Your ShelfYour Projects

Legal Christianity

9%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 7, 1912

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 89, No. 10.

Read the full edition

Legal Christianity

By S. B. H.

THE National Reform Association, which was organized in 1863, has for its platform the proposition that the national Constitution and laws of this country shall indicate “that this is a Christian nation,” and that “all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government” shall be placed “on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” If there be any meaning to the position which the association assumes, it is that America shall adopt a legal Christianity.
It would be well if all those desiring legal Christianity could have access to a decision handed down by the supreme court of Ohio in the December term of 1872 in the case of “The Board of Education of the city of Cincinnati vs. John D. Minor et al.”
In this case the question of teaching religion in the public schools was the issue. In its forceful decision, the court held, among other things, that “legal Christianity is a solecism, and contradiction of terms. When Christianity asks the aid of government beyond the mere impartial protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine, and not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human governments. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.” Referring to section 7 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Ohio, in which it is stated that “religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government,” the court held,—
“Religion is ‘essential’ to much more than human government. It is essential to man's spiritual interests, which rise infinitely above, and are to outlive all human governments. It would have been easy to declare this great truth in the constitution; but its framers would have been quite out of their proper sphere in making the declaration. They contented themselves with declaring that religion is essential to good government; providing for the protection of all in its enjoyment, each in his own way, and providing means for the diffusion of general knowledge among the people.”
“The declaration is not that government is essential to good religion, but that religion is essential to good government. Both propositions are true in quite different senses. Good government is essential to religion for the purpose declared elsewhere in the same section of the constitution; namely, for the purpose of mere protection. But religion, morality, and knowledge are essential to government, in the sense that they have the instrumentalities for producing and perfecting a good form of government. . . .
“Properly speaking, there is no such thing as ‘religion of state.’ What we mean by that phrase is, the religion of some individual, or set of individuals, taught and enforced by the state. The state can have no religious opinions; and if it undertakes to enforce the teaching of such opinions, they must be the opinions of some natural person, or class of persons. If it embarks in this business, whose opinion shall it adopt? If it adopts the opinions of more than one man, or one class of men, to what extent may it group together the conflicting opinions? or may it group together the opinions of all? And where this conflict exists, how thorough will the teachings be? . . .
“But it will be asked, How can religion, in this general sense, be essential to good government? Is atheism, is the religion of Buddha, of Zoroaster, of Leo-tse, conducive to good government? Does not the best government require the best religion?—Certainly the best government requires the best religion. It is the child of true religion, or of truth on the subject of religion, as well as on all other subjects. But the real question here is not, What is the best religion? but, How shall this best religion be secured? I answer, It can best be secured by adopting the doctrine of this seventh section in our own bill of rights, and which I summarize in two words, by calling it the doctrine of ‘hands off.’ Let the state not only keep its own hands off, but let it also see to it that religious sects keep their hands off each other.”
The supreme court of Ohio is sustained in this decision by the platform upon which the founders of our government stood. They wrought in the light of European history, commonly a history replete with evidences showing the baleful effects of legalizing Christianity. True Christianity needs no help from Cæsar; it can not be absorbed by the individual through the processes of pains and penalties connected with the administration of civil affairs. True Christianity is a matter of the conscience and heart, affected by the working of the Holy Spirit. The citizenship of the Christian is a heavenly citizenship; and while Christianity demands that its devotees shall love their neighbors as themselves, and thus make for good earthly citizenship, still, the outcome guaranteed to the profession of Christianity is not dependent upon, nor connected with, the administration of affairs purely civil.
We commend the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court, above referred to, to the attention of those who desire to legalize Christianity in the United States of America.
S. B. H.