Untitled article by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · February 12, 1891

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 6, No. 7

“The Nine Demands of Liberalism.”

By Editor

WE have recently had occasion to pass some friendly criticisms upon the American Secular Union. And now we are asked by a Southern correspondent to give our views of the “Nine Demands of Liberalism,” which are as follows:—

1. We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall be no longer exempt from just taxation.

2. We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in State Legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all other institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued.

3. We demand that all public appropriations for educational and charitable institutions of a sectarian character shall cease.

4. We demand that all religious services now sustained by the Government shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible in the public schools, whether ostensibly as a text-book or avowedly as a book of religious worship, shall be prohibited.

5. We demand that the appointment, by the President of the United States, or by the governors of the various States, of all religious festivals and fasts shall wholly cease.

6. We demand that the judicial oath in the courts, and in all other departments of the Government, shall be abolished, and that simple affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be established in its stead.

7. We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.

8. We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of “Christian” morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of natural morality, equal rights and impartial liberty.

9. We demand that not only in the Constitution of the United States and of the several States, but also in the practical administration of the same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity or any other special religion; that our entire political system shall be founded and administered on a purely secular basis; and that whatever changes shall prove necessary to this end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made.

These are the original “Nine Demands of Liberalism,” and are almost identical with the demands of the American Secular Union. But why they should be the demands of Liberals more than the demands of Christians is not exactly clear, for with little exception they are, in our opinion, perfectly proper and just, though in some respects scarcely strong enough.

The first demand is eminently just. We sincerely wish that everywhere church property might be speedily subjected to its just share of taxation. This is now true of all church property in California, and recently the Baptists have shown a disposition, in several quarters, to favor such taxation. Indeed, one Baptist congregation in Canada has asked that its property might be taxed the same as other property. We do not see how anybody can deny the justice and the propriety of this demand, come from whatever source it may.

The second demand is likewise a righteous one. The employment of chaplains by the State, is a relic of the union of Church and State. So far at least as the Federal Government is concerned, it is in violation of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” In the States, it is, to say the least, subversive of the fundamental principles of American institutions; and is everywhere contrary to the principles taught by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Number three is correct in its intent, but is not broad enough. The word “religious” ought to be in it in place of the word “sectarian,” so that it would read, “We demand that all public appropriations for educational and charitable institutions of a religious character shall cease.” This, we understand, is what the demand really means. If this is not what it means, we know that it is what it ought to mean. The religious sects are now playing such casuistical tricks with the word “sectarian” that under cover of it they can obtain all the religious instruction they demand at public expense.

Number four is in harmony with number three, and is perfectly just. The Government should know neither religion nor irreligion. Civil government should be purely secular.

Number five is a proper demand, and especially so as regards the President of the United States. The position of Jefferson, and the opinion of Madison on this question is the true doctrine of the principles and the Constitution of the national Government. It would have been well for the country, and especially for the people, if all the Presidents of the United States had firmly maintained the position so ably announced and maintained by Jefferson. It is as follows:—

I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision, that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that, also, which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise,

or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. . . . Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.

Number six as it reads, demands too much. It demands the unconditional abolition of the judicial oath. But those who believe in the propriety of the judicial oath, and are willing to take it, have as much right to use it as those who do not believe in it have merely to affirm. To demand that those who believe in the judicial oath shall not have the privilege of acting accordingly, and to ask that they shall submit to the demands of those who do not believe in it, is to go to the same extreme in this direction, that those have already gone in the other direction who seek to force their views of the judicial oath upon those who do not believe it. What is referred to here as the judicial oath, is, in fact, the religious oath which is established in many of the States, and which is forced upon those who do not believe in the religious forms or solemnities, or even the Deity, contemplated in the oath.

It is well known that in certain States in the Union no man can be a competent witness in court, who will not take an oath upon the sacredness of the Bible as the word of God, and before the God, whose word the Bible is. Now there are a good many people in all the States who do not believe at all in the sacredness of the Bible, and do not believe in God. Now to compel such a man to take such an oath is really to destroy his value as a witness. An oath, to be of any value whatever, must be taken by something that the person respects as much or more than he does himself or his own word. To require, therefore, to take an oath upon that which he respects less than he does himself or his own word, is to lessen the value of his testimony. When any State compels any man who does not believe either in God or the Bible to take an oath by them both, it requires him publicly and sacredly to profess to believe what he does not believe, and compels him really to commit perjury. In other words, when any State or any Court compels such men to take such an oath it compels them to commit perjury in order to be admitted as competent witnesses. It compels them to commit perjury as an evidence that they will not commit perjury. It compels them publicly to profess a lie as evidence that they will tell the truth. Could anything be more incongruous, or more subversive of civil polity?

This demand, therefore, is eminently just, in behalf of those who do not believe in the religious judicial oath. All that any Court may properly require of any man is such a pledge as is held in greatest respect and as most binding upon the conscience of the person taking it, whether that pledge be by oath or affirmation, or a simple promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We are of the opinion that such is the real intent of this demand, but as the demand is worded it calls for more than that, and therefore goes too far. Those who believe in the religious oath have just as much right to use it as those who do not believe in it have not to use it.

The seventh demand as it is worded is not strong enough. It demands that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, shall be repealed. The demand ought to be that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday, or any other day, in any way or to any extent whatever, as the Sabbath or anything else, shall be repealed. By this we would not be understood to deny the right of the State to set apart certain days as legal holidays. This is perfectly legitimate. But for any Government to forbid common labor or business upon any day is quite another thing, and is a most unwarranted abuse of power.

The eighth demand is just and good, with the exception of “the requirements of natural morality.” The requirements of natural morality are, and have always been, a most uncertain and a most dangerous standard by which to hope for civil security. Natural morality is only the natural outgrowth of the natural heart, which is enmity against the highest moral authority and not subject to the highest moral law; therefore, where the majority of a people conform only to the requirements of natural morality, there is no such thing and there can be no such thing, as assured civil security. If, by the phrase, “natural morality” this demand means civility, and if it would then say what it means, then the demand taken altogether would be a perfectly proper and just one. The demand should read thus: “We demand that all the laws looking to the enforcement of Christian morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of civility, equal rights, and impartial liberty.” Then it would demand just what ought to be.

The ninth demand is perfectly sound, entirely just, and well stated, and in it we can see no room for improvement.

With the changes which we have suggested, the nine demands simply express what ought to be in this Government, and in every other civil Government on earth. With the changes suggested, these demands express precisely what THE AMERICAN SENTINEL has always advocated, and always expects to advocate. We know that some people will lift up their hands and cry, “O, you stand with the infidels!” to which we quietly reply, Not at all; we stand with the Christians. And when infidels happen to stand there too, then they stand with the Christians, and are to be respected in paying such tribute to Christian principles. THE SENTINEL always has advocated these things, and expects always to advocate them, because it is a Christian paper devoted to Christian principles; and with the changes suggested, these nine demands are in strict accordance with Christian principles.

This is our opinion of the “Nine Demands of Liberalism.”