Liberty and Law

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 14, 1909

It is a source of real satisfaction to us to find in the Christian Statesman a statement of principles of which we heartily approve. In the November issue there is an editorial on “Personal Liberty,” a part of which we take pleasure in reproducing:—

Personal liberty that means entire freedom from restraint is absolute foolishness. . . . The psalmist said: “I shall walk at liberty; for I have sought thy precepts.” He did not feel that obedience was oppressive. On the other hand, he knew that to obey the righteous law of God was a means to secure real freedom. It was the pathway to proper development, usefulness, and peace. The thought of the unbeliever is, in a measure: “I shall walk at liberty, for I shall do as I please.”

There must be divine and human restraint. We can not do as we please in the matter of ownership and behavior. A man can not walk into a store, and take what he desires. He can not settle down on any piece of ground that may happen to suit his fancy. You can’t move your arms freely and vigorously in a crowd. As it has been said, one man’s liberty stops where another man’s nose begins.

Liberty is the safe, moderate, practical ground between bondage on the one hand and license on the other. The vine bound so tightly to the trellis as to hinder growth and fruitfulness is in bondage; the vine left to itself to grovel on the ground, and enjoy a sickly growth amid the grass and sticks and pebbles, is experiencing license; while the vine properly trained on the trellis, and pruned, grows and bears fruit and enjoys true liberty. The locomotive with air-brakes

on is in bondage; the locomotive bounding from the rails, bumping off the ties, crashing into the ditch, is experiencing license; while the engine that runs on the iron pathway provided, held in strict control by brake and throttle, hauling with speed and safety its load of passengers and freight over the country, is enjoying freedom. The man in prison is in bondage; the man running “amuck” through the streets, wounding and killing, and in the end being killed himself, is having full “personal liberty;” but the man who obeys divine and human law is a blessing to himself and others, and walks at liberty.

In the application of these principles, the Statesman justifies Sunday laws as being consistent with personal liberty. The fatal defect in the Statesman’s method of reasoning is that it is not satisfied to have the same laws for Sunday as for any other day of the week, but demands special legislation prohibiting on that day what is freely allowed on other days. This plainly shows that it is the day, and not the act, which is the real subject of legislation.

The principles enunciated by the Statesman are sound, but they do not constitute a valid basis for Sunday laws. We believe in personal liberty which is not a license to do as one pleases, but a liberty subject to such laws as prevent any one in the exercise of his rights from interfering with the equal rights of others. By no process of sound reasoning, however, can this constitute a basis for such legislation as requires any one to pay homage to a religious institution. It is the duty of civil government to protect the rights of citizens on all days of the week alike, but it has no right to make a distinction between days, and to attempt to control the conduct of its citizens in the interest of any religious observance.

In dealing with the interpretation which some give to what they term personal liberty, the Statesman declares:—

License is what some want, though they would probably call it liberty. They do not like Sabbath laws. . . . They do not want to submit to careful methods of sanitation.

If the Statesman should propose certain rules of sanitation for six days in the week, and a special and altogether different set of rules for Sunday, we should take exception to its demand for sanitary laws. There is no reason for making a distinction between the days of the week, either in sanitary laws or in laws otherwise governing the conduct of men. The absurdity of any such distinction is readily recognized when applied to other legislation, but a zeal “not according to knowledge” in behalf of the so-called Christian sabbath seems to render the advocates of Sunday laws incapable of applying sound principles to this subject. Would the Statesman advocate special sanitary laws and special marriage and divorce laws for Sunday only? The real question at issue is involved in this inquiry.