How a State Church Would Operate by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Apr 29, 1915

How a State Church Would Operate

By C. M. S.

THE activities and the programs of certain religio-political organizations in America give us a very clear idea of what we might expect conditions to be in this country should such organizations ever succeed in securing a dominating influence here.

The Mormon organization believes in and is working for a union of church and state in this country.

The National Reformers do not believe in Mormonism, but do believe in that particular tenet of the Mormon faith and practice—the union of religion and the government.

The Roman Catholic who understands the policy and program of his church believes in a union of church and state, and all Catholics in America are commissioned to work for the shaping of American legislation and American constitutions in harmony with the purpose of the Roman Church.

We have a right to inquire what the result would be to the boasted equality of men under American rule were any of these organizations to attain their object, unite the church and the state, and carry that union to its logical conclusion. Our Lord has given us a rule by which to test the outworking of such programs. It is this: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” History is full of the records of the operations of such programs; but we do not need to go to history. The latest news of the day tells us what we may expect; for already these systems are in operation to a limited extent in numerous localities. As we test the whole tree by what we find it bearing on one bough, so may we test these whole systems by what we see even a branch producing. Here is a branch by which we may judge the fruit of the Mormon system should it ever gain control of our national politics:—

The faculty of the University of Utah has been disrupted through the intrusion of Mormon influence. Fourteen of the professors have resigned. In February the president notified four of the professors that they were dismissed “for the good of the institution.” Later the head of the English department was notified that he was to be demoted and the position given to a teacher in a Mormon high school, who was also a bishop in the Mormon Church. The action of the university president produced public remonstrance and condemnation. A thousand undergraduates held a mass meeting to express disapproval of what had been done and to testify to the efficiency of the dismissed professors. In spite of the agitation and protests, the board of regents persists in sustaining the dismissals, and refuses to heed the demand for investigation. All the men who were dismissed, and all those who resigned as a protest against the dismissals, are non-Mormons. — United Presbyterian, April 15, 1915.

Of course this procedure was entirely out of harmony with and opposed to the spirit of the national Constitution, which declares that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” But such a course as that noted above seems to make religion the chief test of qualification for such an office and public trust as the dismissed professors had been filling.

Not only is such a course out of harmony with and opposed to the spirit of the national Constitution, but it is out of harmony with and opposed to the spirit of the Utah Constitution as well. Section 4 of Article I of the Utah Constitution reads as follows:—

The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust or for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union of church and state, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment.

Article X, Section 13, prohibits State aid to sectarian schools. The spirit and intent of both these sections is openly violated by the course pursued in the University of Utah. Every favor granted by a State institution on account of some form of religion is, to that extent, an establishment—a government recognition—of religion. To discharge a person from a public office because of his religion is a restriction upon the free exercise of religion. To discharge teachers who are not Mormons and fill their places with Mormons does set up a religious test as a qualification for office. To give men offices because they are Mormons does unite church and state to that extent. When the places of teachers who are not Mormons are declared vacant and then are filled with Mormons, the conclusion is inevitable that such church is dominating the state and interfering with its functions. When teachers who are not Mormons are dismissed from a State institution and their places are given to Mormons, the institution then becomes, to that extent, an ecclesiastical establishment and not entitled to support from the public treasury. Such a school then becomes a sectarian school, and the constitution of that State forbids the appropriation of public money for its support.

But an ecclesiastical hierarchy cares nothing for State constitutions or for a national Constitution. It claims a divine right to be over and above civil institutions, and the right to use them for its own ends. What that system does in Utah it would do in any other State where it had the power, and throughout the entire nation if it had the power. It is not the particular form of the religion which entails such results; but any form of religion based on the idea of a union of religion and the state will work out its object in the same way. What that church does there it will do through the entire country if it ever secures the dominating influence for which it hopes.

But we have another example of the same tendency. This time, however, it is seen in the program of another church, but a church which has the same policy for an actuating principle. The occasion of this demonstration was the recent mayoralty election in Chicago. Mr. William Hale Thompson, one of the candidates, is not a Catholic. Mr. Robert M. Schweitzer, the other candidate, is a Catholic. In electioneering for the Catholic candidate, at least one influential Catholic organization made the religious issue the chief issue of the campaign. The secretary of that organization is reported to have sent out letters to Catholic voters urging them to defeat Mr. Thompson because he is not a Catholic, and to elect Mr. Schweitzer because he is a Catholic. In urging Catholic voters to defeat Mr. Thompson, the secretary of the Chicago branch of the United

Catholic League of the United States is reported to have written as follows:—

You are aware that the present candidate, Mr. William Hale Thompson, for mayor of Chicago is not, a Catholic, and for that reason you should assist in defeating him by voting for our friend Robert Schweitzer, and thereby placing the church where it belongs in the city of Chicago. Mr. Schweitzer has pledged himself that, if elected, he will place only Catholics in office, and it should be to your interest to vote for him against William Hale Thompson.

Your duty to your church in the coming election is to vote for the Catholic candidate, and I hope you will cast your vote accordingly.

Elections are supposed to be civil functions, not ecclesiastical. They are supposed to be in the interest of the nation, State, or municipality, not in the interests of a church or hierarchy. They are supposed to be under the control of the state, not of any church. It is supposed that they who vote express their own preference and follow the dictates of their own will, instead of expressing the will of some one else, under pressure, in the interests of a body of ecclesiastics who hold themselves responsible only to a spiritual leader independent of any civil control. We have a right to suppose these things in view of the foundation upon which the nation and the individual States rest. The constitution of the State of Illinois declares that no preference shall “be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.”—Art. II, Bill of Rights, Sec. 3.

And yet a candidate for the mayoralty of a great city will, under the pressure of the religious system to which he belongs, promise that, if elected to that high office, he will deliberately annul the provisions of the highest law in his State, if the press of that State correctly represents him. He will give the offices to the members of his church, and let the members of the other churches pay their salaries. The injustice of such an arrangement seems never to appeal to those who make it. But the reason lies in the system itself and in the education which they have received at its hands. To elect a man to a municipal office or a State office because of his religious profession, and so make religion rather than worth and fitness the test of office holding, defrauds the State or municipality, disgraces such appointees, and makes a farce of religion.

The policy of the National Reformers in seeking to have religion taught by state-paid teachers, and condemning to exile those who do not believe in a union of church and state, is on a par with both the foregoing examples. As soon as one steps upon that platform,—a union of the civil and the religious,—he loses his sense of justice and equity, and is willing to sacrifice any right of the individual if only he may insure the triumph of his system. That system is and always has been a merciless juggernaut riding in placid unconcern over the forms of its prostrate victims. We may see by these illustrations what the nation may expect if any system that stands for a union of religion and government ever accomplishes its purpose in America.

C. M. S.