The “California Christian Advocate” Again.
By Editor
HERE is another characteristic utterance from our “Christian” contemporary in Berkeley, regarding the proposed Sunday law in California, in its issue of February 11: “We scarcely think that the Legislature seriously considers the activity of the Seventh-day Adventists. Their opposition is so clearly a sectarian movement, an unscrupulous and conscienceless sectarian measure, that we think no well-balanced or well-instructed mind will seriously consider their alleged claims. The bill provides all liberty to those who keep any other day than Sunday. The ‘dog-in-the-manger’ policy is scarcely strong enough to characterize the policy of these ecclesiastical Ishmaelites. They have succeeded in enrolling the evil contingency of the state and in utter shamelessness have formed a coalition with wickedness in order to conserve a contemptibly small sectarian contention.” We would pass the above utterance by without notice, were it not for two things: (1) We wish to show the animus of some parts of the Sunday-law advocacy; (2) we wish to help our readers to see the true basis of this question. 1. The Advocate has had every reason to know that Seventh-day Adventists have presented no “sectarian measure,” nor “measure” of any kind whatsoever. They number only about 6,000 communicants in this state,—men, women, and children. The 36,000 names presented in protest against the Sunday-bill were male citizen voters. Not one of them was compelled to sign this petition. Not one of them was threatened with anathema or boycott if he did not sign it. On it are names of as reputable citizens as there are in California, and not a few members of orthodox churches, such as the editor of the Advocate misrepresents. Personally, so far as we know, no Seventh-day Adventist has anything to gain in a temporal way by opposition to such a law. He could stultify conscience, shut his eyes to all the mighty truths of Christianity and to the lessons written in oppression and blood on the pages of history, and be called by some of our Sunday-law friends good fellow. We would rather meet all the undeserved opprobrium of men and meet God in the judgment with a clear conscience. The Advocate has never presented, to our9knowledge, the Sabbath question on its merits. It has never attempted to establish the Sunday-sabbath by Scripture. It has never presented one single article nor one coherent argument for a Sunday law on the basis of justice, equity, liberty, or Christianity. It can not do it. It has no such foundation. Its chief argument is that of the disgruntled advocate in a bad cause—abuse, vituperation, false accusation. And it is indeed a mighty poor cause which will stoop to such things; really, neighbor, it is not worth defending. The animus of all religious legislation is shown in the charge that the opposition to that law is “conscienceless.” So will be judged by our Sunday-law “friends” those who may assert their God-given rights to work on Sunday when, according to the “sure word of prophecy,” the law is secured. On the contrary, the man who believes in true religious liberty, will contend for the same liberty for his bitterest opponent which he asks for himself, and, if he is a Christian, he will be willing to leave the judgment of that opponent’s conscience to God. 2. What Seventh-day Adventists have done in this matter has been open and above board. They have not only presented their own arguments, but the arguments of the other side. They have appealed to men, all men, on the doctrine of pure human rights—the equal rights of all men. Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in Roman Catholicism. They believe it to be a great perversion of Christianity; but they believe that all Roman Catholics—each and several—have the same inalienable human rights as themselves, not because they are Catholics or because they number millions, but because they are men, humans. Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in Spiritualism or Christian Science, or Unitarianism, but they do believe that the devotees of those cults have the same inalienable human rights as themselves, not because of what they teach or because of their numbers, but because they are humans. Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in rumselling. There are none among them. No true Seventh-day Adventist drinks even beer or wine. They believe the rum traffic to be an unmitigated and awful curse. They say this in all their literature, even in their anti-Sunday-law literature; but they also believe that the men in that traffic have equal God-given rights in their relationship with God, not because of their business, but because they are humans. Seventh-day Adventists have “formed” no “coalition” with any men in or out of organization under the sun, social, political, or religious, and the Advocate knows this, or ought to know it. Sunday legislation is religious legislation. Its proponents know it tho they deny it. They betray themselves. Every religious term has been struck out of the California Sunday bill. It was not deemed good politics to show its true inwardness. But the same identical evil bill comes before the Oregon Legislature with the one exception that it is proposed to legalize “the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday.” Mr. Tufts, the author of the bill, tells us that it is not “ideal,” and he tells us what his ideal is in religious circles, the Puritan Sunday law. Let in the thin end of the wedge, and sooner or later the rest will follow. Our “Protestant” federation friends will wish next to suppress not only work on Sunday, but Seventh-day Adventists, as “unscrupulous,” “conscienceless,” “Ishmaelites.” Then will come Unitarians and the Jews, and Christian Scientists, and every other unfederated sect or cult which makes inroads upon their flock, or walks outside their creedal circle. Then they will demand public-school textbooks after their order. Then the Inquisition. That is the logical order. Our American fathers of the Federal Government saw the evil seed in the principle and rejected the principle. Would that their sons of this day were as wise and far-seeing. Our plea is for liberty for all, for the sake of free, unfettered truth, for the sake of the church of Christ, for the sake of our bitterest enemies. God can care for His own planting. We appeal to our Christian brethren throughout this state, to the California Christian Advocate, to turn from all religious legislation, and seek to persuade men to stand on the true foundation of moral principles, trusting in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the power of God, to save men. Then say to the meddling Sunday-law promoters from the East that we have a people and state in which men can be moral and Christian without the aid of civil law.