Another Case of Religious Persecution.
By B.
Another case of religious persecution is reported to us from North Carolina. Again the victim is a Seventh-day Adventist, a cripple, who was trying to support himself and family by running a candy kitchen in the town of Hickory. He sold peanuts and candy Sunday, June 24th, and was arrested the next day and sentenced to pay a fine of $25, or to go to jail for one month. Mr. Vaughn is a poor man, unable to pay his fine, and is probably in jail at the present time.
As usual in such cases, the law seems to be only for Sabbatarians, since some others in the same town sell on Sunday and are not molested. We are not informed whether Mr. Vaughn’s arrest was due to religious animus purely, or whether it was because he had failed to “see the captain,” as they say in New York.402 Of one thing, however, we are sure, namely, that there are vast possibilities in Sunday laws in the way of making it uncomfortable for dissenters from the popular religion, as well as in “frying fat” from those who are willing to pay for “police protection;” or in other words, for the privilege of violating a “law” which other people are compelled to respect. We do not suppose that anything of this sort is practiced in Hickory; but in the larger cities “seeing the captain” is quite a common thing, especially in those lines of business that might better be prohibited every day. The iniquity of Sunday laws would certainly be seen were it not for the element of religious prejudice which enters into the matter. Only bigotry blinds people to the fact that Sunday legislation abridges the natural rights of the individual. But it may be asked, Should not the majority rule? Certainly, in all questions of public policy, such as the “tariff” or “free trade,” “free coinage” or “gold standard,” etc., but not in matters of conscience or of individual, civil rights. No majority, however great, can, except by flagrant usurpation, deprive even so small a minority as a single individual of a single inalienable right, be it civil or be it religious. It has been well said that such rights “are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which government can not deprive any portion of citizens, however small. Despotic power may invade those rights, but justice still confirms them.” “Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained,” said Richard M. Johnson, in 1829, “no victim ever suffered but for the violation of what government denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the Constitution has wisely withheld from our government the power of defining the divine law. It is a right reserved to each citizen; and while he respects the rights of others, he can not be held amenable to any human tribunal for his conclusions.” While not quite so explicit as the national Constitution, the Bill of Rights of North Carolina declares that “no human authority should, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” This just provision is overridden however in the interests of Sunday, and a poor man who is endeavoring to make an honest living is fined $25 and costs for carrying on a perfectly legitimate business on Sunday, one that could not possibly disturb anybody, except as the knowledge of its being done might cause mental annoyance to those who regard the day as sacred to rest and worship. But the law can no more properly take cognizance of such annoyance than it could of the annoyance occasioned to the Protestant by seeing the Roman Catholic making the sign of the cross or praying before an image of the Virgin Mary. “Despots may regard their subjects as their property, and usurp the divine prerogative of prescribing their religious faith; but the history of the world furnishes the melancholy demonstration that the disposition of one man to coerce the religious homage of another springs from an unchastened ambition, rather than from a sincere devotion to any religion. The principles of our government do not recognize in the majority any authority over the minority, except in matters which regard the conduct of man to his fellow man.” And the State of North Carolina should in like manner refuse to recognize in the majority, however large that majority may be, any right to dictate to the minority in matters of religious faith or practice. The framers of the national “Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man’s relation with his God is above human legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable.” North Carolina professedly recognizes the same thing in her Bill of Rights. Her courts, from justices of the peace up to the supreme bench, should see to it that the recognition is promptly made practical in the town of Hickory. B.