National Reform Convention in Boston

8%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Nov 16, 1911

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 88, No. 46.

Read the full edition

National Reform Convention in Boston

This convention was held in Park Street church, on October 24. When the meeting was called, at 9:30 A. M., there were not half a dozen persons present, besides the speakers. Probably at no time during the day or evening did the attendance reach fifty. This small attendance, however, must not be regarded as indicating that the National Reform Association is losing ground. On the contrary, the evil principle of religious legislation, for which the association stands, has permeated religious bodies very generally.
The addresses, as a rule, contained little that was fresh or important, the most striking and characteristic features being their titles.
Rev. J. M. Foster, in his address upon the Secular Constitution, said: “By adopting a secular constitution, the organic people have voted God and his Christ from the throne, that ‘we the people’ may occupy it.”
“An oath is an act of worship.”
“Every President after George Washington and before R. B. Hayes took the oath [of office] without an appeal to God.”
“The oath of the President of the United States, as embodied in the Constitution, could as well be taken by a pagan or a Mohammedan as by the chief magistrate of a Christian people. It excludes the name of the Supreme Being.”
“In 1810 Congress passed a law requiring the carrying of the United States mails on the sabbath. In 1828 there were 456 petitions from twenty-one different States sent to Washington against that law. But the Postmaster-General ignored them. He said: ‘As long as the silver rivers flow, and the green grass grows, and the oceanic tides rise and fall upon the first day of the week, so long will the United States mails continue to circulate on that day.’”
“In 1869 the question of the legality of reading the Bible in the public schools of Cincinnati was referred to the supreme court of Ohio. After listening to learned attorneys for three days, the court decided that because the word ‘Christian’ or ‘Bible’ or ‘God’ is not found in the United States Constitution, therefore the Bible should not be read in the public schools.”
The speaker declared that this secular Constitution is the “death warrant of our nation.” He said Christ’s title, “‘Governor Among the Nations,’ proclaims his possession of unlimited regal authority over the nations, making him the official head of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of governments,” and “the Bible the law book of nations.”
All this sounds well to the superficial religious mind, but in effect it calls for an American papacy. It makes Christ’s kingdom an affair “of this world,” having its “ups and downs” according to the changing and unsettled sentiment of political parties, by whom these good people suppose the Lord has been “voted from the throne,” and may be voted back again. This is to be done by changing the Constitution so that it will acknowledge Christ as “governor.” But since it is not expected that Christ will personally take the throne, it may be pertinent to inquire, Who will? Some person must act as his representative or vicegerent. If the Bible is to become the nation’s law book, as they would have it, whose interpretation of the Bible shall be enacted and enforced as law? With so many conflicting beliefs as to what the Bible requires, who is to decide? Shall the Roman Catholics decide?
But what shall be done with dissenters? This opens up an old question, which our government wisely avoided by keeping all religious distinctions out of its organic law. Yes, more than that; the founders of our government understood well the danger of religious persecution wherever the state is allowed to legislate upon religious questions; and they sought forever to safeguard our religious liberties by placing in the Constitution these words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
LEE S. WHEELER.