Compulsion Versus Free Choice
By Arthur G. Daniells
It is in every sense deplorable and unjust for civil government to legislate on religious questions. Many reasons can be adduced in proof of this. We will here present one. It is this: Civil law means force; religion means free choice; and these ideas are absolutely incompatible. We will demonstrate this. Government is defined to be “the administration of laws.” To administer law is to carry it into effect, to execute or enforce it. To enforce is to compel. Civil government exists for the protection of the individual rights of its citizens. The value of the legislative branch of a government lies in the just laws it enacts for the protection of its citizens’ rights. The dignity of the executive department lies in the impartial execution of those laws. A government that has not the power to make and to enforce just laws is a farce. Thus the idea of force is inseparable from civil government. But not so in matters of religion. Religion is man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God. “Whatsoever is not of faith,” says Paul, “is sin.” Faith, then, must be the mainspring of all action in matters of religion. But faith is voluntary. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Faith cannot be produced by law, nor by any amount of compulsion. It is a matter of free will absolutely. The basis of civil government is law, and law means force. The basis of religion is faith, and faith is voluntary. For this reason, then, we submit that civil government and religion never can be united except at the peril of one or the other, or both.