It would seem superfluous to propose this question specifically.
If, according to the gist of our argument, religion is to be protected, what other religion can be meant than the Christian religion? That is the religion of our nations; none other is.
While the stated distinction may have more of an academic than a practical interest, the discussion of this question will not be idle, if only for the reason that it will shed even more light upon our previous statements. Besides, there are manifest efforts to dislodge Christianity from the life of our people, and with it all true religion, under the pretext of opposing church-doctrines and dogmatism. The war against Christianity has not since the days of a _Celsus_ been waged as it is to-day.
We premise a principle of a general nature. Of conflicting religions and views of the world, only one can be true; this is clear to every one who still believes in truth. It is equally clear that this one truth only can have the right to come forward and to enlist support in public life as a spiritual power; error has no right to prevail against truth. Hence it will not do to say simply: There are also the convictions of minorities in the state; some claim that none of the existing religions is the right one, others have dropped all belief in G.o.d; in our times we wish to concede to any conviction the right to enter into compet.i.tion with others, provided mockery and abuse are barred. These remarks are quite true, in the sense that neither the individual nor the state may directly interfere with conscience or prescribe opinions: leaving entirely aside the question whether any one really could have a serious conviction of atheism. The foregoing is true also in the sense that public avowal of opinion must not be hindered by individuals. To interpret this to mean that the state must grant freedom to any expression of doctrine would be a grave misconception of the social influence which false ideas are liable to exercise. Does the state grant this freedom to any kind of medical practice, whether exercised skilfully or awkwardly, conscientiously or unscrupulously?
Moral-religious error may in public life expect only _tolerance_-just as many other evils must be tolerated, because their prevention would cause greater evils to arise. This is the reason why the state may, and often must, grant freedom of worship even to false creeds, because its denial would give rise to greater harm to the public weal (_St. Thomas_, 2, 2 q.
10, 11). Freedom of teaching, likewise, must not be granted in the sense of acknowledging that false doctrines and truth have equal rights; this would amount to an a.s.sa.s.sination of truth. Freedom can be conceded to error for the one reason only, that by not granting it there would be engendered greater evils. Consequently, if a state-power, or the organs of its legislative part, are convinced that the Christian religion is the only true one, they cannot possibly concede to contrary doctrines the right to pose as the truth and thus deceive minds; they may be granted the same freedom in teaching only because restrictive laws can either not be enforced at all, or not without creating a disorder that would give rise to greater evils. Hence the lesser evil must be carefully ascertained.
With this general principle in mind, it is easily seen that a freedom large enough to include an open attack on the fundamental, rational, truths of religion and morals-this having been our subject hitherto-could be conceded only if disbelief and atheism had gained so much power as to make impossible its prohibition. In this case, however, the state should be conscious of the fact that it allows the undermining of its foundations. If, in another state, religious feeling were at so low an ebb, that the freedom of the Christian truth could not be obtained in any other way than by granting full freedom for everything, then even such unlimited freedom would be a good thing to be striven for; of itself a deplorable condition and contrary to G.o.d"s intentions, but good as the lesser evil.
But let us return to the revealed religion. In the eyes of those who are convinced that the Christian religion, namely, the Catholic religion, is the only true religion, the ideal condition would be to have the entire population united in its faithful confession; then matters would simplify themselves in our case. But this ideal hardly exists anywhere. True, in many countries the population is almost wholly Christian; but the denominations are mixed, and many have separated at heart from Christianity. What standards, then, should rule in this case?
Looking at it specially, the demand of ethical reason is no doubt this: Nations and governments whose past was Christian, whose inst.i.tutions and civilization are still Christian, and an overwhelming majority of whose members still think and believe in a Christian way, would fail in their gravest duties if they would expose or permit the Christian religion to remain unprotected against the attacks and the attempts at destruction by a false science, or by conceding to the adversaries of Christianity equal rights or even preference. The Christian religion will not be destroyed; but whole nations may lose it, and its loss will in great measure be the fault of those in whose hands their fate was laid. Here might be applied _Napoleon"s_ well-known saying: "The weakness of the highest authority is the greatest misfortune of the nations."
It remains an anomaly that a state, the members of which for the most part are Christians, should treat this religion with indifference, and tolerate that its tenets and traditions be represented as fairy-tales and fables, its moral law as a danger to civilization, and perhaps its divine Founder as a victim of religious frenzy. If the state is the expression and the _representative of its subjects_, then such disharmony between public and private life is unnatural. Moreover, the Christian religion is held by the majority of its citizens to be the most precious legacy of their forefathers; they must demand from the state _protection for their greatest good_. And this may be claimed with even greater right by provinces where the population almost unanimously clings to the creed of their ancestors; at the colleges in these parts the faithful people will be ent.i.tled to protection more than elsewhere against dangers to its inherited religion. It would be unnatural in this case to apply the thoughtless principle of dealing uniformly with all provinces of the state. The state is not a heap of uniform pebbles, but an organism composed of different parts, each desiring to retain its own peculiar life.
Do not say this presumption does not admit of application to our conditions, the majority of the people of this age being long since estranged from Christianity. It is true, if we turn our eye only to the more conspicuous cla.s.ses of society, the cla.s.ses that control the newspapers and mould public opinion, this view might be admitted as to some countries. But if we look at the ma.s.ses, those not infected by half-education, then this opinion is true no longer. And there are many who at heart are not so distant from faith as it would seem. In public life they pose as free-thinkers, but their domestic life bears frequently a Christian character.
And often they approach more and more the faith, the older they grow. This is known to be the fact even of scientists. Instances are men like _Ampere_, _Foucault_, _Flourens_, _Hermite_, _Bion_, _Biran_, _Fechner_, _Lotze_, _Romanes_, _Littre_, and others.
_Plato_ claimed that no one who in his youth disputed the existence of the G.o.ds retained this view to his old age.
"Christianity," observes _Savigny_ rightly, "is not only to be acknowledged as a rule of life, it has actually transformed the world, so that all our thoughts are ruled and penetrated by it, no matter how foreign, even hostile, to Christianity they may appear."
It is a sign how deeply Christian religion has sunk its roots into the heart, that it remains _the_ religion even for those who have turned away from it. To be sure, for our nations Christianity is _the_ religion. For them the religion of a _Confucius_ or _Zoroaster_ does not enter into consideration; nor any of the products of modern religious foundations, which would replace Christianity with subst.i.tutions of all kinds of religious essences; they are on a level with the attempts at reconstructing s.e.xual ethics: both are regrettable delusions.
"Improvement" of Christian morality is tantamount to abandoning all morals, and desertion from the Christian religion, amongst our people, has always been apostasy from all religion. The Christian religion is so true, that no one can renounce it inwardly and then find peace in a self-made one. And all efforts aimed at displacing Christianity lead only to an abandonment of all religion.
Look at the number of people from whom slander and insinuation have torn their old religion to be replaced by another-a freer, higher religion; their moral decadence soon bears testimony of the religious consecration which has been given to them. Woe unto those authorities who, while able to oppose, are indifferent, and who lend a hand in causing Christian thought to withdraw more and more from our mental atmosphere, to be replaced by another spirit, a spirit that will gradually control the decision of the judge, the practice of the physician, the instruction of the teacher, and thus more and more enter into the life of the people.
It is not a.s.sured to those nations of Europe, whose public life is feeding to-day upon the remnants of their Christian past, that they will not relapse into a state of moral and religious barbarity. "Maybe civilized mankind, or our nation at least, is really losing its hold more and more upon definite moral standards," so complains a modern pedagogue; "possibly the emanc.i.p.ation of sensuality will increase without end, perhaps we have pa.s.sed forever the stage of true humanity and of a live idealism, and we shall henceforth glide downward.... These are no mere, feverish dreams; there is good reason for facing these possibilities with a determined eye, and no accidental or philosophical optimism can ignore them" (_Munch_).
"It is quite possible," we are told by another, "that much will go down in our old Europe during the next centuries; and the downfall will not be restricted by any means to Church and Christianity, and in the crises that will come Europe will hardly get the needed support from an aesthetic heathendom, from the Monists" Union, or from the evidences of science" (_Troeltsch_).
If it does not come to it, it will not be the merit of authorities who let the vessel of state drift rudderless toward the rocks of dechristianization.
They do not realize that they greatly endanger thereby also the foundations of the state. _The foundations of our governments rest upon Christianity._ The Christian faith created the state, created matrimony, family, and the education of the youth; created the social virtues of loyalty and of obedience. What we have of religion is Christian, what we have of the religious support of morality is equally Christian; "Christianity, Christian faith, Christian formation of life penetrates all vital utterances of the Occidental world like an all-pervading element"
(_Paulsen_).
It is one of the first principles of political prudence not to shake the foundations upon which the state rests. States and nations are not ephemeral beings, existing from one day to the other, they are historical structures measuring their lives by centuries; past generations join hands with present generations, deeds and customs of the fathers live on in their sons.
States must remain on the historical tracks on which they have travelled to success, at least until the new track has stood the test of reliability. So far anti-Christian philosophy has terribly shaken governments; it has not yet proved itself a state-conserving principle.
It is a sad condition to see the guardians of states, devoid of historical appreciation, allow their people to tear themselves away from the soil wherein reposed the roots from which they drew life and strength. Sad, too, that complaints are made of college-professors who abuse freedom in teaching by constructing an unproved contradiction between knowledge and faith, by misrepresenting Christian tenets, by lowering the prestige of the Church, by distorting her historical picture. It would be regrettable for a Christian state, if the complaint were justified that for the most part our colleges have become places where religion is ignored; where the name of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, is no longer mentioned; where the name of G.o.d never occurs in history, in natural and political science; where religion is considered the most unessential factor of mental life, a factor that has nothing to offer, that can answer no question-a treatment which, by the force of suggestion, must lead young men to think that religion is of no account. It is a banishment which in its effect is little different from an attack upon religion.
Sadder still would it be if the following view were to prevail at our colleges: "A right of the student to see protected and not destroyed any views and convictions, including those of a religious nature, which he may bring to the university from his home surroundings, from his preliminary education, as it is a.s.serted time and again in the frequent complaints about the dechristianizing of youth at the universities-does not exist and cannot exist, because it would be in contradiction to the very essence of the university and its tasks" (_Jodl_).
Is not this the ethical principle of the bird of prey? Is it not allowed to guard the defenceless chick against the hawk? Christian people send their sons to the university, and demand that the education of the parental home be spared, that the inexperience of youth be not misused. The state must demand that the religious-moral education which it furthers in its public schools be not destroyed by the higher schools. Yet, all these rights must be silenced the moment the vision of the absolute freedom of teaching makes its appearance, since to refrain from dechristianizing the youth would be contrary to his tasks.
If such abuse in the management of the power of knowledge, within and without colleges, is not counteracted by all possible means, then none need be surprised when a science free from religion and Christianity is followed by an elementary school free from religion, when in public and preparatory schools the free-thinking teacher is telling the pupils that there is no creation but only evolution, and that the gospels and biblical history are poetical stories such as the Nibelungenlied and the Iliad and Odyssey.
We cannot be astonished to find the following rules advocated for the instruction in public schools: "Religious instruction in schools should not differ from the instruction in other subjects, namely, one of full freedom, bound only by recognized doc.u.ments and personalities of religious literature and religious science.
The school must teach that which is, it must present the tenets of all times and all nations in so far as this is possible within its modest compa.s.s.... But if the pupil should ask, What really is?
What position should the teacher a.s.sume toward this question? In my opinion, he should speak in plain terms. He should say: There are people who believe all that is taught by the different systems of religion.... The child may further ask of the teacher whether he himself believes. No teacher who claims the confidence of the children should shirk the answer. He may confess his faith or disbelief, without need of worry. It cannot hurt his prestige in the eyes of the child, because, if for no other reason, either way he will find himself in an equally large and good company"
(_Tews_).
But we hear much more radical utterances. For instance, the official organ of teachers in a Catholic country urges defection from the Church in the following words: "How long will Social-Democracy, now so formidable, remain inactive against clerical arrogance? How much longer will it shirk a duty that is clear to the dullest eye? If the millions of our Social-Democrats, including the women and children, would break away from Rome, the priestcraft in Austria is as good as defeated. A grave responsibility rests upon the Social-Democratic leaders. Should they miss the moment to act, they will be judged by history!"
(Deutsch-oesterreichische Lehrerzeitung, June 1, 1909).
Another organ of teachers declares Christianity to be nothing else but _victorious heresy_, for which Christ had to lay down His life the same as _Giordano_, _Hus_, and countless others. "The subject of religion as taught in the preparatory schools is for the most part taken from ages whose customs and morals are-happily-no longer ours." We see radicalism rampant in large circles of public school teachers, demanding noisily, excitedly, and, of course, in the name of modern science and enlightenment, the abolition of the divine service, of prayer, and religious instruction in school, giving as reason that, "as to matters of mental freedom no difference should be made between a university and a village school." That our people will "carelessly waste their Christian patrimony, this is the great danger."
Our argument is not that only Catholics should be professors, nor even to limit the teaching office to Christians. But one thing must be demanded of the college-teacher, that he possess the pedagogic qualifications to render him competent of educating the hope of the Christian people. As a rule this demands a religious, Christian disposition. One thing the state must absolutely demand of the teacher, that he have appreciation for the foundations of the Christian state; he who has no understanding for the historical forms of the life of a nation, who even regards them with hostility, should remain away from this vocation.
In the United States the Jesuit Order has five free universities, founded and directed by the Order. Their professors are not all Catholics; there are professors of other creeds, even Jews. All work in harmony to the common end of the university.
Men who sincerely and conscientiously strive for the interests of science will everywhere show not only consideration, but even understanding and respect, for what is true in the ideas of others. "I gaze," so writes Prof. _Smolka_, "upon the likenesses of my venerable Protestant masters, under whom I studied at Gottingen. Thirty-seven years have pa.s.sed since I went to them, in full confidence to find in their school the leaders who would be free from the influence of the Catholic view of the world. To their profound knowledge I owe, first of all, the emanc.i.p.ation from the prejudices I was raised in, from the views of an atmosphere devoted to Indifferentism in which I had pa.s.sed my youth. Prof. _Waitz_ opened my eyes to the grandeur of the Catholic Church in the course of the centuries, in the repeated prostration of the Papacy and its ever-following rise to unsuspected heights, a fact unparalleled in the history of human inst.i.tutions. Prof. _Lotze_ rebuked me at the very beginning of my studies at Gottingen for a slighting remark about scholastic philosophy: later he imbued me with profound respect for it and for the wealth of problems it embraces. These scientists, Protestants without exception and in exclusively Protestant surroundings, inoculated me with sincere love for scientific truth, regardless of the consequences it would lead to. They also introduced the youthful mind to the tried methods of scientific research, indicating the boundaries where the domain of research ends and the right of dogma, or arbitrary rule of subjective imagination, begins."
Restriction of Right.
We need no further proof that the state is justified in restricting the freedom of teaching, whenever demanded by the business of the state as described above. Restriction of this kind can be considered unjustified only by a state theory of liberalism, which holds that the object of the state consists in merely protecting individual liberty, no matter if this liberty should lead to the gravest injuries so long as it does not affect the freedom of others; a theory which changes the state community from an integral organism into a conglomeration of autonomous individuals.
_Lasalle_ scornfully termed this theory the "night.w.a.tchman idea" of the state. The state has the right and the duty to exert a necessary influence upon the pursuit of science, especially at the universities. Against it the pleading of _autonomy of the college_ and its teacher will not hold.
They have a certain autonomy, that was even greater in former times. An important part of it is the right to propose appointments for vacant chairs. It must be admitted that this method of appointment is proper; it vouches for the scientific fitness of the appointee, and will prove a protection against the exercise of undue political influence and ministerial absolutism, provided that this method is impartially exercised. But an autonomy that disputes the right of the state to protect its interests, where free science conflicts with it, that would demand, as has been a.s.serted, that "no infringement of the freedom in teaching must be deduced from the official position as teacher,"-such autonomy would be a palpable misconception of the dependency of the college-teacher and of the social service of science. The rules that apply to other, non-judicial, officers should apply to teachers appointed by the state, and offences in their office, or conduct injurious to the purpose and the dignity of their office, should be treated similarly as in the case of other public servants. Nor should members of the legislature be forbidden to defend the rightful interests of their const.i.tuents in regard to schools. They are elected by the people for this purpose, and the people have a claim on the schools, which are supported by their taxes and to which some of their greatest interests are attached.
It has been demanded to concede to college-teachers the independence and immunity of judges. This, however, would be overlooking the vast difference between professors and judges. The judge has to render legal decisions in concrete cases, according to existing laws; in order to lessen the danger of his being guided by outside considerations he is given a large measure of independence. But what questions has the college-professor to decide? Mathematical or physical questions? There his incorruptibility is not in such danger that he must be made independent of government. Religious and moral questions, questions of views of the world? These he is not compelled to decide. Neither state nor people have appointed him to question, time and again, the fundamental foundations of human life, and to render decisions which n.o.body requested.
It is not clear why science, pleading its independence, should oppose justified restrictions. As a matter of fact _this independence does not exist anywhere_. Numerous are the considerations, often unwarranted, it is actually tied to, yea, often tied to by its own hands. He who is familiar with scientific doings, especially academic doings, knows numbers of such ties-there is the professional opinion in scientific circles; woe unto him who in his scientific works dares to confess a supernatural view of the world!-ties of the predominance of certain leaders or schools, without or against whose favor it is difficult to attain recognition, approval, or position; the ties of parties and cliques in an academic career; the tie, too, of that insinuating power of the state that confers much-desired decorations and t.i.tles.
"Where is this freedom of science?" asks a modern academic teacher. "Some will say science and its teaching are free in our country. True, it is so written on paper. But those charged with keeping this principle inviolate are human. For instance the monists have the chief voice in appointments to zoological chairs.
They will propose only scientists who are not opponents to the monistic faith. Far be it from me to a.s.sume any _mala fides_. They simply believe that only their faith is the proper one to promote science. But I ask again, where is the freedom of science?"
(_Dahl_).
_H. St. Chamberlain_ tells of an amusing incident in his life: "Many years ago, when I desired to devote myself to an academic career, a chemist said to me: "My dear fellow, since you belong to the profession, I tell you as a friend that it is not enough for you to be proficient: you should try, first of all, to marry the daughter of one of the professors, of a privy counsellor if possible." "This advice comes too late," I replied, "I am already married." My well-wisher was visibly shocked. "What a pity! Too bad! You don"t realize what an influence this has here upon one"s career." What trouble I had to obtain even the _venia docendi_!
and then I stuck fast and could not budge despite all achievements until I undertook to marry the daughter of one of the "head-wirepullers"; then things were fixed within three months. I may have looked at him in a peculiar way, for his wife was a veritable Xanthippe, and, he added with a laugh: "You know I am all day at the laboratory, from morning until late at night." "
There is nothing new under the sun. In the year of grace, 1720, _Johann Jacob Moser_ started his lectures in Tuebingen, but could get no audience. "No wonder, even a cleverer man than I would not have fared better at that time, when everything depended on nepotism." The young man had crossed Chancellor _Pfaff_ by rejecting a marriage arrangement (_Horn_).
One will find these things very human. Moreover, it would be unwarranted to a.s.sume that they happen always and everywhere. But they prove that the pursuit of science rests also on general human grounds, and does not always remain aloft, in the ethereal heights of pure truth.