Another Mass-Meeting by K. C. R.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Jun 8, 1911

Another Mass-Meeting

By K. C. R.

FRIDAY, May 26, the Johnston Sunday bill came up in the Senate for consideration, and was vigorously opposed in a speech by Senator Heyburn, of Idaho. After devoting about forty-five minutes to its consideration, it was decided to let the bill go over until the following Monday, when it would again be taken up.

Believing that the postponement of the measure for several days was in the providence of God, in order that we might further protest against the bill, we proceeded to call a mass-meeting for Sunday, May 28. Accordingly, we secured the use of the Pythian Temple for that evening, and began to advertise the meeting as best we could in the limited time at our disposal. We also prepared a formal protest, and had it printed for use at the meeting, besides preparing reports for the use of the public press of the city.

Owing to the limited time we had to advertise the meeting, we feared as to the results in securing an audience, but were gratified to see a good attendance. Excellent music for the occasion was furnished by the Seventh-day Adventist orchestra of Takoma Park.

After a short introductory address by the writer, Prof. W. W. Prescott delivered a convincing and enthusiastic address, in which he made use of fresh, up-to-date matter and arguments.

He examined the provisions of the bill, and the report of the District Senate Committee on the same, emphasizing the religious character of the proposed legislation. He also made reference in a complimentary way to the arguments presented by Senator Heyburn in the Senate in opposition to the bill.

Elder W. A. Hennig presented the formal protest, and moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Elder W. A. Colcord, who presented in writing his reasons for seconding the resolution. After a few remarks by one in the audience, the protest was unanimously adopted by a rising vote.

All the daily papers gave good reports of the meeting, and we believe that the protest against the bill, as the result of this meeting, will be brought again to the attention of many thousands of people both within and without the District of Columbia.

The bill was not discussed Monday, the 29th; for when it was called up on the calendar, Senator Heyburn asked that it might go over. At this writing it has not been acted upon.

We can not say what the outcome of the measure will be. Let none cease from sending in their protests against the bill, by both letters and resolutions, until Congress has acted upon the measure.

The following is the protest that was made and adopted at the mass-meeting:—

“We, citizens of the District of Columbia, in mass-meeting assembled, desire

to place ourselves on record as being opposed to the passage of the Johnston Sunday bill (S. 237) now before the Senate, and for this opposition we give the following reasons:—

“1. While believing in and professing the Christian religion, we are not in favor of any attempt to enforce this religion upon others. The compulsory performance of religious exercises is contrary to the very genius of Christianity. We recognize the principle so clearly stated by the Author of our religion, ‘Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,’ and therefore protest against any interference in religious affairs on the part of the state.

“2. The principle of complete religious freedom was plainly interpreted by the Author of Christianity himself, who inculcated loyalty to civil government in its proper sphere, but refused to countenance compulsion of any kind in matters of religion. He declared, ‘If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not;’ and to the suggestion of two of his disciples that fire should be brought down from heaven to consume those who would not receive him, he replied, ‘Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.’

“3. The founders of this government recognized the value of these divine principles in the fundamental law of the land by prohibiting Congress from making any law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This provision against any compulsion in matters of religion was inspired by the highest regard for the welfare both of the church and of the state, as is witnessed by the words of Bancroft: ‘Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely ordained in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the people of the several States, withheld from the federal government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the infinite Spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom, and purity, and power.’—History of the United States, Vol. VI, page 444, edition of 1888. After a full consideration of the principles involved, Congress in 1829-30 refused to enact legislation of a religious character, and has consistently maintained this position by refraining from the enactment of any compulsory legislation relating to Sunday observance until the present time. A departure from this principle would be injurious both to the Christian religion and to good government.

“4. This bill violates the principles already set forth, in that it is an attempt to unite the things that are Cæsar’s and the things that are God’s, by using the civil power to compel the proper observance of a religious institution. That the passing of this bill would be religious legislation, is evident from these plain considerations:—

“(a) It distinguishes Sunday from other days of the week by requiring altogether different conduct from citizens on that day than is required on other days, making honorable employment and legitimate business a crime on Sunday, punishable by fine and imprisonment. It must be evident that this is done on purely religious grounds.

“(b) By its proposal to exempt from its provisions ‘persons who are members of a religious society who observe as a sabbath any other day in the week than Sunday.’

“(c) By prohibiting ‘any circus, show, or theatrical performance’ on Sunday, but expressly permitting ‘sacred concerts’ as being appropriate to the supposedly sacred character of the day.

“(d) The author of this bill clearly indicated its religious character in a public address in this city when he deplored the fact that the fourth commandment had been repealed in the District of Columbia, and pledged himself to the effort to secure a Sunday law which would remedy this defect. Furthermore, in his report (No. 33) to the Senate accompanying the bill, he justifies the ‘attempt to enact into law the injunction of the fourth commandment’ by appealing to the belief that ‘an all-wise God and loving Father was the author of that commandment.’ And in arguing further for the passage of this measure, he uses in the report such strictly religious expressions as ‘reverence for the ten commandments,’ ‘sense of obligation or duty to carry out the divine law,’ and ‘faith in the existence of a Supreme Being.’

“5. The language employed in the Sunday Mail Report, communicated to the House of Representatives, March 4 and 5, 1830, in opposition to Sunday legislation then proposed, seems equally applicable to this bill: ‘If Congress shall, by the authority of law, sanction the measure recommended, it would constitute a legislative decision of a religious controversy, in which even Christians themselves are at issue. However suited such a decision may be to an ecclesiastical council, it is incompatible with a republican legislature, which is purely for political, and not for religious purposes.’

“6. The consistent record of Congress in maintaining for more than a century the principles enunciated by the founders of this government, and in refusing to pass any religious legislation contravening them, has served as an example to other nations, and has exerted a world-wide influence in favor of religious freedom. Any departure from this record, which would drag down into the arena of politics purely religious questions, is greatly to be deplored as a denial of that principle of religious liberty which has been both the boast and the glory of this nation, a step toward intolerance, and such an example of the disregard of the rights of conscience as would encourage all other nations to return to their old-time program of religious intolerance and oppression.

“For these and other reasons we protest against the passage of this bill (S. 237) or any similar legislation.”

K. C. R.