p. 1 | Untitled article by S.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · July 16, 1896

RELIGION AND PATRIOTISM.

By S.

PATRIOTISM, whatever it may mean in other lands, stands with us for devotion to those principles which gave this country an independent and exalted place among the nations of the earth. Love of country, in the American's heart, ought to be inseparably linked with that love of liberty which moved the founders of our Republic to brave the wrath and power of a despotic king, that on these shores liberty might dwell secure, and breathe from them her benign spirit over the nations of mankind.

American patriotism, of the true sort, has not changed since the days of Washington, Madison, and Jefferson. It is true that the times have changed, and that Americans to-day have largely lost sight of the principles which guided our forefathers in laying the foundations of a free government. But the patriotism which prompted the laying of that foundation should also actuate every subsequent move in rearing the national edifice. The patriotism of the noble men of those times was that which gave birth to the Declaration of Independence. That immortal document fixed the standard of patriotism for all coming generations. A patriotism which does not indorse its utterances in behalf of liberty and justice for all mankind, is not worth having.

Jefferson foresaw that the ideals and purposes which shaped the nation's course in his own day, would not always prevail. The following words penned by him, seem, in the light of the conditions prevailing to-day, almost prophetic:—

Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecution, and better men be his victims. . . . From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.

Jefferson's prophecy has been fulfilled. The spirit of the times has changed, our rulers have become corrupt, and the people are far more intent upon getting wealth than upon guarding their rights. And one of the most ominous signs of the times to-day is that an effort is being made to confound patriotism, in the public mind, with religion. The deadly foes of liberty are ever lurking in the jungle of religious bigotry. Misguided zealots are ready to improve every opportunity to turn the tide of enthusiasm for the country's welfare into some channel where its power will be expended for the exaltation of church or dogma; while others in position of influence, laboring under mistaken conceptions of patriotism, are exerting their influence to the same end. An illustration in point is furnished by a sermon delivered Sunday, July 5, by the pastor of the Central M. E. Church of Detroit, Mich. As reported in the Evening News, of the following day, the speaker “said that the three great foes of patriotism were ignorance, intemperance and irreligion. In discussing the latter, he deplored the extreme license which is given to atheists, both as to their utterances and their pens, and quoted a sweeping resolution recently passed by a body of people who resolved to do away with the Bible and religion and all religious services. It is unpatriotic to utter such sentiments, and it is unpatriotic to permit them to be uttered without a protest. We cannot control thought if we would. Every man has the right to think as he honestly believes; but no man has the right to insult the religious opinions of another.

“A representative of the News asked Mr. Thoburn [the speaker] if he could recommend any way in which such things might be prevented, and he replied: ‘I don't wish to be understood as opposing free speech, but I do urge that people protest against irreligious utterances. If that was universally done, a sense of propriety would restrain many men who make such utterances. It is offensive to a great majority of people, and their propriety governs in many things where there is no law.’”

Thus it is laid down that to permit irreligious utterances on the part of others without a protest, is unpatriotic. The SENTINEL has no sympathy for atheism or infidelity, nor would it scoff at any religion; but there are a great variety of religions, even among people who take the general name of “Christians;” and the question of which religion is the true one is a theme of perpetual dispute. To hold and advocate the tenets of one of these bodies, is in many cases to “insult the religious opinions” of people in another “Christian” body. For example, there is abundance of evidence to be had from the courts of law, that the doctrine that the seventh day is the Sabbath, when faithfully put in practice, is a deadly insult to the religious opinions of some who believe in the first-day sabbath. And “to insult the religious opinions of another,” we are told, is unpatriotic. The point is one which very many are ready to receive without argument.

The tenet that the dead are unconscious, is almost equally “insulting” to the opinions of certain ones who hold to the doctrine of the soul's immortality. And so with regard to other doctrines which might be mentioned. “Religion” means in the mind of the one speaking in its defense, those doctrines which he believes to be of divine origin. The “irreligious” utterance to which he would take exception, would be any utterance against his own religious views. The utterances of one sect regarding religion would necessarily be irreligious and “unpatriotic” to other sects, when once the domain of “patriotism” is extended into the sphere of religion.

The patriotism of the men who founded this nation, excluded all opposition to their fellowmen which could be based on religious grounds. When in 1779 it was proposed to establish religion in the State of Virginia, by a provision appropriating public money for the support of “teachers of the Christian religion,” Madison, Jefferson, and others, promptly protested against it, setting forth the unalienable right of every man to believe and practice whatever religion he may deem to be true, and that in this he “can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” That was the attitude of their patriotism towards religion. It was

friendly toward all classes of the people, discriminating against none on religious grounds, whether believers in religion or not.

Only such patriotism would be consistent with the Declaration of Independence, to which they had themselves given birth; for that Declaration was based upon the equality of all men in point of their natural rights, among which were cited “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And that is the genuine brand of American patriotism to-day.

But, sad to say, there is abundant occasion for regret that this patriotism is not more general. It is a sad fact that most men are more readily attracted by the transient and often erratic brilliance of personality, than by the steady light of principle; and so it has been in this land from Jefferson's time down to our own. The multitudes have been more intent upon following their great political leaders, than in being guided by the political principles upon which the nation was established. And to-day those principles have been so far lost sight of by the people, that the grand documents in which they are embodied—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States—are violated and set aside by legislation and judicial decisions, with scarcely a protest from those whose rights such actions so vitally concern.

We seem, indeed, to be upon the eve of the time to which Jefferson alluded, when our rights are either to revive or expire in a convulsion.