Religious Liberty Notes

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 28, 1907

Religious Liberty Notes

IN an article published in the Chicago Herald on the question of Sunday enforcement the writer says: “Clear away the confusion about religious liberty! It has nothing to do with it.” This illustrates the value that is placed upon this priceless boon by many in this time of wild frenzy for religious legislation.

The Times and Hustler, of Farmington, N. M., says: “The Legislative House, after a spirited debate, refused to modify the stringent Sunday closing laws of the Territory, and tabled indefinitely the bills of Representative Beach, which had been introduced for that purpose. A resolution was introduced to ask the governor to enforce the Sunday law more stringently.”

The World, of Webster, S. D., bearing date of Feb. 28, 1907, contains a column and a half article entitled, “Should Religion Be Taught in the Public Schools?” by Sister Anna M. Anderson. The article presents the question in a clear comprehensive manner, and we feel sure that it will be the means of enlightening many of those who read it concerning the question which is so little understood.

The Christian Advocate (Methodist), of Dallas, Tex., speaks concerning the laxity of the Sunday laws in Texas as follows: “It will not be long, at the present rate of progress, until Sunday will be left to the conscience of the individual.” This statement is a tacit admission that the question as to which day one should observe is not a matter to be left to the “individual conscience.” We would commend to the Christian Advocate the following memorable words of George Washington, the father of our country, concerning the legitimate province of the state: “Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

A resolution opposing a state church in both England and Wales was adopted Feb. 27, 1907, in the House of Commons, London, England. The vote stood 198 in favor of the resolution, and 99 against it. The City Journal, of Sioux City, Iowa, bearing date of Feb. 28, 1907, says regarding the resolution: “This resolution does not commit the government, but the debate on it was interesting on account of a statement by Augustine Birrell, the chief secretary of Ireland. Mr. Birrell said he failed to see how the continuance of the established church could be justified. The church had done the state no good, and the state had done the church nothing except harm. Personally Mr. Birrell said he believed the establishment, far from harming the church as a spiritual body, would restore it to a position of spiritual authority throughout the land. The government’s hands, however, were already too full to assume any responsibility in the matter. It is the first time in its history that the House of Commons has adopted such a resolution. The only previous time a similar resolution was pressed to a division was in May, 1871, and it was then rejected by a large majority.”

The following resolution which was recently adopted by the Epworth League and Christian Endeavor Societies in the State of Wisconsin, will clearly show their attitude concerning the question of Sunday legislation: “Whereas, Thousands of our neighbors in Wisconsin that are required to work seven days every week, can get no relief by any present Sunday law; therefore, Resolved, That our President and Secretary are hereby instructed in behalf of the many thousands of Wisconsin Endeavorers to petition both houses of our next State Legislature to enact a law compelling all employers to give their employees fifty-two rest days every year, and we urge all Endeavorers to use their influence to arouse public sentiment in behalf of such legislation.” What are you doing to enlighten these noble young people concerning the evils of this feature of work in which they are engaged?

The Baltimore (Md.) Sun, of Dec. 16, 1906, in commenting editorially upon the dispute that arose last winter between President Roosevelt and Ambassador Bellamy Storer, said: “No greater misfortune could befall the American people than the blending of politics and religion. Every man who considers his religion too sacred to be contaminated by the grossness of political strife will regard with horror any attempt to mix politics and religion—the things which are holy with the things which are material and secular. They can not be blended, any more than oil and water can be made into one element. Our statesmen ought to keep their hands off churches, and churchmen of every denomination should repel with all their vigor every effort of the politician to drag religion into the sordid affairs of politics. The attempt to mix politics with spiritual concerns, to make any church an ally of any party, can not be condemned too strongly.”

The Republican Prairie View News, of Logan, Kan., bearing date of Feb. 7, 1907, contains the following paragraph which is taken from an editorial on religious liberty: “Modern religionists are endeavoring with might and main to get religious laws passed—a thing that has led to nine tenths of the world’s persecution. Worldly power is courted and the lobbies of our State Legislatures and Congress are crowded with religious zealots who, by intimidating and bulldozing, attempt to get laws passed upholding religious creeds or days. Anything that is from above needs not to be bolstered or upheld by puny civil power—any commandment which is to be rendered unto God and to God alone, does not need the help of any civil law. Religious freedom is the foundation of this great government and was interwoven into our national life from the beginning. Let us jealously guard this sacred right and see to it that no laws are passed, forcing one to accept or to keep, any religious dogma, creed, or day.” K. C. R.