Life, 1915-03-18 · page 24 of 40
Life — March 18, 1915 — page 24: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page discusses the Greiner-Tallett bill requiring New York public-school teachers to read ten Bible verses daily. The article opposes mandatory Bible reading while acknowledging the Bible's literary value. **The cartoons illustrate the satirical argument:** The top cartoon (St. Petrina) depicts religious figures in clouds, mocking clergy who claim the bill merely introduces "good literature"—the satire suggests their true motive is religious instruction, not literary merit. The bottom cartoon shows a mother and child, with the caption: "When baby begins to talk, mother, wouldn't it be terrible if he should turn out to be a German?" This appears to mock nativist anxieties, sarcastically implying that forced Bible-reading reflects xenophobic concerns about controlling immigrant children's religious/cultural identity. **The satire's point:** Mandatory Bible reading in public schools violates religious neutrality and parental rights, regardless of literary justification. The cartoons suggest this impulse stems from religious proselytizing and ethnic anxiety, not educational principle.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
to know that there is; its language is the best aid to the use of good lan- guage, and its stories and phrases and sayings, largely because they are so familiar, are exceedingly helpful in conveying ideas in writing and speech. All educated people ought to know the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a book that in- cludes the basic literature of two re- ligions, and if it is to be read in the public schools it should only be by consent of the parents of the children who go there. It should not be forced on any child in the public schools against its parents’ wishes. The pub- lic schools must be — unsectarian. Christianity should not be taught in them to Jews nor Protestantism to Catholics. No parent should have cause to say that his children are taught in the public schools religious doctrines which he disapproves. They say the bill will be reported favorably with an amendment making Bible-reading optional with the teach- ers. That would be better; perhaps it would do; but any cramming the Bible by law down the throats of people ST. PETRINA who don’t want it would do nothing The Bible in the Public Dut arm, Schools i eee Z ZL HERE is a bill, the Greiner-Tallett - bill, before the New York State Assembly requiring public-school teach ers to read ten verses from the Bible every day to their classes. We read in the World that the bill was opposed in committee, on February 16th, by Catholics, Jews, Unitarians, Lutherans, Christian Scientists and atheists, and was supported by three assorted cler- gymen. One of them said: “All this Dill seeks is to put good literature in the schools. It would be the same as reading the works of Browning. Tennyson or -E: If that were all, the course of the bill might be easy. But no one would think of putting a bill through the legislature to require a public-school teacher to read half a page of Emer- son to the children every morning. The Bible is different from all the other books, and the reading of it in the public schools involves different considerations. As literature it is the “WHEN BABY BEGINS TO TALK, MOTHER, WOULDN'T IT BE TERRIBLE IF HE most valuable book for school children SHOULD TURN OUT TO BE A GERMAN?”