Sound Principles Well Stated by C. E. Holmes

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 13, 1913

Sound Principles Well Stated

By C. E. Holmes

C. E. HOLMES

One of the most significant signs of the times is the demand that is now being made for religious, or moral, legislation. The beginning of this nation was marked by a complete departure from the belief that kings or majorities should rule in the province of religion. Under a régime of civil and religious liberty the United States has grown to be one of the greatest nations known to history.

Yet it is thought by many that our country is going to ruin unless certain religious observances are espoused by the government. This belief has increased in religious circles at such an accelerated pace during the past decade as to assume a very threatening aspect.

When our Constitution was framed, it was purposed that religious matters should be entirely eliminated from civil affairs. This principle was embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The effort to involve our government in religious matters is centered largely in the question of Sunday laws. The plea is often made that such laws are not unconstitutional. The following statement made on the floor of the House of Representatives by Hon. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri, is a valuable one in this connection:—

“I believe in a complete separation of church and state, and in this belief go so far as to assert that the daily prayers in this House, as well as all Sunday laws, are unconstitutional, because they signify a mixing of church and state. These views, although Lutheran doctrine, I hold not as a Lutheran, but as an American who reveres the Constitution. As such, too, I believe in religious freedom and religious tolerance.”—Congressional Record, Dec. 16, 1912.

When the program to secure a national Sunday law is opposed by a small minority on the ground that a law of this character would deprive them of their religious and civil rights, the reply is often given that the majority should rule, even in religious matters. A very pointed comment on such an argument was made by Senator John Sharp Williams, of Mississippi, on the floor of the Senate:—

“I am not one of those who believe that tyranny is a particle sweeter because it is the tyranny of a majority. I believe, with old Roger Williams, that there are two classes of things in this world—the things of the first table and the things of the second table. The things of the first table are those things which are between God and the individual man, and government has no right to touch them. If 99,999,999 of the people out of 100,000,000 wanted to do anything in connection with them and one man stood up in his right and said ‘No,’ then that one man’s voice should restrain all the rest. Amongst these things are freedom of religion and various other things that will occur to your own minds. Ninety-nine per cent of the American people, I suppose, are nominally Christians. One per cent of the American people are Jews. The people have voluntarily put upon themselves restrictions with reference to that matter. They have never established the Christian religion as the religion of their country. They had the power to do it. They had the power to refuse to restrict themselves from doing it. But they decreed that for all time there should never be among us an establishment of religion. They were wise enough to know that men always, everywhere, have weaknesses.”—Congressional Record, Jan. 30, 1913.

The February number of the Knights of Labor paper, the Journal, contains a lengthy article protesting against the enactment of a Sunday law for the District of Columbia. The editor has a clear grasp of our fundamental law in regard to religious liberty. We pass along the following paragraphs taken from his article:—

“The making of any federal law which shall in the slightest degree impair the policy of the absolute separation of church and state, or tend in any way to build up ecclesiastical authority or domination, would be a distinct step backward in the evolution of human progress and liberty, and bring far-reaching disaster to our government and to the people of this country.

“The founders of the republic fully realized the evils springing from legislation pertaining to religious beliefs of any kind, and in the strongest way possible provided against the possibility of the enactment of such legislation at any time. Not content with limiting the jurisdiction of federal authority to the specific grants of power therein set forth, they further provided (so as to shut out all possibility of such legislation) the First Amendment. . .

“Any proposition to pass Sunday legislation in the District of Columbia is a direct violation of the positive prohibitions of the Constitution, against the spirit of our institutions, and against the policy heretofore maintained by the federal government. It is true that certain impairments of the doctrine of the entire separation of church and state have from time to time been made, such as the appointment of chaplains to conduct religious exercises in Congress and in our army and navy, and in the putting forth of proclamations by the chief executive of the nation providing for days of thanksgiving or of fasting, etc. It is well known that these things were strongly objected to by Jefferson and some of the other executives and statesmen in the early days of the republic. They are innovations which have crept in by sufferance rather than by the expressed wish or positive act of the great masses of the people, and their tolerance provides stepping-stones on which can stand those who clamor for still greater and more pronounced recognition by the federal government of religious doctrines and ordinances, such as the demand that the word God be put into the federal Constitution, and that Sunday laws be enacted by Congress, so zealously contended for from time to time during the last half-century.”

Speaking of the “Christian nation decision,” the editor further says:—

“The doctrine of the absolute separation of church and state, and the entire lack of federal jurisdiction to legislate or to meddle with matters of religious faith and practise, so clear-cut in the earlier days of our history, is now sought to be assailed by some persons and religious bodies upon the ground that the Supreme Court of the United States has declared this to be a Christian nation; and therefore that Congress would be justified in passing laws for the enforcement of what are deemed to be the practises and obligations of Christianity. In point of fact the Supreme Court of the United States has never laid down any such doctrine, and has never had occasion to declare it. The claim comes from certain expressions put forth by the late Justice Brewer, which did not involve the consideration of any such theory or point of law whatsoever. In giving an opinion upon the question before that court, which was regarding the construction to be held as to the immigration laws forbidding the entrance into this country of certain aliens, Justice Brewer took occasion, after declaring the opinion of the court upon the main point of controversy, to travel outside of the issue thus decided and by what is known in law as obiter dictum express the opinion that this is a Christian country, inferentially holding that Christianity and its ordinances were a part of and within the jurisdiction of federal governmental authority and operation.

“What he thus said has no force whatever in the realm of legal decision, is binding upon no court of this land, affords no precedent whatsoever to any legal authority, State or national, and when carefully read and digested is inconsistent with the recognized judicial authorities of the land and with the history of this country. The integrity and high character of this eminent justice really cloaks this declaration with undue value and authority; and what he said was largely inspired by his zeal for the Christian religion.”

These quotations are worthy of preservation. They show that there are many who are not afraid to speak out against the rising tide of intolerance in religious matters which is rapidly sweeping in upon our country.

Takoma Park, D. C.