National Reform and Human Rights
Rev. W. D. Gray, secretary of the Missouri National Reform Convention recently held at Sedalia, said: “I do not believe that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and so the object of this movement is an effort to change that feature in our fundamental law.” Here, then, is something thoroughly antagonistic to the chief principle underlying the structure of our government. Why not put the Rev. Mr. Gray, or some other good National Reformer, in as dictator, both of the religious and civil rights of our citizens? We still are inclined to believe, however, that the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and those who drafted the Constitution of the United States, had a better conception of human rights and a higher regard for religion, than has the Rev. Gray and his National Reform colleagues. We also believe that when Lincoln declared that this ought to be a Government “of the people, for235the people, and by the people,” he uttered a principle against which the declaration of Mr. Gray cannot stand for a moment. If the reverend gentleman and his National Reform brethren are really anxious to be of service to the world—if they desire to be Christian in every sense of the word—let them spend their time, talent, and money, in mitigating poverty, alleviating distress and suffering. Let them, as did Christ of old, minister to actual wants. Let them strive to overcome evil by teaching and example, rather than by legal enactment. Christ never sought the aid, support, nor backing of civil law in any of his work. His professed ministers and followers of to-day should have a care lest they o’erstep the bounds of their authority. They should let fundamental law alone. It is better as it is, so far as religion is concerned.—The Phelps County (Nebraska) Herald.