Mass-Meeting on Religious Liberty and Prohibition
By C. M. S.
THE largest and most enthusiastic meeting that has yet been held over the question of temperance and Sunday legislation in the District of Columbia was that held under the auspices of the Religious Liberty Bureau in the National Rifles’ Armory Hall, Ninth and G Streets, Washington, on the evening of March 11. There was an audience of about seven hundred present, and it was evident from the very beginning of the meeting that the audience was deeply interested in the issues under discussion. The meeting opened with the singing of the hymn “America,” and Prof. B. G. Wilkinson, of the Foreign Mission Seminary, offered prayer. Elder K. C. Russell, chairman of the Religious Liberty Bureau, acted as chairman of the meeting, and gave the opening address, which was enthusiastically responded to again and again on the part of the audience. He made it plain at the outset that the purpose of the meeting was not to oppose religion, but to oppose religious legislation,—the enemy of religion,—and to advance the interests of prohibition—the true and only effective enemy of the liquor traffic. He showed the fallacy of the charge that prohibition does not prohibit and of that other declaration that prohibitory laws invade the natural rights of mankind. The following is a short summary of that portion of that address which had to do with religious legislation:— It should be a source of regret to every Christian patriot and liberty-loving citizen of the capital city of this great nation that it becomes a necessity to call a mass-meeting to protest against proposed religious legislation. This nation, of which this city is the capital, was founded upon the grand principle of civil and religious liberty, of a total separation between the church and the state, as is expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” How fatal it would be to a nation which has stood in the past as a beacon light to all other nations, illuminating them with the spirit of true freedom, should she turn back upon the magnificent record she has made in maintaining the rights of conscience. The proposed legislation to secure a Sunday law for the District of Columbia, should it pass, would be a long step backward, and in the end would result in all the evils that must inevitably follow in the train of religious legislation. Some people are deceived in thinking that this movement to secure a Sunday law for the District of Columbia is not a religious one. All who have watched the development of this movement must know that it is religious, and religious only. Several mass-meetings have been held by the clergy of this city to create public sentiment in favor of a Sunday law in the District. It was plainly demonstrated by all those who spoke at these meetings that the movement was a religious one. The chairman at a mass-meeting held February 26, in the New York Avenue Presbyterian church, when referring to the day they desired to have protected by law, called it the Sabbath in every instance. Another most dangerous argument advanced in his effort to create sentiment in favor of the proposed legislation for Sunday observance, was that of “public opinion.” The thought was emphasized that lawmaking bodies could be influenced by “public opinion.” This sentiment should be a source of alarm to every citizen, for the history of the past furnishes an awful commentary upon such a principle as a basis for action. Public opinion is responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, for the martyrdom of all the apostles save one, besides teeming millions of the saints of the Most High. The question should not be, What is public opinion? but, What is right? The state has no right to dictate to any man which day he shall observe as a sabbath, or whether he shall observe any day at all. The legitimate province of the state is to keep men civil, but not attempt to make them act religiously. The District Commissioners and every Congressman should oppose every attempt by the religio-political class of citizens, who are seeking for that which, in the end, will prove destructive to our government, and result in religious intolerance and persecution. The chairman then introduced Miss Margaret J. Bilz, national lecturer of the medical temperance department of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the subject of whose address was “Why Prohibit the Liquor Traffic?” It was a stirring address, and was well received by the audience. She showed the history of the saloon’s establishment and the purpose of the business, and gave a graphic portrayal of the results of its operation. The last half of her address was devoted chiefly to a comparison between the conditions existing in prohibition territory and in territory where the traffic is legalized, and the showing was something over which every prohibitionist has reason for deepest satisfaction. The statements of liquor traffic managers and abettors in reference to the failures of prohibition were shown up in their true light, and the commentary was an interesting and profitable one. Her declaration that “nothing short of prohibition would satisfy” was enthusiastically applauded.5 At the close of this address the audience joined in singing “Sound the Battle Cry,” and the chairman introduced Elder G. B. Thompson, who spoke upon the question, “Is Sunday Legislation Religious Legislation?” He said, in part: All the persecution that has darkened the earth has been caused by religious legislation. A union of the church and the state, with the religious legislation that must follow such a union, has turned some of the fairest portions of the earth into a wilderness and shambles. There was a time when this same evil principle was dominant in this country. Some sigh for the “good old Colonial day” and a “breath of puritanism;” but think what that would mean if carried out throughout this country. It would mean the banishment or the death of those who do not believe as the majority do in things religious. In those “good old Colonial days,” they would take a good old Quaker and burn a hole through his tongue because he said “thee” and “thou” and differed from the majority in religion. They persecuted the Baptists because they differed with them in reference to the mode of baptism and other things. A sea captain who returned home on Sunday morning from a long voyage was seen to kiss his wife. Some Puritan brought him to trial and compelled him to pay a fine. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was adopted to prevent forever in this country a repetition of such experiences, and to keep the church and state in this land forever separate. We are told that Sunday laws are mere police regulations, civil enactments, and not religious. If that were true, the state would have a right to enact such legislation; but it is not true. Sunday is an institution of the church and not of the state. Sunday was adopted into the church from the pagans in the early centuries; and thus becoming an institution of the church, all legislation in its behalf is religious legislation, and therefore outside the province of the state. The only thing that can make binding upon mankind a day of rest and worship is the divine law, and that is religious, and not civil. If it is only a civil observance of the day that is wanted, then the laws that regulate a man’s conduct on the fourth of July will regulate his conduct on Sunday. Elder Thompson showed by numerous quotations from those able to speak authoritatively upon the subject that Sunday legislation is religious legislation and is based upon religious obligation; also that Congress had already declared (in 1829 and 1830), in committee reports on a proposed Sunday law, that to pass such a bill would be to decide a religious controversy by law. This address closed with an earnest appeal to the people to refuse to assist in the work of promoting religious legislation. The address held the audience well, and received their hearty approval. Elder A. G. Daniells followed Elder Thompson, speaking upon “The Dangers of Religious Legislation.” The following is a brief summary of his discussion of that theme:— Mr. Chairman: It has been clearly proved here to-night that legislation in behalf of the observance of Sunday as a day of rest is religious legislation. For that reason, all lovers of Christianity and of the American idea of civil government should stand opposed to such legislation. Religious legislation by civil government is subversive of the highest interests of both the church and the state. Law means force, and force can not of right be used in matters of religion. The religion of Jesus Christ deals with the conscience—the most sacred gift of God to man. It is a matter between a man’s soul and his God. For this reason the divine Author of Christianity says: “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.” Rom. 14:22. Even Christ, when among men, did not use coercion. He said: “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not.” John 12:47. In harmony with all this he says that “every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Rom. 14:12. This liberty to believe or not to believe, to do or not to do, in matters of faith and religion is peculiar to the religion and teachings of Jesus Christ. All other religions advocate force, and resort to law or to the sword or to the Inquisition to gain adherents and to secure obedience. Who does not reflect with horror upon the unspeakable cruelties inflicted by the sword of Mohammed, the Inquisition of the papacy, and the blue-laws of the Puritans? And yet, all this was done in the name of the church and of the state for the good of the people. Sunday is an institution of the church; Sunday laws are religious laws; law means force, fines, and penalties; so Sunday laws mean force, fines, and penalties to those who can not conscientiously submit to religion by law; and that means persecution. All history warns us against such a course of procedure. The Roman empire furnishes an awful lesson in this matter. Rome committed the most horrible cruelties against her own subjects in her attempt to enforce upon all the religion of the majority. In the end she signally failed and crumbled to pieces. Then the Ro- Roman Church resorted to the state for power to enforce her dogmas upon the people. One of those dogmas which she desired to enforce was this very Sunday rest-day dogma which is agitating this city at this time. First she secured a law prohibiting labor, then a law prohibiting games and amusements, then laws compelling all to attend church and receive religious instruction. The address closed with a clear statement of the terrible results of religious legislation and the injustice of all laws seeking to regulate and control religious observances and to hamper the consciences of men. Elder W. A. Colcord gave a brief review of the Sunday bills now before Congress, and some pointed history relative to the matters under consideration. At the conclusion of Elder Colcord’s remarks, Prof. Frederick Griggs introduced the following resolutions:— 1. Resolved, That we, citizens of the District of Columbia, assembled in the National Rifles’ Armory, hereby express our profound belief in the Christian religion as set forth in the Sacred Scriptures; and that it is the divine mission of the church to proclaim this gospel to all the world. 2. Resolved, That we recognize civil government to be of divine appointment, ordained of God to rule in all things civil, and that it is the duty of all men to render loyal obedience to civil government in the exercise of its rightful authority. 3. Resolved, That we hereby reaffirm our belief that religion and civil government occupy different realms, and that the church and the state should be kept forever separate, in accordance with the teaching of the divine Author of Christianity in the words: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s;” and as expressed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Whereas, Sunday is a religious institution, and all legislation in behalf of its observance is religious legislation; and,— Whereas, Religious legislation by civil government is contrary to the principles enunciated by Jesus Christ, and is also subversive of the fundamental principles upon which the American government was founded; therefore,— 4. Resolved, That we do hereby respectfully, but most earnestly, protest against the passage of the bills now before Congress which look to the enforcement of Sunday as a day of rest; and, further,— 5. Resolved, That we continue to use our influence and our energies to prevent this proposed legislation, and to perpetuate among all men the blessings of civil and religious liberty. Whereas, The public sale of intoxicating liquors is a most prolific source of crime, a menace to the peace, prosperity, and good order of society, and, through its entailed results of crime, divorce, debauchery, idiocy, insanity, and pauperism, a tremendous burden upon the state,—results incapable of being adequately6 compensated for by any amount of revenue derived from the trade; therefore,— 6. Resolved, That we favor the prohibition of the liquor traffic, both in State and nation, and pledge ourselves to do all in our power for the suppression of this dangerous, expensive, and destructive traffic. 7. Resolved, That we request the Washington press and all lovers of the American idea of civil government to co-operate in maintaining the principles expressed in these resolutions. The adoption of the resolutions was by a rising vote, which was practically unanimous. Such a meeting as this was a practical demonstration to the people of the District, and to those upon whom rests the responsibility of acting upon these bills, that public sentiment is not all in favor of a denial of the fundamental principles of our government upon the question of a union of religion and the state. What its effect will be upon this pending legislation only the future can tell; but it has served to bring the truth, and those that hold it, forcefully to the attention of the people of this great city and many of the legislators of the country and representatives of foreign governments. C. M. S.