p. 8 | FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE by G.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Apr 10, 1901

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 27, No. 15.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE

By G.

Is coming to be deemed a privilege to be restricted to those whose consciences are governed by civil law. When this shall have become a generally-recognized theory—a time apparently not far in the future—then true republicanism will cease to be a predominating factor in our government. Christian Work accredits Mr. Justice Brewer of the U. S. Supreme Court with being “one of the clearest-minded men” on that bench, and then quotes in evidence from a recent speech on the general topic of strikes and labor organizations. He is quoted as saying:—

“It may be wise that all who are engaged in pursuing the same vocation should be organized into one body, but whether they should be so organized or not depends, as the law now stands, solely on voluntary action, and to attempt to deny a laborer his right to work, whether he be within or without an organization, and to deprive him of full protection in that work, implies a plain disregard of the mandates of the law.”

This utterance is good as far as it goes, but it treats the subject solely from the standpoint of law. And the following further expression shows the danger of that restricted mode of treatment:—

“If it be, as a matter of political economy, wise that there should be a consolidation of all employes into one or more organizations, and that no one should be permitted to work except he be a member of such organization, let the lawmakers so enact, and whenever a constitutional enactment to that effect is passed, then every good citizen should strive to enforce it.”

This argument utterly ignores the right of individual judgment in the matter of joining a labor organization. Liberty of conscience is not taken into consideration at all. “If it be wise” to have such a “consolidation of all employes,” then “let the lawmakers so enact.” But who is to be judge as to whether it be wise? This is left blank; but it would be necessary for at least a majority of the lawmakers to be of that opinion. It is not for the laborers as a whole to decide. If they were all agreed upon such a course, there would be no need of a law; the laborers would have the natural right to form such a union. It is admitted that they have that right now. The very suggestion that law would be necessary to consummate the “wise” action implies that somebody would have to be coerced into the organization or be denied the privilege of remunerative labor. And “every good citizen” who would “strive to enforce” the law must needs boycott the laborer whose conscience would not allow him to join such a combination.

In order to appreciate the force of Justice Brewer’s argument, and Christian Work’s indorsement of it, it should be remembered that he was the author of the Supreme Court’s dictum, in 1892, that “this is a Christian nation.” It should also be remembered that the so-called National Reform element in the country has been endeavoring to draw the labor organizations into its ranks, and to utilize them in the furtherance of the work for virtual Church and State union. The aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court has been used very extensively to that end, and was made the basis of the first direct intentional religious legislation on the part of the national Congress.

Now the suggestion of a law, under any circumstances, providing for the compulsory organization of all laborers, coming from one who believes the nation to be Christian, shows the character of the so-called Christianity which he thinks proper for the nation to foster. And there are thousands, perhaps millions, who would indorse such legislation as “wise,” if such organization could be utilized in the furtherance of certain religio-political schemes. Furthermore the readiness with which such organizations of men can be called from their work on the slightest pretext, or sent back to work, at the beck of a single man, shows their characteristic pliancy in the hands of designing persons. Laws which ignore the freedom of conscience are bad in their very incipiency, and when the industrial question is considered solely from the standpoint of arbitrary law, leaving out the element of justice to even the smallest minority, the foundation is laid for wrong conclusions.

POOR SPAIN.

In the London National Review, according to the Literary Digest, Mr. Lionel Holland sets before us some of the existing conditions in Spain, among a people whom he calls “far more democratic in temperament than the English.” The elections are falsified, being all arranged beforehand, even to the majorities. Sometimes it becomes necessary, on account of popular demand, to make some change, and officials are all turned out (and pensioned) and new ones given office and salary. Thus are the people tricked, till they lose all faith in their rulers. Of the religious conditions he thus speaks:—

“The Spanish priesthood has forfeited, thru the misconduct of many of its members, the respect of the populace, who now regard it with a curious combination of a half-jealous, half-contemptuous dislike, and a superstitious reverence for its superhuman attributes. . . . The curse of untempered liberty has carried corruption to her [the church’s] core. Every charge that Luther hurled against the hierarchy of the Roman Church in the sixteenth century can be established against her Spanish dioceses in the twentieth. Bishoprics are sold to the highest bidder, regardless of the fitness of applicants, yet simony is one of the least of the scandals that flourish under ecclesiastical protection. Vicars and curas are sheltered from the punishment which their crimes or the disgrace which their immorality should entail, by fear of sacerdotal authority. An outrage of a character too grave to overlook and too widely known to hush up may necessitate the banishment to South America of an occasional reverend offender, his escape from justice being invariably connived at by provincial officials and the central government.”

And there is much more, which we do not wish to repeat. Spain is Roman Catholicism gone to seed. There are devoted, God-fearing, Christian Roman Catholics, many, we would fain believe; but they are so not because of Roman Catholicism, but in spite of it. A religion based on human works of merit puts man in the place of God, and if left to itself, will ever develop just what is manifest in Spain. And yet one Catholic writer tells us that what Rome has done for other lands she will do in the United States. And this nation is bowing to the same authority. Why can not the honest in heart, even among Roman Catholics, see that it means destruction to Church and State?