other words, the
universities and colleges must become involved in this rededication to American
moral standards if their graduates are to be effective torch bearers. How this
is to take place will certainly give rise to many other questions. The question
often before the public and the Legislature is whether the three branches of
higher education are performing the function expected of them; that is, prepar-
ing teachers and other professionals who know the American heritage and who
are dedicated to its perpetuation. The advisory committee feels this is the
crucial issue to be resolved by the State Board of Education.
Some key books, recently published, should be noted here as suggested
materials for teachers and administrators to train their instructors in this
important area.
Your American Yardstick, by Hamilton A. Long, (Your Heritage Books,
Philadelphia, 1963) is an encyclopedia of original quotations and references
concerning the "Twelve Basic American Principles" which undergird our
culture. It is a source book of unique value as America enters upon its 200th
anniversary years. It would be used as a teacher-training textbook or as a
classroom source book. The Boston City Schools recently adopted it for this
latter purpose. Highly recommended.
And We Mutually Pledge, by Stewart M. Robinson, a Presbyterian minister
and former chairman, General Commission on Chaplains, (Long House, Inc.
New Canaan, Connecticut, 1964). This small but compact book records and
describes how significant were the speeches and pamphlets of Ministers of the
Faith in the growing examination of the "cause of freedom" between 1770 and
1776. He demonstrates the links between the natural law and the divine law
concepts as recognized by the various Christian denominations.
Unto the Generations, The Roots of True Americanism, by Daniel L. Marsh,
former President of Boston University, (Long House, Inc., New Canaan,
Connecticut, 1968) is the republication of a text once called The American Canon
published in 1939. As with authors Long and Robinson, Dr. Marsh returns to the
essential documents and the men who wrote and supported them to discover the
"roots" of the American Creed. It is excellently written.
32
A Religious History of America, by Edwin Scott Gaustad, (Harper and Row,
New York, 1966) is an excellent text, full of original source materials, and is
most appropriate for teacher-training institutions.
Chapter V
Morality and the Challenge of Secular Humanism
HUMANISM IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
George Washington, in his "Farewell Address, warned in a subtle way of
an intellectual confrontation that was gathering force in his age. Commenting on
the need to promote the practice of religion as a safeguard to political stability,
he said: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of
refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principle.
That "supposition" to which Washington referred was not new to the eighteenth
century, nor were "minds of peculiar structure to whom he attributed that
"supposition" unknown in previous ages. Yet, our forefathers were well aware
that a new form of secularism was arising in the eighteenth century and that
this "new morality" was a philosophy of life to be avoided, or even suppressed.
The new "religion" which gave rise to the French Revolution and the terror has
been known by many names since the eighteenth century. Most often it is char-
acterized by what it rejects, than by what it fosters. The iconoclastic but wise
Voltaire even made fun of his own destructive achievements when he once coun-
seled a young revolutionary who wanted to know how to establish a new religion.
Said Voltaire, "Get yourself crucified and then rise from the dead after three
days."
John Jay, when serving abroad in the 1780s as an emissary for the Confedera-
tion of States, relates how he was challenged by Jacobin intellectuals. Once
during a party he related how the conversation fell on religion and a guest asked
him if he believed in Christ. "I answered that I did, 11 responded Jay, "and that
I thank God that I did." A cold silence fell upon the group, he records in his
memoirs, and "nothing further passed between me and them on that subject.
On another occasion, Jay relates, he was in an argument with a fellow about
the existence of God. His host affirmed that he would welcome the day when
there would be no religion at all in the world. Jay argued that if there was no
God, there was no morality, and if no morality then no obligations at all among
men. His antagonist agreed with alacrity and declared that then they could all
establish a substitute religion based upon "enlightened self-interest." Jay con-
cluded that he turned a cold shoulder on his companion and that ended the conver-
sation.
A few years later, in 1789 when the French Revolution was about to burst,
Alexander Hamilton wrote to his old comrade-in-arms, the Marques de Lafayette,
to be wary of the Jacobin intellectuals. "I dread the reveries of your philosophic
politicians" he remarked. He urged his old friend not to collaborate with them.
The advice was not heeded, history tells us, and following the overthrow of
the old regime in France and after the religion of "reason" gave way to the
33
34
tyranny of Napoleon, Hamilton attempted to organize a highly tight-knit
society to arrest the progress of Jacobinism in the U.S. "Let an association
be formed, 11 he suggested, "to be denominated by the Christian Constitutional
Society. Its objects to be: First, the support of the Christian religion;
second, the support of the Constitution of the U.S. 11
The foregoing observations could be broadened extensively to demonstrate
that antireligious forces of the modern age were well-known to our Founding
Fathers and that they were prepared to organize against them. These forces
of antireligion are generally the creations of "minds of peculiar structure, "
as Washington noted. In previous centuries they were not organized, but
isolated "free thinkers, 11 intellectuals who challenged the established creeds
because their country's religion had become corrupt or perhaps because out
of sheer intellectual curiosity. Protagoras, for example, the fifth century
B. C. philosopher, wearied of the routine explanation that the pagan gods were
responsible for man's behavior, wiped out theology as a subject of discourse
when he declared: "Man is the measure of all things."
Alexander Pope echoed Protagoras in the eighteenth century when he wrote
his Essay on Man in which he declared: "The proper study of mankind is man. 11
True enough, so long as the analyst sees in man a spiritual as well as a physi-
cal nature.
It was not until the eighteenth century, however, when this philosophy
emerged as the moving force of organized societies to divorce the nature of
man from his spiritual half and to concentrate solely on his physical self,
composed, chemists tell us, of 95 percent water. In the second third of the
eighteenth century, these "minds of peculiar structure, 11 as Washington
described them, conspired to overthrow the existing system of government
and to change the basic intellectual structure of society upon which those gov-
ernments rested. Their "creed" rejected the proposition that any form of
supernatural order exists. Their only cure for man's ills was to destroy the
very conception of God Himself, as well as any civilization based upon divine
revelation.
How concerned the men of the eighteenth century were with this creeping
cult of secular Humanism is reflected in a document recently extracted from
archives in Philadelphia and republished by Robert Donner of Colorado Springs. 1
Not only is the natural and divine law theory expressly stated here as the under-
lying intellectual foundation of America's political and judicial systems, but
the analysis of the "intellectual left" as early as 1800 makes it a suitable docu-
ment to demonstrate that secularist Humanism as a minority movement is not
exactly new upon the American scene. Some caution should be executed, however,
when reading Judge Addison on the participation of Masons in these developments.
The destruction of French Freemasonry was a result of the infiltration of revo-
lutionary elements into masonry, as Judge Addision laments. American masonry,
1
Alexander Addison, Rise and Progress of Revolution: A Charge to the Grand
Juries of the County Courts of the Fifth Circuit of the State of Pennsylvania, at
December Sessions, 1800, Philadelphia, 1801. (Robert Donner, 7 West Las Vegas
St., Colorado Springs, Colorado)
35
identified in the person of George Washington, was conscious of this penetra-
tion and successfully combated it. 2 Our Founding Fathers were aware of these
revolutionary developments in our early history and they brought them into the
open. This is in the tradition of free inquiry in a country of free men. This
atheist creed has grown over the years and decades and is today in full bloom
across the world. Generally the creed assumes the name of Humanism despite
the fact that the original Humanists, the Christian latinists of the Renaissance
Petrach, Erasmus, Juan Luis Vives, John Colet, St. Thomas More -- have as
little in common with these "peculiar minds, 11 as William F. Buckley, Jr. has
with Gus Hall.
HUMANISM IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
Time magazine, August 17, 1962, gave the following account of the rising
Humanist movement in an article entitled "The Supreme Being: Man":
The Renaissance "Humanist" was a foe of medieval scholastic philosophy,
an admirer of the Greek and Latin classics. Now Humanist means a believer
in an ethical nonreligion, in which the Supreme Being is man, and prayer is
"a telephone conversation with no one at the other end. " To Humanists, God
is a bundling up of all life's mysteries in one package, just as a man with
bills at many stores might consolidate his debts with a bank loan so as to
owe only the bank. Humanists, reject both consolidations as equally delusive.
Contemporary Humanism is catching on. Last week, at the Third Congress
of the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Oslo, 400 sober-minded
Humanists were on hand, representing more than 300, 000 of their fellow
believers in 24 countries. Although West Germany subsidizes some Humanist
organizations, and The Netherlands allows them to have their own army
chaplains, Humanist societies are generally denied the recognition that
governments accord to religious groups. But what they lack in privilege,
the Humanists make up in prestige: the ranks of the American Humanist
Association are heavy with scientists and intellectuals, and the international
union boasts such influential leaders as British Biologist Julian Huxley and
two Nobel prizewinners, British Agriculturist Lord Boyd Orr and U.S. Genet-
icist Hermann Muller.
From Atheists to Agnostics. Chief purpose of the Oslo congress was a
discussion of long-range Humanist goals, and talk at the six-day session
centered on the problem of how to develop a mature (meaning nonreligious)
personality, and how Humanists could help preserve individual freedom in
2
Evidence of strong anticommunist sentiment in American Masonry today is
the effort of the Supreme Council, 33rd, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of
Freemasonry, (Southern Jurisdiction, United States of America, 1733 16th St.,
N. W. Washington 9, D. C.) to inform their brothers of the international menace.
See their "Communism Menaces Freedom" by Willard E. Givens and Belmont M.
Farley, and other pamphlets which can be used in schools to bolster American
understanding of the problem and gird up the American intellectual structure.
36
an overorganized world. The socially conscious delegates also thought
about goals closer to hand, passed a resolution approving the anti-hunger
work of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization as "a notable
example of Humanist action. 11 To abet the work of FAO, Humanists of the
world were urged to work for better birth-control campaigns at home, and
for the industrialization of underdeveloped nations.
Delegates ranged from dedicated atheists to questioning agnostics eager
to cooperate with well-meaning Christians in building the good society, and
they differed widely in their attitude toward religion. Norwegian Psychiatrist
Gabriel Langfeldt argued that individuals would, in the future development of
mankind, have to make a choice between religion and ethics: "Crediting
ethics to supernaturally inspired messages and to revelations has led and
still leads to brutal wars. Ethics, anchored as it is in purely human needs,
"
will always win where religion and ethics come into conflict.
"We Cannot Go Back, 11 Belgian Astronomer Karel Cuypers pointed out
that Humanism is the heir of organized religion, and warned the delegates
that totalitarian ideologies may take advantage of the decline of organized
religion to substitute themselves for God. "The loosening of the grip of
religion has created great danger both for religion itself and for Humanism."
Cuypers warned. "But we cannot go back. We cannot return to irration-
alism and to mysticism without denying ourselves."
Does Humanism's godless, man-centered faith offer much hope to the
world? So far, the world as a whole has its doubts, but Humanists are
convinced that their emphasis upon life here and now frees man to concen-
trate upon the improvement of the earth he occupies. Sums up Humanist
Langfeldt: "As man becomes more educated, mysticism and dogma dis-
appear and are replaced by rational thinking. We believe in the goodness
of men. If we can get rid of the political and religious pressures burdening
man today and encourage his honest, generousness and intelligence instead,
we can make a better world for all of us."
Another article in the Brooklyn Tablet, July 8, 1965, is indicative of the
movement's progress in Europe:
German Christians, almost evenly divided among Catholics and Prot-
estants, are being faced with a new force that is frankly dedicated to under-
mining Christian influence in public and private life.
The "third church"
as it is sometimes referred to, is the Humanist Union, an organization of
intellectual atheists. Most of the union's influence has sprouted up in the
past two years under the direction of Gerhard Szezesny, onetime culture
editor of Bavarian radio in Munich,
The Humanist Union differs from
other anti-clerical organizations. First, it is avowedly atheistic. Second,
it is not limited to a small esoteric circle of believers. The union is grow-
ing day by day, and it is finding most of its followers among intellectual
groups, college students, artists and professors.
37
The Humanist movement is important to analyze if we are to arrive at an
objective approach to the teaching of morality in our public schools, because
Humanism, a twentieth century synonym for atheism, is a religion according
to their own proclamations and according to law. For this important reason,
the role Humanism has in the California school system must be well compre-
hended if we are to evaluate "activity alien to our heritage and/or contrary to
public policy. 11
Probably one of the most complete statements ever made public about the
Humanist religion was published in The New Humanist, Vol. VI, No. 3, in
1933. It was called "A Humanist Manifesto" and is reproduced here in its
entirety:
A HUMANIST MANIFESTO
The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in
religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere
revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted
the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming
to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and
experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in
the direction of a candid and explicit HUMANISM. In order that religious
Humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make
certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life
demonstrate.
There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of
the word RELIGION with doctrines and methods which have lost their sig-
nificance and which are powerless to solve the problems of human living in
the 20th Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the
highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpre-
tation of a total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of
values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established
for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results
in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the change-
fulness of religion thru the centuries. But thru all changes religion itself
remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of
human life.
Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achieve-
ments, and his deeper appreciation of brotherhood have created a situation
which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such
a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social
goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete
break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional
religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be
a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs
of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.
38
It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm
the following:
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not
created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has
emerged as the result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional
dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civiliza-
tion, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product
of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environ-
ment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular
culture is largely molded by that culture.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by
modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees
of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of
realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine
the existence and value of any realities is by means of intelligent inquiry
and by the assessment of their relation to human needs. Religion must
formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism,
modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences
which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious.
It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation
all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living.
The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be
maintained.
EIGHTH: Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human
personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and ful-
fillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's
social passion.
NINTH: In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the
humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense
of personal life in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and
attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his
knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly
attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We
assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and
discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living,
religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage
achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and
institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evalua-
tion, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and
institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose
and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their
39
ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must
be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function
effectively in the modern world.
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisi-
tive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and
that a radical change in methods, controls and motives must be instituted.
A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the
end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The
goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people volun-
tarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists
demand a shared life in a shared world.
FIFTEENTH: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than
deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from it; and
(c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all,
not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism
will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the technique
and efforts of humanism will flow.
So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the
religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for
the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming
aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his
dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must
set intelligence and will to the task.
Signers:
J. A. C. Fagginger Auer
- Parkman Prof. of Church History and Theology,
Harvard University; Prof. of Church History,
Tufts College.
E. Burdette Backus
- Unitarian Minister.
Harry Elmer Barnes
- Gen. Editorial Dept., Scripps-Howard News-
papers.
L. M. Birkhead
- The Liberal Center, Kansas City, Mo.
Raymond B. Bragg
- Secretary Western Unitarian Conference.
Edwin Arthur Burtt
- Prof. of Philosophy, Sage School of Philosophy,
Cornell University.
Ernest Caldecott
- Minister, First Unitarian Church, Los Angeles.
A. J. Carlson
- Prof. of Physiology, Univ. of Chicago.
John Dewey
- Columbia University
Albert Dieffenbach
- Former Editor Christian Register
John H. Dietrich
- Minister, First Unitarian Society, Minneapolis.
Bernard Fantus
- Prof. of Therapeutics, College of Medicine,
Univ. of Illinois.
William Floyd
- Editor of The Arbitrator, New York, N.Y.
F. M. Hankins
- Prof. of Economics and Sociology, Smith College.
A. Eustace Hayden
- Prof. of History and Religions, Univ. of Chicago.
Llewellyn Jones
- Literary critic and author
Robert Morse Lovett
- Literary critic and author; Editor New Republic;
Prof. English, Univ. of Chicago.
Harold P. Marley
- Minister, The Fellowship of Liberal Religion,
Ann Arbor, Mich.
40
R. Lester Mendale
- Minister, Unitarian Church, Evanston, Ill.
Charles Francis Potter
- Leader and Founder the First Humanist
Society of New York, Inc.
John Herman Randall, Jr.
- Dept. of Philosophy, Columbia University.
Curtis W. Reese
- Dean Abraham Lincoln Center, Chicago.
Oliver L. Reiser
- Associate Prof. of Philosophy, Univ. of
Pittsburgh.
Roy Wood Selaars
- Prof. of Philosophy, Univ. of Michigan.
Clinton Lee Scott
- Minister, Universalist Church, Peoria, Ill.
Maynard Shipley
- Pres. The Science League of America
W. Frank Swift
- Director, Boston Ethical Society
V. T. Thayer
- Educational Director, Ethical Culture Schools.
Eldred C. Vanderlaan
- Leader of the Free Fellowship, Berkeley,
Calif.
Joseph Walker
- Attorney, Boston, Mass.
Jacob J. Weinsten
- Rabbi, Advisor of Jewish Students, Columbia
University
Frank S. C. Wicks
- All Soul's Unitarian Church, Indianapolis, Ind.
David Rhy Williams
- Minister, Unitarian Church, Rochester, N. Y.
Edwin H. Wilson
- Managing Editor, The New Humanist, Chicago;
Minister, Third Unitarian Church, Chicago, Ill.
The New Humanist ceased publication in October, 1936, and was succeeded
by the Humanist Bulletin, which also became defunct within a few years.
3
THE CONTEMPORARY HUMANISTS
Thus, it is evident that what was said about adherents of Humanism in
Europe is also true about America. Subscribers to that now defunct journal,
The New Humanist, indicated a membership almost wholly intellectual or
literary, or church affiliated. An ingredient has been added to the revival of
Humanism in the 1960s as the Time magazine article indicated. Scientists,
especially biologists and psychologists, and their allied disciplinarians, such
as sociologists and anthropologists, have joined together in recent years to
create the American Humanist Association. Their publication, The Humanist,
begun in 1963, features well-known intellectuals who are also frequent campus
guest lecturers -- Erich Fromm, Julian Huxley, Harry Elmer Barnes, and
Lester Kirkendall. The British philosopher Bertrand Russell, whose books are
widely used in U.S. colleges, recently was featured by a letter to the editor
of the Humanist refuting speculation that he, Russell, was about to convert to
some religion before he died. Retorted Russell to the rumor: 'How often
must I deny that I have become religious? There is no basis whatsoever for
these rumors. My views of religion remain those that I acquired at the age
of 16. I consider all forms of religion not only false, but harmful. My pub-
lished works record my views. 114
3
Californians will have a hard time finding copies, since our research
revealed that only libraries on the East Coast still retain copies of The New
Humanist.
4
The Humanist, September/October 1968, p. 24.
41
The ideas of the "Humanist Manifesto" of 1933 are incorporated in brief
on the inside cover of each issue of the present Humanist magazine as follows:
Humanism is way of life which relies on human capacities and natural
and social resources. Humanists see man as a product of this world of
evolution and human history and acknowledge no cosmic mind or super-
natural purpose or forces. Humanism expresses an attitude or conviction
which requires the acceptance of responsibility for human life in this world,
emphasizing mutual respect and recognizing human interdependence.
The American Humanist Association was incorporated as an educational
membership organization in 1941 to represent the views of humanists in
the United States and Canada. It is a founding member of the International
Humanist Ethical Union. 5
In the "Credo of a Humanist written by a U.S. Air Force Captain, Dale E.
Noyd, who is seeking conscientious objector status because of his Humanist
religion, we learn who some of the prophets of the new religion are:
The basis of my faith, beliefs, and values is humanism; this essentially
means respect and love for man, faith in his inherent goodness and perfecta-
bility, and confidence in his capability to ameliorate some of the banes of
the human condition. Included in my faith is the belief that, apart from the
issue of the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being, the pre-
occupation with such an object-being has been functionless and diversionary;
that it has reflected principally the lack of imagination and courage of man;
that it has been inimical to man defining his highest ideals; and that it has
been pernicious to the individual integrity and moral purpose necessary to
achieve those ideals. I have faith in man, and concommitantly, what may
be called ultimate concern for man. My beliefs concern the value, dignity,
and particularly the growth of man -- ideas found in disparate sources.
They may be found in what has been termed "earthly salvation' by certain
Christian sects, "personal integration or self-actualization" by Rationalists,
"being" by existentialists, "neogenesis" by Teilhard, "the courage to be"
by Tillich, and "affirmation and rebellion 11 by Camus. Humanism is eclectic
but at the same time simple and singular: and whether it be labeled a reli-
gion, movement, philosophy, or creed, it is the sustaining and directing
force in my life.
It is, of course, impossible for me to state the entire content of my
humanist faith in a paragraph, but the communalities that exist among the
writings of men such as Camus, Tillich, Huxley, Fromm, Potter, Russell,
Pike, Lippmann, Cummings, Buber, and Teilhard offer an indicant of this
credo. 6
5
The Humanist, July/August 1967.
6
Humanist, July/August, 1967, p. 130.
42
Moreover, there are two U.S. Supreme Court decisions cited by the
Humanist magazine which gives legal sanction to the claim that Humanism
is a religion. One is the Torcaso case, 1961, and the other the Seeger case,
1964. 7 In The Fellowship of Humanists V. the County of Alameda, (153 C. A. L.,
A. P.P. 2nd 673) September 17, 1957, a California court agreed that the
fellowship was a church in the sense that their facilities were used as a church
and therefore tax exempt. The Humanist won its claim by arguing that "the
state has no power to decide the validity of the beliefs held by a humanist group.
The court agreed that religion fills a void that exists in the lives of most men'
and accepted the arguments of the defendants, the Humanists:
(13) Id. Exemptions - - Property Used for Religious Worship. - The proper
interpretation of "religion" or "religious" in tax exemption laws should
not include any reference to whether the beliefs involved are theistic or
nontheistic; religion simply includes (1) a belief, not necessarily referring
to supernatural powers; (2) a cult involving a gregarious association openly
expressing the belief; (3) a system of moral practice directly resulting from
adherence to the belief; and (4) an organization within the cult designed to
observe the tenets of the belief.
HUMANISM AND PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION
If we keep in mind the yardstick for measuring American traditions and
heritage as defined in chapters III and IV, we will be better able to grasp the
subtle and challenging nature of dealing with secular Humanism in the public
schools:
Humanism is, by definition, a religion.
Humanists meet in places which have the legal status of "churches."
Humanists claim pacificism as a religious tenent, and it has been
conceded to them by the courts of our nation,
More important, since the Humanist religion is solely materialistic, the
goals of the Humanists are also solely materialistic. This means that "the
things of this world' dominate all aspects of the Humanist personality.
This purely secularist philosophy of life, entrenched in high places, has
created an intellectual confrontation within the educational system which must
be recognized, especially as it touches on the issue of morality in school
curriculum and on the question of sectarianism in the schools.
The one name that stands out in the signatures of the "Humanist Manifesto'
is that of John Dewey, known commonly as the high priest of "progressive
education. 11 Many writers have, over the years, critically examined the
7 Ibid., p. 115.
43
"philosophy" of John Dewey and concluded that it is incompatible with the
American Tradition. But few have openly asserted that Dewey's disciples
are teaching a religion in the public schools of our nation, Says Albert Lynd:
Many of Dewey's educational disciples may be copy or confused,
but the master himself is clear enough in his writings about the implica-
tions of his philosophy. It excludes God, the soul, and all the props of
traditional religion. It excludes the possibility of immutable truth, of
fixed natural law, of permanent moral principles. It includes an attitude
toward social reform which is anti-Communist, but unmistakably
socialist. 8
In the Turning of the Tides, 9 Congressman Paul Shafer and John H. Snow
pointed out how progressive education had penetrated nearly every discipline
of the public school system through the national professional organizations.
In 1950 William Buckley, Jr., hammered at the theme in his Man and God
at Yale:
The teachings of John Dewey and his predecessors have borne fruit.
And there is surely not a department at Yale that is uncontaminated with
the absolute that there are no absolutes, no intrinsic rights, no ultimate
truths. The acceptance of these notions, which emerge in courses in
history and economics, in sociology and political science, is psychology
and literature, makes impossible any intelligible conception of an omnipotent,
purposeful, and benign Supreme Being who has laid down immutable laws,
endowed his creatures with inalienable rights, and posited unchangeable
rules of human conduct. 10
HUMANISM AND "SEX EDUCATION"
How has the rejection of the American premise that we are a people
"grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom" affected the curriculum of the
public schools?
Put another way, has the religion of Humanism penetrated the curriculum
of the schools without being classified as a religion, and therefore subject
to the limitations of all religions; that is, that it should be identified and
studied as a religion?
The controversy over "sex education" in California's public schools has
been shown to be closely associated with the recent affirmation of a "new
morality. " Both of these movements are in turn connected with the "sex
revolution, 11 which has been a planned program of indoctrination underway on
8
Augustin G. Rudd, Bending the Twig, American Book-Stratford Press, Inc.,
New York, 1957, p. 135.
9
Paul W. Shafer and John Howland Snow, The Turning of the Tides. New
Canaan, Conn.: Long House, Inc., 1956.
10
Rudd, op. cit., p. 167.
44
many college campuses for many years. Any cursory examination will
reveal all three movements to be connected with leading personalities in
Humanist or allied organizations of one type or another. 11 Often the sex
education programs for the K-12 years follow upon the heels of these well-
planned "sex revolution" programs, such as that conducted in Sacramento
the week of February 26 through March 1, 1968, and sponsored by the
colleges of the community. Entitled "The Sexual Revolution, 1968, the
program featured a number of well-established "sexologists": Ira Reiss;
James E. Elias, an associate of Alfred C. Kinsey; a newcomer, but very
popular, Anson Mount, Public Affairs Manager of Playboy magazine; plus
the granddaddy of all sexologists, Albert Ellis, a man who has devoted his
life and fortune to "urge young Americans to perpetrate almost any sexual
act their cunning little minds can devise. "12
A member of the staff of the State Department of Education and two legis-
lators attended one of Mr. Mount's lectures at American River College on
February 27, 1968, and reported the following to the Superintendent of
Public Instruction:
Throughout his address Anson Mount referred to "situation ethics,"
that right and wrong in the old sense is dead. Medicine and modern
science have made sex relatively safe. 11 That premarital sex is dangerous
is old hat, and guilt feelings about "illicit sex" are ridiculous.
The new measure for right and wrong is whether "it affects the human
happiness of others. Intercourse OK among students if it doesn't violate
their own moral standards. It is immoral only when it interferes with
human welfare or happiness. " The only evil in life is a lack of love for
fellow man. Nothing is wrong except as it affects people. "The older
generation is unqualified to judge" since they have actually rejected
Christian morality and are "sick, inhuman, unchristian, boobs and
babbits. 11 The New Morality is a rebellion against this phoney parental
authority.
Mount discusses "morality" of business, of war, of greed, etc., and
claims adults are shocked at "one little 'dirty' deed of a boy and a girl
out in the woods. 11
His address is colored with the words Humanistic and Secular, which
holds that "The Highest Good is Human Welfare and Happiness. The
11
See the publication "Sex/Family Life Education and Sensitivity Training--
Indoctrination or Education presented to the California State Board of Educa-
tion, February, 1969, by the Citizens for Parental Rights, P.O. Box 241,
San Mateo, California 94401. This document has become part of an overall
Report of the State Department of Education as a result of the series of reports
and hearings conducted by the State Board between January and April, 1969.
12
Robert A. Liston, "Biographical Sketch of Albert Ellis, 11 The Man's
Magazine, (March 1966).
45
religions of your parents are fossilized
better to join the Peace Corps,
or the "Southern Christian Leadership Conference"
Mount's heroes are Bishop James Pike and the English Bishop, Robinson,
lately of the English Anglican Church. He mentioned the Hippie retreat at
Esalon at Big Sur and confirmed at the end of his speech that "OUR RELIGION
IS OUR LOVE AFFAIR WITH LIFE. 11
If one calculates that such teams of "sexperts" are storming the ivy walls
of college campuses across the country preaching this "religion," there is
little wonder demands are now made to prepare adolescents for the environ-
ment into which they will step upon graduation from high school.
One of the apostles of Humanism and of sex education who joins the secondary
level and higher education with the various noneducational organizations is
Lester Kirkendall, formerly of Oregon State University. Dr. Kirkendall is
now devoting full time to preparing teachers how to teach "sex education' K-12.
The fact that Dr. Kirkendall is an officer of the American Humanist Associa-
tion and of the Sex Information Educational Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) as
well as an editor of the Humanist makes his work particularly important for
us to analyze. The following orientation for discussing the sticky questions
about right and wrong are from a position paper he issued to teachers at a
training session in southern California. The paper is entitled "A Morality
for Twentieth Century Living.'
The moral code must concentrate upon what behavior, attitudes and
experiences will do to actualize man's sociality, rather than upon maintain-
ing prescribed or proscribed patterns of behavior. The practice of consider-
ing moral standards wholly in terms of acts which are acceptable or which
are to be renounced has become completely impractical as a result of the
cultural intermingling which is now occurring and growing rapidly. This
factor in particular emphasizes the need to undercut various differences as
they are reflected in overt acts, and find a common ground which will
enable us to interpret all behavior in its context.
It is these considerations which have crystallized for me the idea that
morally our first concern should be for the development of effective inter-
personal relationships. It was this which led me to write:
Whenever a decision or a choice is to be made concerning behavior,
the moral decision will be the one which works towards the creation of
trust, confidence, and integrity in relationships. It should increase the
capacity of individuals to cooperate, and enhance the sense of self-
respect in the individual. Acts which create distrust, suspicion, and
misunderstanding, which build barriers and destroy integrity, are
immoral. They decrease the individuals sense of self-respect, and
rather than producing a capacity to work together they separate people
and break down the capacity for communication.
This concept may be set up in chart forin.
46
BASIS FOR MORAL JUDGEMENTS
Those actions, decisions and attitudes are
Right
Wrong
1. increased capacity to trust people
1. increased distrust of people
2. greater integrity in relationship
2. deceit and duplicity in relationships
3. dissolution of barriers separating
3. barriers between persons and groups
people
4. cooperative attitudes
4. resistant, uncooperative attitudes
5. feelings of faith and confidence in
5. exploitive behavior toward others
people
6. enhanced self-respect
6. diminished self-respect
7. fulfillment on individual potentialities 7. thwarted and dwarfed individual
and a zest for living
capacities and disillusionment
13
An examination of several guides from various school districts indicate that
this foundation for "moral" behavior has been adopted by some school districts. 14
To put it another way, the Humanist religion is being used as the basis for
moral judgments, whether it be in sex education or those sessions called
"interpersonal relationships. "
For example, Ashley Montague, a self-described "social biologist" who has
been promoting "the sex revolution for some decades, reflects this amoral
religion in "The Pill, The Sexual Revolution, and the Schools' when he wrote:
Young unmarried individuals who are sufficiently responsible will be
able, in the new dispensation [sic], to enter into responsible sexual rela-
tionships in a perfectly healthy and morally acceptable and reciprocally
beneficial manner which will help the participants to become more fully
developed human beings than they would otherwise have stood a chance of
becoming. The dead hand of ugly traditional beliefs (such as the nastiness
and sinfulness of sex, the wickedness of premarital sex), which has been
responsible for untold human tragedies, will be replaced by a new flowering
of human love.
15
13
Obtained at the Charter House inservice training session, Anaheim,
California.
14
Review Committee, Supplementary Evaluation of Curriculum Guides on
Family Life and Sex Education and an Overview of the Guides, State Depart-
ment of Education, Sacramento, March 5, 1969.
15
To balance this kind of "morality" one could reach into history's great
storehouses and select many works on moral theology to propose as an antidote.
We think The Handbook of the Militant Christian, by the Christian Humanist
Desiderus Erasmus would be a real challenge to this generation.
47
What is important for educators to remember is that such indoctrination
is not labeled as "religious instruction. 11 If Dr. Kirkendall's seven command-
ments of Humanism were placed alongside the Ten Commandments, "right
and wrong" could be more properly analyzed. In other words, Humanism,
as a religious approach to life, must be identified as such, studied as such,
and taught as one of many creeds which form the fabric of our American
civilization. To teach Humanism's "moral code" any other way is tantamount
to indoctrination in a religion and contrary to public policy according to
Education Code Section 8453.
The State Board of Education accumulated huge quantities of materials
about SIECUS and its adherents during its lengthy investigation of sex educa-
tion in California's schools. The investigation was completed on April 10,
1969, after which the Board adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The California Constitution prescribes "moral improvement"
as one of the principal purposes of the public schools;
WHEREAS, The traditional institutional sources of family and sexual
information and guidance for young people are often inadequate and absent;
WHEREAS, The local public schools as one social institution accessible
to all young people reflect broad community support and with sufficient
intellectual and material resources, can aid substantially in the development
of sound and individual codes of family life and sexual behavior;
WHEREAS, Too much misinformation is being learned by our children
who receive no formal instruction in Family Life and Sex Education, and
many are truly damaged emotionally and psychologically; now, therefore
be it
RESOLVED: That a Family Life and Health Education program be
included as a necessary part of our over-all educational system (grades
K-12) in order to aid in the carrying out of the full intent of the Constitution;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the local school district maintain the
local control over materials and methods needed in achieving this program in
its proper perspective and fulfillment for the needs of the community by
utilizing guidelines as recommended by the State Board of Education.
1. The primary responsibility for sex education is that of the home.
However, the school, along with the church, has a secondary role in support-
ing and supplementing the home's responsibility.
2. That instruction concerning sex education programs be conducted by
a team of qualified instructors, including professionals who have shown an
aptitude for working with young people and who have received special
48
training; and utilizing physicians as recommended by local medical societies
as consultants, advisors, and resource persons in the development and
guidance of such curriculum.
3. All materials to be used to be studied by a citizens committee with
avoidance of materials not approved. Suggest members of committee
include:
a. medical doctors approved by local medical society and/or public
health department
b. registered nurse (school nurse)
C. representatives of administration of school districts
d. representatives of PTA and/or other responsible parent groups
e. representative of clergy (all major faiths)
f. representatives of police department -- - especially juvenile
probation officers
g. other concerned members of the community
4. Programs dealing with sex education should be voluntary and not be
mandatory.
5. Harmful effects of premarital sex, etc. and a code of morals be
emphasized with no derogatory instruction relative to religious beliefs
and ethics, and to parents' beliefs and teachings. Emphasize family unit -
and especially moral values.
6. Earliest instruction relative to human reproduction not to be intro-
duced prior to age of 9.
7. Acquaintance and instruction of parents with materials (not just an
outline) to be utilized in home and in the classroom with re-evaluation of
objectionable materials.
8. Evaluation of sex education, as well as in-service training of per-
sonnel involved, should be a continuing process.
9. Successful programs such as that in San Diego could well be used as
guidelines for other districts.
10. Elimination of SIECUS materials from California schools.
These Guidelines for Moral Instruction are thus to be considered an integral
part of the Family Life and Sex Education program suggested for use in California
schools. Moreover, SIECUS is to be eliminated as a source of materials for
those schools which choose to teach sex education. But how then does the cur-
riculum specialist select materials? What about such nonconnected Humanists
as Margaret Mead, who has taught a couple of generations of American teachers?
49
In her most famous book, The Coming of Age in Samoa, first published in
1928, Miss Mead described the lives of 50 Samoan girls whom she observed
in childhood over a period of nine months. Forty years later she revisited
the island and reestablished contacts. She apparently believes as firmly
today as she did 40 years ago that "moral relativism is the only solution to
the human problem. In her last chapter, "Education for Choice," she
reduces the formula to this:
The home must cease to plead an ethical cause or a religious belief
with smiles or frowns, caresses or threats. The children must be
taught how to think, not what to think. And because old errors die slowly,
they must be taught tolerance, just as today they are taught intolerance.
They must be taught that many ways are open to them, no one sanctioned
above its alternative, and that upon them and upon them alone lies the
burden of choice. Unhampered by prejudices, unvexed by too early con-
ditioning to any one standard, they must come clear-eyed to the choices
which lie before them. 16
Moreover, after having promoted the "open ended" society for so many
decades, Miss Mead brings us up-to-date in "The Generation Gap" by lamenting:
now, nowhere in the whole world are there any elders who know what
the children know, no matter how remote and simple the societies in which
the children live. In the past there were always some elders who knew
more in terms of experience, of having grown up within a system than
any children. Today there are none. It is not only that parents are no
longer a guide, but that there are no guides, in the older sense of the term,
whether one seeks them in one's own country, or in China, or in India. 17
Again, she says, "We have to realize that no other generation will ever expe-
rience what we have experienced. In this sense we have no descendants. At
this breaking point between two radically different and closely related groups,
both are inevitably very lonely, as we face each other knowing that they will
never experience what we have experienced and that we can never experience
what they have experienced. 11
It is hard to say how representative Miss Mead's ideas are in her profession
or whether the vibrant American people grasp what she is saying. The similari-
ties between her views and those of Anson Mount and Dr. Kirkendall cannot be
lost to the critic. The crisis of our time is that these people have not bothered
to examine the guides which history and experience offer to us. Their rejection
of our traditions begs the questions: Can a child in a school system dedicated
by law to the affirmation of a religious and moral heritage be taught to question
16
Margaret Mead, Coming of Age in Samoa. New York: Morrow, William and
Co., 1961, p. 246.
17
Science, April 11, 1969, Volume 164, No. 3876.
50
the substance of that heritage? Can children be taught to judge "right or
wrong" as the unsteady product of their individual consciences?
Is this not in violation of Education Code Section 13556. 5 (formerly
Section 7851)? Is it not also in violation of more recent legislation designed
to protect the child's (and parent's) morality from attack by secular Humanists?
It was the consensus of the State Board of Education that morality, the
morality of America's religious heritage, be part and parcel of whatever
family life and sex education is inaugurated in California's schools. There
are books which approach the issue from this viewpoint, and they are the
books that properly fit the suggestions of the State Board of Education,
HUMANISM AND THE BEHAVIORISTS
Another area of public school endeavor which should be examined according
to our traditionalist yardstick and put in proper perspective is the tendency to
look upon the schools as a kind of psychiatric or mental health center. To the
behaviorists, education is no longer the mastering of a specific discipline;
their goal is to achieve "adjustment" of the individual to the group. "Group
consensus, 11 "self analysis, and "interpersonal relationships" are terms
commonly used by this school. The most widespread term today is "sensi-
tivity training.'
The drive to introduce these "counseling" techniques into the schools was
launched with great zeal at the end of World War II when the first president
of the newly organized World Health Organization (a part of the United Nations),
R. Brock Chisholm, participated in a symposium on "The Psychiatry of
Enduring Peace and Social Progress. "18 The goals of the UN and of the WHO,
observed the speakers at this symposium, were to abolish war and to redistribute
the world's economic wealth through world government. The way to do this is
to win the minds of the people of the world to think as world citizens, that is,
to embrace Humanism.
There was one major "hangup," however, which impeded this development,
according to Dr. Chisholm. Mankind through the centuries, he said, has been
obsessed by the concept of "sin" and of morality:
We have been very slow to rediscover this truth and to recognize the
unnecessary and artificially imposed inferiority, guilt and fear, commonly
known as sin, under which we have almost all labored and which produces
so much of the social maladjustment and unhappiness in the world. For
many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of conviction of sin.
18
The complete text of this speech can be found in Psychiatry (February,
1946). A review of its meaning for our generation can be found in Triumph,
(October, 1968), 11-14.
51
The objective, therefore, should be to eradicate this awful mental distor-
tion for all mankind. And only psychiatrists know how to do this. Whatever
hampers or distorts man's thinking ability works against him and even "tends
to destroy him. " And this is why, proclaimed Dr. Chisholm, that "an effective
psychotherapy' had to be prepared for an all-out attack against the concept of
right and wrong. His goal was to change the human psyche, man's basic person-
ality, through psychotherapy.
If this means ripping the child away from the values and traditions of his
parents, then so be it. A mature person, says Dr. Chisholm, has the quali-
ties of adaptability and compromise, and he chastises those parents who bring
up their children to be absolutely loyal and obedient to the local concept of
virtue whatever that happened to be
It almost always happened that among
all the people in the world only our own parents and perhaps a few people they
selected, were right about everything. We could refuse to accept their rightness
only at the price of a load of guilt and fear, and peril to our immortal souls.
This training has been practically universal in the human race; variations in
content have had almost no importance. The fruit is poisonous no matter how
it is prepared or disguised."
The behaviorists solution is, as follows, according to Dr. Chisholm:
The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right
and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of
intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people,
these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy.
Would they not be legitimate objectives of original education? Would it not
be sensible to stop imposing our local prejudices.and faiths on children and
give them all sides of every question SO that in their own good time they
may have the ability to size things up, and make their own decisions.
"If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil, " adds
Dr. Chisholm, "it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility, 11
because "freedom from moralities means freedom to observe, to think and
behave sensibly, to the advantage of the person and of the group, free from
outmoded types of loyalties and from the magic fears of our ancestors."
It can be seen that the vocabulary of Dr. Chisholm, of Margaret Mead, of
Mary Calderone, of Lester Kirkendall has a good deal in common, and it
pervades the world of American education and psychology. There is much
evidence that teachers are being trained in this school and are destined to
become, not disseminators of knowledge, but directors of a child's behavior
development. Dr. Chisholm called for collective action around the
Humanist philosophy. His design was to organize the young parents, teachers,
parent teacher associations, service groups, and so forth around the Humanist
goal of world government through the abolition of national cultures and their
value systems. The means is through group therapy. Recent revelations
about the successes of "sensitivity training' in the colleges, and now in the
high schools, suggest that those dedicated to this goal, however well-meaning
they may be, are in fact aligned with revolutionary groups acting contrary to
public policy; that is, they intend to use the schools to destroy American culture
and traditions.
52
The technique of sensitivity training on the campus at the University of
California at Berkeley was brought to public attention during the 1968 hearings
on sensitivity training held in the State Capitol, Sacramento. 19
One of the witnesses speaking at the hearing was Hardin Jones, Professor
of Medical Physics and Assistant Director of the Donner Laboratory at the
University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Jones' testimony shocked a good
many listeners and is so crucial to an understanding of the forces dedicated
to the destruction of American institutions that we include it here in its
entirety.
Sensitivity Training is being promoted on a massive scale in the United
States. Some of this promotion already involves educational institutions.
A recent national meeting of representatives of college fraternal organiza-
tions had a whole session devoted to these techniques. A training convention
for this purpose was just held in San Francisco (American Association for
Humanistic Psychology, Sixth Annual Meeting, Fairmont Hotel, August, '68).
Various institutions, including the administrative offices of the Davis campus
of the University of California, have held instruction for the staff in these
methods.
The training consists of creating physical awareness of other people.
This awareness is highly related to such physical contacts as between
mother and infant and sexual feelings between persons. The idea is to
become aware of the other person through touch and other forms of direct
contact. The impact of the "training" is enhanced by removal of clothing
SO as to expose the skin to view and to contact and, as the training advances,
this step in awareness can be reached in most people. The techniques of
contact are dramatically effective in awakening alert attention to the presence
of another person through animal feeling.
Sensitivity training is a powerful form of Pavlovian conditioning by which
sexual-emotional types of response can be substituted for intellectual con-
sideration of any proposition common to the group, developing a surge of
animalistic mob-response. At U. C., Davis, sensitivity training appears to
be the motive for the disrobing to complete nudity which took place in mixed
classes. It is not unusual to have the participants of sensitivity training
sessions go on to consummation of sexual contacts, as was observed and
reported about the nude parties held under the Left's umbrella at Berkeley.
This conditioning through emotional, animalistic responses has been
developed by the Communoid forces, who apply these techniques to control
of group behavior. It has also been adapted, in milder forms, by some
religious groups as a means to intensify group dedication. On a massive
reaction basis, its equivalent has always occurred spontaneously in countries
in the first stages of warfare, when mutuality, comradeship, and sexuality
19
A Hearing on Mandatory Sensitivity Training for Public Employees,
State Capitol, Room 2117, September 10, 1968.
53
reach much more intensive levels than during peacetime. Sensitivity
training is, in fact, a recently publicized variation of Group Dynamics,
which is a systematized assembly of psychological techniques applied
for the purpose of directing and influencing group action without recourse
to intellectual persuasion.
Many of those interested in group dynamics and sensitivity training are
bent upon applying these emotional responses to increase a feeling of
brotherly love with regard to international brotherly love in the antiwar
movement and to generate a similar feeling of admiration between the
whites and the blacks. The rise of Black Power and black racism has
tended to interrupt the "love movement" between black and white. This
and a beginning of awakening of the white liberals to the need for progress
through rational process have now diminished this trend markedly, but
it was quite evident in 1964, '65, and '66. Those who are pushing for such
shortcuts to interpersonal feelings through passion disregard the importance
of intellectual understanding as a means to create stable human relations.
Apparently, too, they do not understand that the animalistic mass reaction
can change direction rapidly, since it lacks intellectual and moral stability.
The youth movements of the 1930s in Germany are a terrifying example
to recall. These began with the "sensitivity" -awakening indoctrination of
the young by radical socialists and Communists for political purposes.
The animalistic mob-culture was rapidly taken over by Hitler and became
the Hitler Junge (Youth) who, as a political army, were unthinking, obedient,
and conditioned to give prompt reflex responses such as Pavlov studied.
Hitler actually organized massive sexual contacts as well as mass meetings
for the Junge; these social activities were nothing more than intensively
applied "sensitivity training. 11 He sought to disguise these affairs by declaring
them to be necessary to increase the numbers of Nordic peoples.
To the extent we begin to be influenced by animalistic tendencies and mob
psychology, we certainly lose the structure of a society based on solving its
problems rationally. There is danger that the rational aspects of democracy
may be lost completely due to the magnitude of the concerted effort from
radical politicians in the ranks of our educators and clergymen, pushing
society witlessly in the direction of substitution of emotion for moral prin-
ciples and intellectual judgment. The extent of the danger yet to become
evident can be judged from a few examples (see appendix) of the extent of
social subversion from radical elements.
The possibility of the use of applied mass psychology to condition political
behavior stemmed from the discovery of the conditioned reflex by the distin-
guished Russian physiologist, Pavlov. He had an important influence on all
of Russian biological and social science. American scientists have tended to
neglect this area of study, and American politicians have made comparatively
little use of its capabilities because, until now, the politics of the country
were very stable. The leaders of world Communism have relied heavily on
the social methodology developed from Pavlov's principle of conditioning. It
is a way that satisfaction of animalistic human needs, such as food, affection,
discipline, and sexual activities, can be controlled so as to condition a person
54
to actions and beliefs without intellectual evaluation. The possibility of
massive application of biology and psychology to change and regulate human
life was described in vivid science-fiction accounts by the English scientist
J.B.S. Haldane in the novel, Daedalus, by Aldous Huxley in the novel,
Brave New World, and by George Orwell in the novel, 1984. These authors
have been heroes to the radical Left, and it is obvious that some of these
principles are being applied by Leftist forces, almost on schedule with
the timetable of the nightmarish novel, 1984. It also appears that Americans
are inordinately susceptible to such conditioning and that our social institu-
tions have added to the problem of spreading the social subversion rather
than being anchor positions of sanity and leadership to keep the moral fiber
vital.
In part, the severity of the problems having to do with social subversion
through the educational establishments was clearly set down by Richard
Weaver, who foresaw the nature of the difficulties as a cultural clash between
American and Western European culture on the one hand and the culture of
some East European-Asians whom he identifies as the "gnostics of education. 11
Weaver states that they have radical social goals and have come to reside in
considerable numbers in our educational institutions. The following excerpts
are from Weaver, Visions of Order:
It is not too much to say that in the past fifty years public education
in the United States has been in the hands of revolutionaries. To grasp
the nature of their attempted revolution, we need only realize that in
the past every educational system has reflected to a great extent the
social and political constitution of the society which supported it. This
was assumed to be a natural and proper thing, since the young were to
be trained to take places in the world that existed around them. They
were "indoctrinated" with this world because its laws and relations
were those by which they were expected to order their lives. In the
period just mentioned, however, we have witnessed something never
before seen in the form of a systematic attempt to undermine a society's
traditions and beliefs through the educational establishment which is
usually employed to maintain them. There has been an extraordinary
occurrence, a virtual educational coup d'etat carried out by a specially
inclined minority. This minority has been in essence a cabal, with
objectives radically different from those of the state which employed
them. An amazing feature of the situation has been how little they have
cared to conceal these objectives. On more than one occasion they have
issued a virtual call to arms to use publicly created facilities for the
purpose of actualizing a concept of society not espoused by the people.
The result has been an educational system not only intrinsically bad but
increasingly at war with the aims of the community which authorizes it,
as we are now forced to recognize.
This subversion has gone SO far that gnostics of education until very
recently [until the threat of nuclear warfare]constituted the greatest
single threat to our culture. In the discredit that they have cast upon
the higher faculties, in the way they have cut the young off from knowledge
55
of the excellencies achieved in the past, and in the way they have turned
attention toward transient externals and away from the central problem
of man, they have no equal as an agency of subversion. Their schemes
are exactly fitted, if indeed they are not designed, to produce citizens
for the secular communist state, which is the millenial dream of the
modern gnostic. To put an end to this adventure into fantasy and to
prevent the cruel awakening which would follow, we should do all we can,
educationally and politically, to hasten the decline of their influence.
The antidote to this kind of education, of course, is to return to the basic
purposes of public education: the teaching of skills and the cultivation of love
and respect for our heritage and traditions. The opposite point of view of
Dr. Chisholm and his many friends in the behaviorist world is that posed by
Russell Kirk in an essay entitled "Prescription, Authority and Ordered
Freedom. "20 It says in a few pages what must be said about the American
experiment and reflects a point of view of millions, of Americans were they
able to articulate it as well.
A grotesque example of the technique to identify "sick" people was related
by Martha White Washington in the April, 1969, issue of Triumph magazine.
She tells how the New York City Mental Health Center made a survey of
175, 000 souls and "found that 81. 5 percent of the neighborhood inhabitants
were mentally ill. 11 But, says Mrs. Washington, the article did not reveal
that the neighborhood survey was predominately, a black community, precinct
19 on the upper eastside of New York City. "In the light of that knowledge,
it becomes clearer what may be crazy about those people: they are black,
and they act differently than 'normal' people that is, the white political
psychiatrists."
Some other interesting facts contained in that article: the number of
psychiatrists in the U.S. has grown from 4, 000 in 1945 to 22, 680 at last
count, "a growth rate more than eight times that of the overall population."
As of June, 1968, there were 331 mental health centers in 49 states of the
Union. Funds have been proposed to increase these centers to 1, 500 by the
end of the 1970s.
Especially does Mrs. Washington sense a danger in the rise of "political
psychiatrists" and their ultimate effect on the natural freedoms of all
Americans. She quotes several statements of the Deputy Director of the
National Institute of Mental Health, Bertram S. Brown, who has approved
the terminology "political psychiatrist. "As men seek for answers to the
problems of our times, he writes in a professional journal, "they increas-
ingly turn to psychiatry. In the Senate debating war and peace, a psychiatrist
is there; in the court considering guilt and innocence, a psychiatrist is there;
in the mayor's committee room holding a post mortem of the urban riot, a
psychiatrist is there."
20
What Is Conservatism? (First edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1964, p. 242.
56
The effort to reduce all men to the a priori standards of psychiatrists
sought by Dr. Chisholm and his school is harshly judged. Asks Mrs.
Washington:
What use to the black man are his newly-won "civil rights" -- his
equal housing, his equal job opportunity, his equal voting rights if the
political psychiatrists can sweepingly reduce him to an animal? This is
what blacks have learned, thanks to being so profusely blessed with the
benefits of psychiatry: blacks are able to recognize chattel slavery when
they see it, no matter what disguise it wears. They know that the slave
mentality is the product of the break-up of the family, the denial of literacy
and the confiscation of earnings. Having questioned and tested the schemes
of civil rights, they have finally rejected them because the powers of
political psychiatry can betray all the promises of civil rights.
What is the solution? "Only rediscovery of and respect for man's identity
his nature -- can do that. To this end, there is no reason why blacks, Chris-
tians, conservatives, youth all those alienated from the mental hygiene
establishment cannot join, despite all their differences, in demands for
restraint of political psychiatrists, before it succeeds in making America
literally a nation of madmen.
HUMANISM AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
There is yet another technique of undermining our heritage and reversing
the progress of human dignity as reflected in American history. This is the
prevalence of a school of teachers and scholars who are professionally anti-
traditionalists. They are the "debunkers" of American institutions, those who
concentrate on American failings rather than on American achievements. Some
of the views of these gentlemen have found their way into the curriculum of our
schools. We cannot here describe the extent of this penetration, but if we
examine the orientation of one of their high priests, we can readily see how
such views are finding their ways into our schools. We can also suggest that
to reverse this trend, the school of the antitraditionalist must also be objectively
examined in the universities and colleges, rather than to allow the universities
and colleges to reflect this view as the quasi-official view of public educational
institution.
In the Metaphysical Foundations of American History by Roland Van Zandt,
referred to in Chapter II, we have something of an outline of the Humanist
philosophy as applied American history. Mr. Van Zandt blithely rejects the
natural law theory which underlies the whole structure of American thought
and which gives force to its continuity. Mr. Van Zandt calls it the one "dogma"
which infects American history. He claims that the American Revolution built
nothing, that it was a movement to destroy history in order to rebuild a new
history, and that not until our day, with a new intellectual leadership, are
Americans free to fulfill their obligations to construct a new history of the
world. The intellectuals of our day, he claims, have rejected the antiquated
assumptions" of the traditional order. The new order is that of science -- a
moving, changing, relative world of truths and values. He models his historical
57
views upon the scientific formulations of Einstein and laments that "the
Queen of sciences, political science, has not yet come into its own. America
has lost its bearings, he claims, and must reject its own history and intel-
lectual establishment in order to create a new history. Mr. Van Zandt's
primary target is Thomas Jefferson, upon whom he levels most of his
criticism as if Jefferson were alone responsible for those verbal formula-
tions he gave the world in the Declaration of Independence.
Mr. Van Zandt thinks Jefferson's "career was all a mistake
in a way,
for instance, that American history throughout his lifetime was somehow a
mistake. (p. 197)
Mr. Van Zandt's arguments are in the Marxian style of thesis and antithesis.
He avoids the exaltation of the spirit in human existence like the plague. His
view of history is existential. He even denies that an American history ever
existed. American history is now defined as that which is not, he says.
Americans have come to the point where they must renounce the knowledge of
their forefathers because their knowledge was circumscribed by ignorance.
The dogma of natural law, he claims is a myth. It is the greatest single
obstacle to the rational control of man's own life. What Mr. Van Zandt will
substitute for American history or any other history is a "unity of process. 11
It applies only to the human scene, because it is only the human scene that is
important in history.
Such an approach to American history and culture, should it spread any
further, would as assuredly destroy America's concepts of moral standards
as it would America's faith in its political and cultural institutions. Such instruc-
tion, should it penetrate the lower grades, would be in direct contradiction of
those state laws which mandate reverence and respect for our heritage. While
the antitraditionist view is not a view which teaches Communism per se, it is
a school which teaches the destruction of the American way of life. Certainly
it would be a view "contrary to public policy, which is the policy of a people
determined to protect and cherish their heritage.
How one copes with this problem is rather the task of the universities and
colleges than it is the public schools. And yet, since the teachers of our
children are trained in the public colleges and universities, it is logical that
the State Board of Education should have a concern about the kind of orientation
teachers of social sciences are receiving. Teachers need a yardstick by which
to judge dangerous theories. They can get that yardstick only if the higher
institutions of education provide them with it. Hamilton Long, in his American
Yardstick, related how Jefferson and Madison dealt with the problem in 1825
and which could be a good example for our generation. These two former
presidents wrote and caused to be adopted by the Board of Visitors of the
University of Virginia the following resolution:
Whereas it is the duty of this board to the government (of the United
States) under which it lives, and especially to that (of Virginia) of which
this University is the immediate creation, to pay especial attention to the
principles of government which shall be inculcated therein, and to provide
that none shall be inculcated which are incompatible with those on which
58
the Constitutions of this State, and of the U.S. were genuinely based in the
common opinion: and for this purpose it may be necessary to point out
specifically where these principles are to be found legitimately developed.
If California's universities and colleges followed this example, they would
not be allowed to "inculcate" ideas alien to our heritage and tradition, although
surely they would be encouraged to study them. As Mr. Long comments:
"
sound teaching does not preclude, indeed it requires, students being taught
about conflicting principles in order to enable them to understand the unsoundness
of the latter
judged by the sound standard of the American principles, with
which the students must, of course, first be made familiar SO as to have a yard-
stick by which to judge soundly. 11
The antitraditionalists should be studied and compared within the context of
the American intellectual heritage. To ignore that heritage and simply pass
judgments on it is hardly the function of higher education.
HUMANISTS AND MARXISTS
The following section of the Education Code was referred to in the State Board's
resolution of July 14, 1968, and is significant to our analysis of the problem of
subversion:
Advocacy or Teaching of Communism; "Communism" Defined
8455. No teacher giving instruction in any school, or on any property
belonging to any agencies included in the Public School System, shall advo-
cate or teach communism with the intent to indoctrinate any pupil with, or
inculcate a preference in the mind of any pupil for communism.
The Legislature in prohibiting the advocacy or teaching of communism
with the intent to indoctrinate any pupil with or inculcate a preference in the
mind of any pupil for, such doctrine does not intend to prevent the teaching
of the facts of the above subject but intends to prevent the advocacy of, and
inculcation and indoctrination into communism as is hereinafter defined,
for the purpose of undermining the patriotism for, and the belief in, the
Government of the United States and of this State in the minds of the pupils
in the Public School System.
For the purposes of this section, communism is a political theory that
the presently existing form of government of the United States or of this
State should be changed, by force, violence, or other unconstitutional
means, to a totalitarian dictatorship which is based on the principles of
communism as expounded by Marx, Lenin and Stalin.
The task of identifying activity alien to our heritage and/or contrary to
public policy is easier when we focus our sights on this specific case of
'prohibitive instruction. The recent publicity given to the national student
59
organization called Students for a Democratic Society makes it abundantly
clear that America's youth is being bombarded with Communist propaganda
and organized by trained Communist agitators. Recently, the Superintendent
of Public Instruction made it clear that all such activities as planned by SDS
are already illegal, that administrators need only act to enforce the laws on
the books in order to prevent subversion on high school campuses.
It is the opinion of the advisory committee, therefore, that if the tide of
red indoctrination of our youth in college or in the lower grades is to be
stemmed, some sort of instructional guidelines on the teaching of Communist
theory and tactics has to be prepared by the Department of Education for use
in all of California's schools. There are already many programs in existence,
the best of which use the basic documents from the congressional investigative
committees which have been recording the progress of Communist subversion
since 1935. There is little evidence that the laws which have been in existence
for some 15 years have been successful. Much of the problem arises from
the respectability given to professional Communists when the University of
California Regents agreed to allow Communists and advocates of Communism
the use of campus facilities and easy contact with students. One member of
the Board of Regents in 1963 spoke sharply against rights of Communists to
speak freely, but few citizens apparently listened. He was Jerd Sullivan, a
San Francisco banker. In the November 1, 1963, issue of the California
Legionnaire, the Sullivan letter was published with the editorial statement:
Since the university has not released Mr. Sullivan's views, the California
Legionnare reproduces his letter with his permission."
60
The letter is as follows:
Mr. Gerald H. Hagar, Chairman
Board of Regents
University of California
Los Angeles 24, California
Dear Gerry:
As I told you on the phone last week, I am extremely sorry but I cannot
get to the June meeting of the Regents at Los Angeles because of a legal
situation which requires my presence here.
I was particularly anxious to attend as I understand the matter of pre-
venting communist speakers on campus will be reopened. I personally am
unalterably opposed to granting such a privilege. I do favor the objective
study of Communism on our various campuses so long as that study is con-
ducted by reputable and discerning educators. But to allow an agent of the
Communist Party to peddle his wares to students of an impressionable age
is just as wrong, in my estimation, as it would be to allow Satan himself
to use the pulpit of one of our great cathedrals for the purpose of trying to
proselyte new members.
The conflicting opinions and concepts of the radical right and the radical
left must be given expression just as expression is given to the more tradi-
tional philosophies of our society. But Communism is not the radical left.
It is not a natural outgrowth of our economy or our philosophy of human
relations. It is a foreign ideology; a subversive conspiracy dedicated to
the overthrow of our form of government, by force if necessary. Their
sales ability has been well demonstrated by the strides they have made in
many parts of the world. Therefore, if we as a country feel that our ideol-
ogy is superior, why leave our youth open to the narcotic influence of that
salesmanship.
Further, at a time like this when the greatest portion of our enormous
tax burden is spent for defense against Communism, it is to me unreason-
able to argue that we should allow Communist agents to plead their case
to the youth of this country in our tax supported institutions of learning.
The most precious possession of the University is the good name, and
the respect it has generated among the people who provide its financial
support. To tarnish that good name and dilute that respect would be an
irresponsible act far beneath the character of our Board of Regents.
I sincerely hope the Board will see fit to reaffirm its stand at the
current meeting.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Jerd Sullivan
61
Three years after Mr. Sullivan was rebuffed, three years after the Regents
rejected his plea for sanity in confronting Communist subversion, Professor
Lewis S. Feuer, upon resigning from Berkeley and taking up residence at the
University of Toronto, wrote his devastating article, "The Decline of Freedom
at Berkeley, 11 for Atlantic Monthly, (August, 1966). The faculty had resolved
that "the content of speech or advocacy should not be restricted by the univer-
sity. The original idea, says Dr. Feuer, was to allow Marxists to express
their views while the more than sufficient scholars on campus would defend the
traditional position. But it turned out quite differently. "Freedom of discussion
presupposes that the chief sides in any national debate will be represented. In
Berkeley, the supporters of President Johnson's foreign policy are, in effect,
denied a forum on the Berkeley campus. The New Left has made it nearly
impossible for the national administration's standpoint to be presented to
Berkeley students. In January, 1966, he notes, Chancellor Roger Heyns
became probably the first university head in America to be taken to task by a
county grand jury for condoning "the deliberate violation of criminal laws' on
the campus. The Alameda Grand Jury declared that Berkeley had become "a
staging area for unlawful off campus activities" and proceeded to cite some 34
examples of recent years. Berkeley, wrote Dr. Feuer, became the first
"political university" in the United States. "This is a development of the highest
significance. For the first time, the intellectual class of the United States is
undertaking to enter politics directly, and to offer to the electorate, through the
agency of faculty-student activities, something akin to an Intellectual's Party.'
Given the pace of events since Dr. Feuer's article in 1966, there is much
that could be added to give substance to his charges that an "intellectual revo-
lutionary class" seeks political power. How much of this revolutionism is due
to Communist-connected professors only the FBI knows for sure. The other
question, however, is more academic and important to the secondary school
administrators: How does one combat the scholarly Marxists who are not
Communist conspirators?
One can only answer, of course, that Marxism should be taught within the
context of "The American Yardstick" and as destructive to everything Americans
hold dear. But if Marxism is taught by teachers favorable to the Communist
system, and if by implication the pupil (whether in college or junior high school)
is inculcated "with a preference in the mind of any pupil for Communism" then
that student's respect for American institutions is undermined, and the teacher
is guilty of indoctrination.
We enter a dangerous arena when we delve into such questions for the simple
reason that there is danger of making blanket statements governing all Humanists
and putting them into the same kettle of fish with Marxists or Communists. And
yet, the Humanist magazine itself is an excellent source to establish the point of
contact between them because of that magazine's frequent articles dealing with
the fusion of their ideologies. In a recent article in the January/February, 1969
issue of the Humanist, Yugoslav Communist Mihailo Markovic wrote about The
Basic Characteristics of Marxist Humanism":
62
Marxist humanism is nowadays the main spiritual inspiration for very
broad liberation movements. To be sure, these movements have some-
times been used for selfish and inhuman ends and still their very existence
shows that Marx's humanist ideal is not only the continuation of a great
tradition and not only the expression of revolt against all that is inhumane
in the present day world, but also a dream that might come true.
There is, in short, a great deal of communication and interrelationship
between known Humanists and known Marxists on the intellectual level; such
intellectuals as Erich Fromm, for instance, and of Professor Paul Baran
of Stanford, both of whom have preached since the 1950s that it is foolish to
believe that Soviet Communism is aggressive or that they are an "international
threat. 21
J. Edgar Hoover, in his recent series "On Communism" which were
serialed in the Copley newspapers, described how Marxists use Humanism
as a semantic device to spread their Communist propaganda. Perhaps he
was referring to Corliss Lamont, one of the editors of Humanist and the
author of the much vaunted book The Philosophy of Humanism. But Mr.
Lamont has also been associated with Communist causes for several decades
and was identified as a fellow Communist by former editor of the Daily Worker,
Louis Budenz. (See Senate Internal Security Report, September 28, 1958.)
Thus, it is a necessary task to use "the American Yardstick" and measure
carefully those differences between Humanists and Marxists and to identify
them as carriers of ideas alien to our heritage and/or contrary to public
policy. Marxists like Sidney Hook may be solely intellectual in their approach
and hence nonactivists. But Communists are Marxists of whatever political
persuasion, be it the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, or Yugoslav variety. Humanists
indeed may not be Marxists. But Marxists are, ipso facto, Humanists. The
point, for teachers, is that the differences and allegiances must be examined
and taught by teachers trained to distinguish the differences and to teach it in
an objective manner against the backdrop of the American experience. Upon
America's ability to learn to do this rests the answer to the question of that
American GI who posed the ultimate question: Which way America?
HUMANISTS AND EVOLUTIONISTS
It has been noted above that Humanists hold that "man is a part of nature
and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process, 11 that is, by
evolution. In the more recent Humanist magazine, we are told that "Humanists
see man as a product of this world -- of evolution and human history -- and
acknowledge no cosmic mind or supernatural purpose or forces."
21
See L.A. Times, January 21, 1962, wherein Prof. Baran, is reported
to have told a U. C.L.A. audience that the U.S. Foreign Policy is the world's
greatest threat.
63
Evolution, in other words, is an a priori assumption of the Humanist
religion. Evolution is thus inseparable from John Dewey's progressive
educational theories. As Augustin Rudd points out, 22 Dewey had to deny the
dualistic theory of man as mind and body; therefore, the concept of the soul
is patently false; therefore, there is no reason at all to include the spirit and
its source (theology) as a subject of study; therefore, there are no eternal
verities, but only changing conditions to which man must adjust, and therefore,
traditional beliefs are largely hindrances in the broad evolutionary movement
of man who is something continuously changing and "becoming."
In recent years there has been growing concern among scientists them-
selves concerning the teaching of evolution as fact instead of as a theory which
requires continuous proof. In fact there has developed since 1963 an organiza-
tion called the Creation Research Society, a nationwide association of Christian
scholars who call themselves "creationists" and who are attempting to dispute
the "dogma" of evolutionism as enunciated by Charles Darwin and which is often
taught in the public schools as fact and not theory. The major concern of these
men of science is that the origins of man are still too hazy to be accepted as
fact, especially if they exclude all other theories. In a paper entitled "Dis-
coveries Since 1859 Which Invalidate the Evolution Theory," Walter Lammerts,
Director of Research, Germain's Horticultural Research Division, Livermore,
California, explains why discoveries in recent decades have caused many sci-
entists to reexamine the postulations so readily acceptable for nearly a hundred
years. The "creationists," in short, have organized and are attacking the
censorship" of their own colleagues. Writes Henry M. Morris, the author
of "The Twilight of Evolution:"
One reason for the apparent dearth of anti-evolutionary sentiment is
that the major scientific publishing houses and periodicals are completely
and exclusively under the control of leaders who are evolutionists. If
anyone questions this, let him try to get a serious scientific article or book
published refuting evolution
the only outlet for such literature seems
to be through conservative or private media.
"Similarly," he adds, "it is almost an impossibility for a convinced cre-
ationist to obtain or to retain an influential position on a university faculty
in the various disciplines now dominated by the evolution concept, such as
anthropology, geology, biology, psychology, and psychiatry. The writer has
known some men personally, and heard of others, who were refused graduate
degrees in geology, for example, primarily on the basis of their rejection of
Lyellian uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolutionism. 23
22
Rudd, Ibid., p. 21.
23
Henry M. Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, Nutley, N.J. : Presbyterian
& Reformed Pub. Co., 1963, p. 28.
64
The teaching of evolution as a part of the religion of Humanism, therefore,
is yet another area of concern to parents and teachers alike who wish to abide
by the mandates of the laws and of the State Board Resolution that "Christian
parents
are protected by law against any attempt to destroy or weaken
their children's faith in their particular church.' In this instance, as with
other areas of controversial instruction, it is how the subject is treated by
the teachers, what materials the teacher uses that matters. If the origins
of man were taught from the point of view of both evolutionists and creationists,
the purpose of education would be satisfied. By concentrating on only one theory
and ignoring others, it is tantamount to indoctrination in one special religious
viewpoint.
Chapter VI
Teaching About Religion in the Public Schools
It is evident to the Department staff and to the advisory committee that the
major obstacles confronting public education is not that the problems are
unfathomable, but that implementation of the programs in the schools required
to protect the American heritage and its traditions, established by custom and
protected by law, are not allowed to get started. The State Board made it
bluntly clear following the school prayer decisions of the early 1960s that the
state is forbidden to promote a Godless religion just as it is forbidden to promote
any one sect. The solution the Board adopted then, and which is still state policy,
is that all religions and all creeds should be studied and evaluated within the con-
text of the American heritage. The Board resolution of December 17, 1963,
quotes Justice Brennan:
The holding of the Court plainly does not foreclose teaching about the
Holy Scriptures or about the differences between religious sects in classes
of literature or history. Indeed, whether or not the Bible is involved, it
would be impossible to teach meaningfully many subjects in the social
sciences or the humanities without some mention of religion. To what
extent, and at what points in the curriculum religious material should be
cited, are matters which the courts ought to entrust very largely to the
experienced officials who superintend our nation's public schools. They are
experts in such matters, and we are not.
The awful truth is that the "experts" have failed to come forth with a program
which would be positive and acceptable to everyone. It is likely for this reason
that a group of private citizens have accepted the challenge thrown down by the
courts and have developed what the Department staff and the advisory committee
believe to be the only practical solution to America's future. In Religion Goes
to School: A Practical Handbook for Teachers, by James V. Panoch and David
L. Barr, 1 the schools have provided for them a source book of materials and
bibliography which they can adopt for inservice training programs. Some 70
pertinent and basic questions about teaching in this delicate area are posed and
answered. The authors explain their understanding of the present situation
on page 5 of the handbook:
The Supreme Court did not remove religion from the public schools.
We did. Uninformed teachers, an unconcerned public, unconscious
churchmen all have had their hand in systematically eliminating all
mention of the Bible and religion from significant areas of school life.
The church, largely unconscious of the good that could come from the
proper use of the Bible and religion in the schools, has withdrawn from
public education. The public, apparently unconcerned, has been content
to think that there could be no mention of religion in a public school.
Teachers, uninformed about the legal uses of Bible and religion, have
tended to use them illegally or not at all. It is apparent that our real
problem with religion in the school is simply a misunderstanding of the
problem itself. Once it is really understood, most of the difficulties
1
Harper & Row Pubs., 49 East 33rd Street, New York, N.Y.
65
66
dissolve. The purpose of this book is to identify the problem clearly and
to make a positive contribution toward its solution.
The authors of the handbook are officials of a nationwide organization known
as the Religious Instruction Association, 2 an organization which serves as a
clearinghouse for information. It provides its subscribers with information
on a variety of techniques used in various states of the Union to implement
programs about religion. In what might be identified as a statement of modus
operandi, they assert the following:
MATERIALS CLARIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Religion may be practiced or studied. The practice is what makes
religion meaningful. The study is largely a study of the practice. In
private life the practice and the study of religion may be combined.
But in public life they must be kept separate. The public school must
not sponsor the more important practice of religion, but must sponsor the
less important study of religion. Though the study of religion is less
important, it is not unimportant. And a proper study of religion will
make the practice of religion more meaningful. The school may study
what is practiced, but not practice what is studied.
The school should sponsor the study of religion, but should not sponsor
the practice of religion.
The school should expose students to all religious views, but should not
impose any particular view.
The schools' approach to religion is one of instruction, not one of
indoctrination.
The schools' approach to religion is academic, not devotional.
The school should study what all people believe, but should not
teach a pupil what he should believe.
The school should strive for student understanding of all religions,
but should not press for student acceptance of any one religion.
The school should seek to inform the student about various beliefs,
but should not seek to conform him to any one belief.
To implement a program with such ends will obviously require a drastic
change of thinking on the part of many citizens, teachers and laymen who have
been under the impression for several years that "you can't talk about God
2 Religious Instruction Association, Inc., 4001 Fairfield Avenue, Fort
Wayne, Indiana 46807.
67
in the schools. 11 The major need of course will be the training or retraining
of teachers who can handle such a program. This may require changes in the
training of teachers at the college level. It may involve the hiring of consul-
tants with the qualifications of Messrs. Panoch and Barr to service colleges
and local districts in the techniques. Certainly it will necessitate a reevalua-
tion of curricula of the state's teacher training institutions if these programs
are instituted.
There are essentially two ways the schools can teach about religion and
hence reflect a moral heritage. One method is demonstrated in Chapter IV
where John Swett outlined the course materials for the early grades, as well
as the orientation of its teachers. The other method, for high school students,
is to sponsor courses in comparative or world religions. In Claremont, Cali-
fornia, shortly after the 1963 resolution by the State Board, history teacher
Joseph Forcinelli received nationwide attention because of the methodology he
uses in his course. He describes it as follows:
It is at present part of the social science curriculum, offered as an
elective to juniors and seniors only and carrying six units of credit.
Sessions are held three times weekly for forty-five minutes. The course
runs for a full year. During the last two years, we have made a wider
use of religious art as well as films and film strips. Outside lecturers
who are specialists in their fields are frequently brought in to speak. A
bibliography of the best works on the various religions is integrated into
the course, for additional readings. We feel we have an excellent library
and we are continuing to add to this resource
We have been able to
attend as visitors Hindu, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant worship services.
This year we hope to include a visit to a Buddhist Temple. Research papers
and comprehensive examinations also make up a part of the course. In other
words, grades are not given on the basis of one's piety.
3
Mr. Forcinelli, in effect, preceded the Panoch and Barr orientation by
more than ten years. In 1955 he finished his master's dissertation at Claremont
Graduate School on the topic "School Administration and Religious Education
in the Public Schools of the United States of America. " In this lengthy and
well-documented study, he examined all the controversies surrounding the issue
up to that time, and especially those many studies made by the professional
organizations on "moral and spiritual values." Forcinelli rejected, just as George
Washington rejected, the views that such values could be taught without refer-
ence to religion. Such values would have no roots; they would be merely sus-
pended from the reality of man as explained by his history. Accordingly, he
reasoned, all moral values must be evaluated as they are traced to the religious
beliefs of man. "Religion," affirmed Forcinelli, "can and should be considered
as an empirical study. Though some religions have their ultimate source
embodied in a transcendent power, all religions are manifest by empirical
3
Journal of Secondary Education, April, 1967, Vol. 42, N4.
68
fact in the stream of history. As such, religion in its all-inclusive form can
be examined, studied, considered, and integrated into conscious thought just
as any empirical science might be 114
Armed with such an attitude and given the proper training, any teacher
could thus implement the approach identified by Panoch and Barr. Each
country or culture could be examined phenomenologically and compared to
all others. Secularist doctrines and religions would be included and analyzed
and contrasted with 'the faith that undergirds our [American] way of life as
the Board resolution of 1963 encouraged. What would emerge from such
objective studies would be a better understanding of the freedoms all Americans
enjoy.
In the Seeger case mentioned in Chapter V, for instance, the Court granted
the young man's plea for conscientious objection because he was religious and
because his human dignity was dependent upon a divine entity. "It has been
noted, said the Court, "that the principal distinction between the free world
and the Marxist nations is traceable to democracy's concern for the rights of
the individual citizens; as opposed to the collective mass of society.
The Court said in effect what the staff identified as the law of the State in
Chapter II: Californians live under the protection of God, and the individual
citizen's worth is measured because of his worth to God, not to man. "We
the people of the State of California," says the Preamble, "grateful to Almighty
God for our freedom, and in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do
establish this Constitution."
If such legal and traditional affirmation of man's divine image and worth
are inculcated in our social science and literature and history courses,
Americans will have no trouble recognizing their uniqueness as a people and
as a nation. In effect, when the Court declares as it did in Zorach V. Clauson,
that we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being,"
the Court is proclaiming something that 199 million Americans already know
and that perhaps a million Americans may also know but refuse to accept,
because they are 'minds of peculiar structure.
The need today is to contrast the American genius and the American's
reliance on Almighty God with the cold, dreary utilitarianism of the Secular
Humanists or Marxists. Humanists who look at man as the Supreme Being
have real grounds to fear for their own future as well for the faithful because
they cannot deny that civilizations which in the past erased God from their
value systems have also erased whatever dignity was left of man. This thesis
is examined in an interesting essay, Atheism, The Enemy of Civilization by
W. B. Riley, former president of Northwestern University. One need only
recall the civilizations of the ancient Pharaohs, of the Roman Caesars, or
4
Joseph Forcinelli, "School Administration and Religious Education in the
Public Schools of the United States of America 11 A thesis presented to the
general faculty of the Claremont Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. Claremont, Calif. February
19, 1955, p. 25.
69
twentieth century atheist societies of the Nazis and Communists as examples.
By contrast, the little pledge of those Americans who gather every July 4th
at the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia (and more recently in Sacramento) projects
a grandeur of man that no tyrant can ever assault. They solemnly read
The Liberty Pledge:
On July 4, 1776, the Founders of our Republic breathed a spirit
into American Government totally dependent upon Revealed Truth.
This Divine Spirit affirmed the sovereignty of the citizen as the just
and reasonable consequence of the sovereignty of the soul. To this
proposition, the essence of the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution of the United States of America, we pledge our support
and, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we
mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred
honor.
About a hundred years ago, John Henry Cardinal Newman observed the
encroachments of science as the new "religion" of the future. He wrote
in The Idea of a University: "In word, in deed, and in idea, it is easy enough
to divide knowledge into human and divine, secular and religious, and to lay
down that we address ourselves to the one without interfering with the other;
but it is impossible in fact.' Newman was defining the science of theology
and that all knowledge, including theology, had to be studied as one vast
composite if man were to comprehend the world and his place in it. Continued
Newman: Granting that divine truth differs in kind from human, so do human
truths differ in kind one from another. If the knowledge of the Creator is a
different order from knowledge of the creature, so in like manner, metaphysical
science is in a different order from physical, physics from history, history from
others. Newman's point was that to strip divine knowledge from the memory
of man. You will soon break up into fragments, he insisted, the whole circle
of secular knowledge if you begin the mutilation with the divine. "15
The successful flight of Apollo 8 has become an echo of Cardinal Newman's
words. As Frederick D. Wilhelmsen observed in a recent article, man had to
travel 500, 000 miles into space to rediscover that earth indeed was his home.
" Apollo 8 has not led upwards to a secular paradise awaiting us tomorrow.
The arrival at the Moon, out there in a space byond physical comprehension
has hurtled us all backwards into time through the vortex of the imagination;
it took all America and most of the world, on those fateful Christmas days, to
Genesis and to beginnings -- to the creation of all things from nothing.
Because knowledge begs for more knowledge, all men know that the horizons
of space offer new frontiers for physical conquest. And as man learns to flit
from planet to planet, always an alien figure and perhaps never finding other
living creatures such as he, man will continue to look to the green earth as
home. He will continue to signal home for information about the Creator, even
while he continues to search for information about creation.
5
The Idea of a University, Garden City, N. Y: Image Books, 1959, p. 66.
6
Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, "The Good Earth," Triumph, (February, 1969),
p. 11.
70
The testimony of America's three astronauts as they swung around the
moon on Christmas Eve, 1968, may well be the inauguration of a new beginning
for Americans, because the humility reflected in their performance reflects
the ties which bind together the whole human race: Genesis, or mankind's
common origin.
William Anders:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth. And the earth was without form and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit
of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God
said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God
saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness.
James Lovell:
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
called Night. And the evening and the morning were
the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament
in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters
from the waters. And God made the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament
from the waters which were above the firmament; and
it was SO. And God called the firmament Heaven. And
evening and morning were the second day.
Frank Borman:
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be
gathered together unto one place, and the dry land
appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land
Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called
he Seas: and God saw that it was good
Merry Christmas and God bless all of you - - - all
of you on the Good Earth.
Appendix A
Teaching About Religion in the Public Schools
1
The State Board of Education at its meeting in Los Angeles on December 12,
1963, authorized issuance of the following statement:
Bible-reading and prayer in the public schools has become a sharp issue
since the Supreme Court decision of June 17, 1963, in the case of Abington
School District versus Schempp. Because of uncertainty as to what the
decision implied, the California State Board of Education presents this brief
summary of what the Supreme Court did and did not say. It is hoped that
this will be of help to school administrators, teachers, and parents.
The issue was whether or not the "establishment" clause of the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was violated by the Board of School
Commissioners of Baltimore and by a Pennsylvania statute. The Commis-
sioners had adopted a statute requiring reading from the Bible without com-
ment at the opening of each school day, and the recitation of the Lord's
Prayer by the students in unison. The Court decided eight to one that such
school exercises violate the First Amendment.
Some parents have expressed fear that the door is opened to the teaching
of secularistic and atheistic doctrine. It has been said that in the United
States God has been taken out of our public education and the rights of a
minority have been raised over the rights of the majority. Some are con-
fused as to whether or not the Bible can be referred to in any way and
whether any mention of religion or churches is allowable in the classroom.
That there is no prohibition against such mention seems obvious from a
reading of the Supreme Court decision and the comments made by four of
the justices who have written concurrences,
It may be well to begin with what the decision did not say. Justice Clark,
who wrote the majority opinion, says:
It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a
"religion of secularism' is established in the schools. We agree, of
course, that the state may not establish a "religion of secularism" in
the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion,
thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do
believe.
He quotes Judge Alphonzo Taft with approval who said nearly a hundred
years ago:
The government is neutral and while protecting all, it prefers none,
and disparages none.
So if the state is forbidden by the Constitution to promote the Christian
religion, it is also forbidden to promote a godless religion of secularism
1 Memorandum from California State Board of Education to School Adminis-
trators, Dec. 17, 1963 (Sacramento).
71
72
or atheism. It would seem to follow, therefore, that no teacher is at
liberty to teach a point of view denying God any more than a teacher is
at liberty to promote a particular religious sect.
The objection of the Supreme Court was to religious service, but Justice
Clark makes it plain that the Bible may be available in libraries and may be
used as a reference book whenever it is appropriate. He says that one cannot
study history without referring to the Bible nor can one study mankind without
referring to religion. So, while it is clearly unlawful to use the Bible in a
devotional service in the schools, it is expected that the Bible shall be open
to all students.
There is not found in the decision any tendency to discount the importance
of religion in general or of Christianity in particular. Justice Clark says,
"The place of religion in our society is an exalted one." He refers with
approbation to the Engle versus Vitale case in which the court said, "We
are a religious people. 11
Mr. Justice Goldberg with Mr. Justice Harlan concurring says the
realization of religious liberty means that the government shall effect "no
favoritism among sects or between religion and non-religion" and that it
shall "work deterrence of no religious belief. These two justices go
further and recognize the danger of a non-interference and non-involvement
with religion which might promote a "passive or even active, hostility to
the religious. 11 "Such results, says Mr. Justice Goldberg, "are not only
not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by
it." It seems quite clear that the Supreme Court recognized and warned
against the danger of creating passive attitudes of hostility toward religion.
Mr. Justice Brennan also concurring speaks of the line separating secular
from sectarian as an "elusive" one. Then he goes on to say:
The holding of the Court today plainly does not foreclose teaching
about the Holy Scriptures or about the differences between religious
sects in classes of literature or history. Indeed, whether or not the
Bible is involved, it would be impossible to teach meaningfully many
subjects in the social sciences or the humanities without some mention
of religion. To what extent, and at what points in the curriculum religious
material should be cited, are matters which the courts ought to entrust
very largely to the experienced officials who superintend our Nation's
public schools. They are experts in such matters, and we are not.
The Justices' opinions in this case recognize the importance of religion
and reflect a great respect for it. They are men who would not willingly
weaken religion in any way nor substitute a godless philosophy for it.
The California Attorney General's opinion given to the State Superintendent
of Public Instruction is in this same spirit. He says, "Those constitutional
and statutory provisions that provide 'no sectarian or denominational doctrine'
shall be 'taught or instruction thereon be permitted directly or indirectly in
any of the common schools of this state' apply equally to all forms of religious
belief irrespective of whether they embody a belief in the existence of God.
73
Thus the 'teaching of' atheism or agnosticism in the public schools is
prohibited if by the words 'teaching of' it is meant the teaching of doctrine
with a view toward obtaining an acceptance as to the truth of that doctrine
11
He goes on to say that there are penalties in the State Education Code which
would apply to "the making of statements, in such schools and colleges,
which advocate, tend to advocate, or implant in pupils minds a preference
for, atheism or agnosticism or which reflect unfavorably upon any particu-
lar religion, upon all religions, or upon any religious creed. 11
The State Board of Education believes that these matters need to be
brought to the attention of parents as well as to school officials. While
religious worship services are not to be held in the schools nor is any
religions group to be given the right to promote its own beliefs over another,
neither is the irreligious person given the right to promote his particular
point of view. Christian parents, therefore, are protected by law against
any attempt to destroy or weaken their children's faith in their particular
church. The religious faith of the majority is protected as well as the
freedom of the minority.
Our schools should have no hesitancy in teaching about religion. We urge
our teachers to make clear the contributions of religion to our civilization,
through history, art and ethics. We want the children of California to be
aware of the spiritual principles and the faith which undergird our way of
life. We are confident that our teachers are competent to differentiate
between teaching about religion and conducting a compulsory worship
service. This point of view, we believe, is in accordance with the tradi-
tion handed down by our fathers and reaffirmed by the United States Supreme
Court.
Appendix B
Education in Depth
MAX RAFFERTY
OF
Superintendent of Public Instruction
and Director of Education
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
STATE EDUCATION BUILDING, 721 CAPITOL MALL, SACRAMENTO 95814
June 16, 1965
The official philosophy of the State Department of Education is the
philosophy of Education in Depth.
Education in Depth maintains that there are positive, eternal values, and
that the main purpose of Education is to seek out these lasting values, and
to identify them, and to explore them to the greater benefit of the individual
and the nation.
Education in Depth holds that the teaching of organized, disciplined, and
systematic subject matter is the principal objective of the schools.
Education in Depth intends to regard the individual as the be-all and the
end-all of the educative process.
Education in Depth teaches that committing important names, places,
events, dates, and passages of poetry and prose to memory is a necessary
part of instruction.
Education in Depth wants a curriculum to provide for the individual the
tools and skills he needs to be a cultured, productive, patriotic American
citizen.
Education in Depth believes that the very survival of our country and the
success of the individual in later life depends upon how well he is taught to
hold his own in a highly competitive world.
The purpose of an educational institution is not to make pupils popular or
well-adjusted or universally approved. It is to make them learned. It is to
teach them to use the tools which the race, over the centuries, has found to
be indispensable in the pursuit of truth. If the schools do not so teach subject
matter, the children are never going to learn it.
This is Education in Depth. This is the philosophy of the State Department
of Education.
D8-116 5-69 2M
74