A DAMAGING ADMISSION by W. N. Glenn

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Aug 27, 1896

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 22, No. 34.

A DAMAGING ADMISSION.

By W. N. Glenn

BY W. N. GLENN.

The object of the National Reformers, the various elements engaged in the crusade for a religious amendment to the Federal Constitution, is that the government shall be controlled by men who adhere to the Christian religion. Time and again they have indorsed the Puritan idea of government. One of their leading workers, in the midst of an impassioned speech, once cried out: “O, for the breath of the Puritan! O, for a little of the Puritan Sabbath!”

The advocates of the proposed amendment, which is now pending in Congress, do not hesitate to say that under its provisions a Jew or an infidel could not consistently take the ordinary oath prescribed for legislators, and consequently could not hold such offices. It is also designed that courts shall decide moral questions, and that the Bible shall be the standard of legislation and of court decisions; thus Congress, state Legislatures, and the courts would decide as to the meaning of the Bible on all moral questions. All this is not only admitted but urged as the object of this now prominent “reform” measure. It is in keeping with the following declaration by the Puritan fathers, as given in “Clarke’s History of Intolerance”:—

No one shall be a freeman, or give a vote, unless he be converted, and a member in full communion of one of the churches, allowed in this dominion.

No man shall hold any office who is not sound in the faith and faithful to his dominion; and whoever shall give a vote to such a person shall pay a fine of one pound. For a second offense he shall be disfranchised.

One of the cardinal objects of this National Reform movement, as expressed in its leading organ, is to “enforce upon all that come among us the laws of Christian morality.” But the very thing which they would fain have brought about in the commonwealth consists already, to an eminent degree; to such a degree, according to their own admission, as to practically prove that their hope of reformation on the lines marked out is without foundation. They confess that the extensive evils of the present time exist in spite of the fact that “our legislators are largely church members.” The Christian Statesman, a leading organ of the National Reform combination, in a well-merited criticism of the saloon evil, makes this candid admission:—

The church is also responsible. Saloon-keepers are in her communion. The ecclesiastical courts hesitate about giving deliverances on the subject of temperance, and as a rule dare not enforce discipline even when their deliverances require it. Our legislators, the authors of license legislation, are largely church members. The two great parties, both of which are controlled by the liquor interests, are also largely composed of the same. Yes, the church must bear her share of responsibility for all the harm done by the drink traffic.

We say this is a candid admission, but it is more; it is a practical demonstration that the hope of national reform, based upon the prospect of having legislative chairs and court benches filled with professing Christians,

is a most blinding delusion. In addition to this practical illustration we have the fact that the justice of the Supreme Court who framed the “Christian nation” dictum, and is therefore hailed as a champion by the National-Reform-Religious-Amendment forces, is the same justice whose “original package” decision broke the force of the prohibition law in Kansas.

If the people, who are now being importuned to indorse the proposed amendment to the Constitution, will calmly note these facts, these admissions on the part of the advocates of the intolerant proposition, they will see the propriety of maintaining the degree of religious liberty now theoretically guaranteed by the Constitution. This degree is already limited to the minimum, through unwarranted congressional and state laws and Supreme Court decisions. Any further limitation, by eliminating even the semblance of a guarantee of religious liberty, would be simply a return to the conditions from which we emerged after the Revolution.

We note also the statement that “the two great parties, both of which are controlled by the liquor interests, are also largely composed of the same;” that is, of church members. Now it is well known that “the two great parties” control the destinies of the nation. No other party ever can come into power excepting by large accessions from one or both of these parties. And such large accessions never will be won over except on the selfish expectation that the party to which they go will gain the political ascendancy. So that the political control of the nation is almost sure to be in the hands of church members, just as it is to-day. No matter what party name they may assume, or what measures they may espouse, their political aims will be the same, namely, political power. If they should pass religious laws, their object would be the same as they now have in view when they sustain the liquor traffic, namely, retention of their political prestige.

So, from the admission contained in the foregoing quotation, we may logically expect that, no matter what changes may take place by turning the political kaleidoscope, it will be simply a shifting of the same elements that in the main control legislation and judicial decisions to-day. There is no prospect that the turning of the glass will improve the material of the shifting fragments. Their nature will be the same. Then does not the national aspect to-day, controlled, as it admittedly is, by church members, give us an indication of what it would be if the church were to exercise more power in the government? It is admitted on all hands that the affairs of our government have been more and more corrupted with every succeeding administration for many years. It is also known that politicians have for years been recognizing the expediency of religious profession as an aid to political preferment, just as business men recognize the policy of connecting with popular churches in order to increase their trade.

Then what is to be gained by placing more power in the hands of church-member politicians, in the face of their well-known corrupt practices. If they are corrupt in the civil matters intrusted to their care, will they be any the less so if we turn over to their hands the moulding of our religious scruples and practices? Has not all history shown that religious power in the hands of corrupt political officials has only added opportunity to their natural viciousness, and made them more and more tyrannical? None but tyrants at heart ever yet desired to compel by civil law the consciences of the people. The great Head of the Christian church himself did not compel obedience to his doctrine. He said: “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” The Gospel invitation is, “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

Let us turn for a moment to the proceedings of a recent national convention of one of those “two great parties” that is “largely composed” of church members. We note the one that was mainly instrumental in opening the doors of congressional action to religious legislation in 1892, and declared that the first day of the week is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, which expressly says that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” Well, this convention of church-member politicians was seriously divided in sentiment, altho professing to be Christian. The contention arose over the matter of opening the convention with prayer. One faction would not agree that a Protestant should officiate, and another faction would not consent to the prayers of a Catholic. Of course these two “Christian” factions were sufficiently strong to unitedly control the convention, so they compromised on a Jewish rabbi. These two “Christian” elements in the convention agreed to heal their differences by choosing presumably an enemy of Christ to pray for them. So it was on a former occasion, some centuries ago—Herod and Pilate were made friends, and Christ was crucified.

Such are some of the fallacies of church-member politics, yet there is a widespread effort now in progress, being energetically pushed during the interval between sessions of Congress, to fasten upon the Constitution a provision that will give exclusive power in the nation to those who will join the church, and support its claims on demand. What do we see in the current actions of professedly Christian politicians to warrant any such wholesale transfer to them of both our civil and religious destinies? Before we indorse such a movement, let us seriously count the cost, and decide whether we are prepared to launch out upon the flood of church and state union. The lesson to be learned from the quotation upon which we have been commenting, should be heeded by all. It is an admission extremely damaging to the cause of the proposed religious amendment to the Constitution.