The Oklahoma Constitution by W. A. C.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Dec 5, 1907

The Oklahoma Constitution

By W. A. C.

Religious Toleration or Religious Liberty, Which?

AFTER all that has been said in the United States during the last century and more concerning the difference between religious toleration and religious liberty, it seems rather strange to hear people here still talking about granting “perfect toleration” in matters of religion. And when we consider that the difference between these two things was clearly pointed out by James Madison, and corrected, in the convention which framed one of the first State constitutions formulated in the United States, if not the first, it seems even more strange that this very mistake should be made, and the mistake not be noticed or corrected by the convention of one hundred ten men which met recently in a ninety days’ session to frame a constitution for the latest State to seek admission into the Union, that of Oklahoma.

Our attention having been called to this matter, and learning that a large delegation of prominent men from Oklahoma and Indian Territory was about to wait upon the President of the United States to present to him the proposed constitution for his approval, we addressed the following letter to the President, directing his attention to this strange and defective expression in this document:—

“TAKOMA PARK, WASHINGTON, D. C., “Oct. 25, 1907. “President Theodore Roosevelt, “Washington, D. C. “RESPECTED SIR: Permit me to call your attention to what appears to me to be a serious defect in Section 2 of Article I of the proposed constitution for Oklahoma.

“As framed, this section reads:— “‘Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.’

“The use of the word ‘toleration’ here, while doubtless an inadvertence, it seems to me is nevertheless unfortunate. Religious toleration is not an American doctrine, nor is it compatible with our free institutions. It is appropriate and applicable only in countries where there is an established religion. In a land where freedom in matters of religion is recognized as a right, such a term, it appears to me, is out of place.

“The distinctions between toleration and liberty were clearly pointed out in the early history of this country. When Virginia, one of the first States of the Union to formulate a constitution, came to draft its fundamental law, this question came up for consideration. As originally framed, Article Sixteen of the

Bill of Rights of this constitution provided that ‘all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.’

“Referring to the discussion which took place over this article, Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography, Vol. IV, page 165, says:—

“‘Madison pointed out that this provision did not go to the root of the matter. The free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, is something which every man may demand as a right, not something for which he must ask as a privilege. To grant to the State the power of tolerating is implicitly to grant to the State the power of prohibiting: whereas Madison would deny to it any jurisdiction whatever in the matter of religion. The clause in the Bill of Rights, as finally adopted, at his suggestion, accordingly declares that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.”’

“In his work, ‘Church and State in the United States,’ page 14, Dr. Philip Schaff says:—

“‘There is a very great difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration is a concession which may be withdrawn; it implies a preference for the ruling form of faith and worship, and a practical disapproval of all other forms. . . . In our country we ask no toleration for religion and its free exercise, but we claim it as an inalienable right.’

“Another work, Thompson’s ‘Church and State in the United States,’ page 12, makes the following observation:—

“‘Toleration denotes neither the freedom of religion from State control, nor the equality of all religions before the law. Toleration is the allowance of that which is not wholly approved. Religious liberty, on the other hand, is absolute freedom of religious opinion and worship.’

“In a speech in the House of Lords, in 1827, on a bill for the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, Lord Stanhope said:—

“‘The time was when toleration was craved by dissenters as a boon. It is now demanded as a right; but a time will come when it will be spurned as an insult.’

“And in the Sunday mail report adopted by the United States Senate in 1829, the following clear and concise statement was made:—

“‘What other nations call toleration we call religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which government can not deprive any portion of citizens, however small. Despotic power may invade those rights, but justice still confirms them.’

“From the foregoing, it is evident that religious toleration implies an established religion, and a reservation on the part of the State of the right to dictate in matters of religion, and it is therefore unchristian and not in harmony with the genius of our government.

“In view of all this, therefore, with all due respect and modesty, I wish to ask you to consider the propriety and advisability of the expression, ‘Perfect toleration of religious sentiment,’ in Section 2 of Article I of the proposed Oklahoma Constitution, being altered to read, ‘Perfect religious liberty,’ etc. It appears to me that such a change would be highly proper and desirable.

“Respectfully, “W. A. COLCORD, “Secretary Religious Liberty Bureau.”

A considerable portion of the letter appeared in the Washington Post the following day, and reference was also made to it in the Washington Herald of the same date. Two days later we received the following communication from the Attorney-General:—

“OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, “WASHINGTON, D. C., “Oct. 28, 1907. “Mr. W. A. Colcord, “Secretary Religious Liberty Bureau, “Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. “SIR: Your letter of the 25th instant to the President in regard to the proposed constitution for the new State of Oklahoma has been referred to this office for acknowledgment. You may be assured that what you say will receive careful consideration.

“Very respectfully, (Signed) “CHARLES J. BONAPARTE, “Attorney-General.”

What the final outcome and decision in the matter will be, we shall await with interest. W. A. C.