Untitled article by J. W. Scoles

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · March 3, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 9

Where Will It End?

By J. W. Scoles

MOST people are familiar with the old story of the man who neglected to have a nail driven in the shoe of the horse he was riding, and how, “for want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost, for want of a horse the rider was lost, and all for the want of a horse-shoe nail.” A very small beginning, true enough, but most disastrous in its ending.

This lesson comes home to us to-day with striking force in view of the indifference with which so many regard the present Sunday movement. “It is only a little temporary craze which will soon die out,” they say, and so dismiss it from their minds. The time was, perhaps, when such an opinion might have been advanced with some degree of plausibility, but in view of the rapid developments of recent years, it can readily be seen that a conflict of stupendous magnitude lies before us in regard to this question. This becomes doubly apparent when we stop to consider that some of the very ones who, at the first, pooh-poohed at the “idle fears,” so-called, of those who opposed it, have turned in with the very movement that they declared would amount to nothing, and are now using their utmost endeavors to make it effective. And this tendency becomes more marked, almost with each successive day, in political circles. The average politician, generally speaking, has an eye to the “main chance,” and as he sees petitions being circulated, public meetings being held, and all manner of expedients being used to bring Sunday prominently before the public, he soon reaches the conclusion that if he expects to maintain his hold upon public opinion, it will be about the correct thing for him to express his belief in the universal sacredness of the “American” Sunday, however little religious regard he may have for the day, or for the sacredness of anything else.

And it is this very political agitation which furnishes such grave cause for apprehension. If the advocates of Sunday sacredness simply desired to observe the day themselves, or even if they only wished to call the attention of others to the need of a better observance of the day, no reasonable objection could be urged. This would be nothing more than their lawful right. But when they endeavor to secure legal sanction of the sacredness of that day or of any other, they not only go contrary to the most vital principles of Christianity, but they attempt something, which, if carried out, will subvert the very foundation of our national greatness, and transform the “best Government the sun ever shone on,” into a despotism more tyrannical than that of the Russian Empire.

Any such attempt is contrary to Christianity because the teaching of Christ was, and is, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This gives the fullest possible liberty of religious thought and action; unless, indeed, our Sunday-law friends are prepared to admit that they would like to be compelled to acquiesce in some religious observance which was utterly contrary to their own desires,—a conclusion whose self-contradiction is so evident that it needs no refutation.

Our national greatness arises not so much from our favored position and immense resources as from the just and equal protection which our laws offer to all who come within our boundaries. Here the oppressed of all the earth have found a welcome, and the very name America has almost become a synonym for civil and religious freedom. But to seek legislative aid in behalf of any religious institution, is not only a confession of weakness, but is also an attempt to coerce the religious opinions of men, and to stifle all the convictions of conscience, thus despotically depriving them of the liberty of individual thought, and making mere machines of them, or at the best, making them act as though they believed something which they do not believe; which is nothing less, in fact, than making hypocrites out of otherwise honest men.

It may be said by way of objection to the foregoing that this movement is not a religious but a civil one. But if so, why is so much enthusiasm manifested by the Church over the question? and why is it that the prime movers are found chiefly among the ministry and membership of the great religious bodies of the land? There are reforms which would properly come within the jurisdiction of civil law. Why do they not take more interest in these things if it is from motives of pure patriotism that they are working? The fact simply is that the prominent agitators of this Sunday-law movement have time and again acknowledged that it was the religious character of the day that they desired to have recognized. In proof of this it is only necessary to cite the reader to any of the attempts made of late years to secure congressional action upon this very matter. It is the religious and sacred phase of the subject that continually crops out, and it is the religious, not civil, aspect to which they are looking in the future, and which they hope to eventually succeed in enforcing upon the public.

But, if it is within the province of this government to dictate what day shall be observed, it is also its privilege to specify how it shall be kept; and as the great complaint against Sunday violation, at present, seems to be on account of people staying away from church, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is, that if a national Sunday law is once secured, the next step will be enforced attendance upon religious services. And, of course, if individuals can be lawfully compelled to attend church it is nothing unlawful if they shall be obliged to financially keep up and support the various church establishments of the land. Not only so, but it follows, as naturally as night follows day, that the civil power shall have the right to dictate what church each individual shall support, what congregation he shall unite with, and what particular form of belief or profession of faith shall be required of him. Thus the civil power will be but a tool in the hands of the religious element, to execute its autocratic behests, and the two will be as completely united as they ever were in the palmiest days of the Roman hierarchy. By parity of reasoning, the State will then have power to declare what shall not be believed, so that what is now simply a difference of religious opinion will then be heresy, and will be punishable as a

crime under the laws of the State, the same as murder, felony, etc.

Let no one say the picture is overdrawn; for instead of being exaggerated, it is not fully filled out. Let the precedent once be established for the Church to dictate to the civil power, and the tyranny of religious persecution will just as surely throttle liberty of conscience as it did during the Dark Ages.

The boon of religious liberty and freedom of thought is too priceless a heritage to be squandered for a mess of political pottage. The advocates of the present movement in favor of Sunday legislation had better ponder deeply upon these questions. The measures contemplated by them will lead onto dangerous ground, and their inevitable end, if carried into effect will be to revive the bigotry, cruelty and religious persecutions of the past.

When the United States shall have prostituted her law-making powers to such base ends, “Ichabod” may well be written over the portals of her legislative temples, for her glory will have departed. Let the people beware of the first step.

J. W. SCOLES.