Is It Republican? by J. W. Scoles

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · May 29, 1889

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 4, No. 18.

Is It Republican?

By J. W. Scoles

PRESUMABLY, most of the readers of the AMERICAN SENTINEL are accustomed to hearing the term “republican America” applied to our own beloved land. By this term we understand that the United States possesses a form of government which is distinctively republican. But a republic must be something in which each individual can take a common interest, therefore, a true republican government must be purely secular. It would be possible to conceive of a religious republic only upon the supposition that all men hold to the same points of religious faith and practice. But this is purely a supposition, and never has been and never can be true of our own or of any other earthly government. Consequently, we repeat that the highest conception of a true republic must be a government which is secular and only secular in its administration:

We are led to make these remarks on account of the growing tendency upon the part of many journals, especially some of a religious character, to regard the President as a sort of patriarch, or general high priest for the Nation. If these journals were of Roman Catholic persuasion, such sentiments would not appear strange, although in that case their allegiance would attach itself to the old gentleman who has his headquarters in the Vatican. But for American citizens to pick up any of the religious acts of the chief magistrate of the Nation, and assume that there is in, and by virtue of, these acts, a religious precedent established which it is necessary for us as good citizens to follow, is simply absurd. It is worse than absurd, it is wicked; because it is stepping from the light and progression of true political liberty backward into the mental darkness and moral degradation of Papal slavery. Because Washington, immediately after his inauguration, attended divine service, does that imply that all the citizens of the Government which he had just sworn to uphold, were to accept his example as conveying any official recognition of Christianity, or of any other religion, for that matter? Certainly not. Listen to his own statement, and see how widely he severed religion from the State. In his reply to certain Baptists who were fearful their religious rights would be encroached upon, he said:—

“Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

And yet, judging from the intense anxiety which seems to have been manifested by some overzealous religionists in desiring that President Harrison should attend church on the centennial of Washington’s inauguration, it would seem that there must be some idea in their minds that by this act the President would bind a certain amount of religious obligation upon the people whom he represents. This idea is nonsensical in conception, and would be terribly unjust in its application. As well might it be argued that in case the President saw fit to be immersed in order to carry out certain individual religious convictions, it would be the bounden duty of every good citizen to go and be immersed likewise. A man is permitted to hold any religious view he chooses, and still be President of the United States, but he is not permitted, nor is it understood that by virtue of his official position he has any right, to dictate that others shall subscribe to his peculiar religious or irreligious ideas.

And this brings us to the consideration of the proclamation recently issued by President Harrison himself concerning the observance of April 30, the centennial anniversary of Washington’s inauguration. In the proclamation the statement is made that the “representatives of religious creeds, both Christian and Hebrew, have memorialized the Government to designate an hour for prayer and thanksgiving on that day.” And “in response to this pious and reasonable request” Benjamin Harrison, in his official capacity as President of the United States, does “recommend” that at a certain hour “the people of the entire country repair to their respective places of divine worship, to implore the favor of God,” etc. Some may think that this entire proceeding was eminently proper, and wonder why any objection should be raised, but there are certainly some who can see in such things as this the violation of the first principles of individual rights.

Supposing that the “representatives of religious creeds” did desire to spend an hour in prayer and thanksgiving on a certain day, did that make it necessary for a proclamation to that effect to be issued by the President? Even admitting that these individuals were “representatives” of the entire religious element of the country, and that that religious element constituted the majority of the population, that does not help the matter any unless we are prepared to concede that “might makes right,” and to deny entirely the individual rights of conscience when opposed to the conscience of the majority. The request for such a proclamation as this (although perhaps signed by many right-minded people) was virtually an attempt to coerce the worship of others besides themselves. If not, why did not these “representatives,” if they were representatives indeed, make the necessary announcements to their respective believers? This would certainly have been sufficient for the ones directly interested. The fact that they did not do so, but called upon the President instead, seems conclusive evidence of their desire to have others brought to acquiesce in their views by executive power.

But it may be said that the proclamation contained no reference to executive power; that it did not command, but simply “recommended.” Exactly; no command was made, because no legal right existed by which such a command could be given. So of the despotism of the church in the early centuries. It is a noticeable fact that at first the requirements of the church were merely requests, and then when the church began to have influence in the affairs of State the civil power was led to “recommend” that these desires be complied with, and these recommendations soon grew to be absolute commands, to disregard which was considered not only heresy against the church but treason against the Government as well. And it was by just such steps as this that the imperial or governing power became an imperious power and a tyrannical despotism, under the complete control of a combination of intolerant so-called “representatives of religious creeds.” Let the people of the United States take warning lest the use of executive power to “recommend” religious ceremonies becomes an abuse of that power to “command” individual conscience, a domain so sacred that even the power of civil authority should hesitate to invade it.

We have not written the above because we are opposed to Christianity, or to the service of God. Far from it; we believe in Christianity with our whole heart, and endeavor to practice its precepts, and it is because of the high standard set by our divine Lord that we do oppose all such abuse of the secular power. Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” These are our principles. Thanksgiving proclamations and all such proclamations as the one referred to, in fact, any proclamation coming from official source, requiring or recommending the worship of God, is a virtual attempt of Cæsar to exact the tribute which God alone has the right to require, and therefore we are opposed to it.

J. W. SCOLES.