DANGEROUS LEAGUES by H. A. Phelps

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jan 23, 1896

DANGEROUS LEAGUES.

By H. A. Phelps

ALL over this fair land—so long called the land of liberty—there are springing into existence certain leagues, under various names. Some of their objects are good, we will not question their motives; but some of the objects are evil, containing only evil, and nothing but evil can be the result.

For some time, here in the city of St. Paul, Minn., efforts have been made to organize a Sunday Law Observance League, but it is now working under the more euphonious title of “Christian Citizenship League.” The object, as stated in its constitutions, “shall be the enforcement of the laws of the city and state; to combat existing evils, especially such as result from the violation of the liquor laws; unlawful Sunday labor; gambling and the keeping of disrespectful places; to arouse a healthy and intelligent public interest on all questions concerning the welfare of our city and state; and to shape public opinion toward securing the nomination and election of competent and trustworthy men for public offices without respect to party lines.”

Of course, some of these objects are laudable and praiseworthy. But there is and can be no such thing as “unlawful Sunday labor,” except such as is proscribed by statute Sunday laws. Therefore, one object of the league is to enforce the statute Sunday laws of the state against all practical dissenters; and is just so much a union of church and state. Thus they attempt to hide the deformity of such an act by mixing in a lot of good things, and make the evil more readily take among the people.

The writer recently attended a so-called mass meeting in this city, in the interests of the league and its work. These meetings will hardly bear the title mass meeting, for the masses are in no wise interested; it is only the few. Neither do they have the appearance of mass meetings, as they are generally managed by a coterie of ministers, with a program fully arranged and carried out; so that a person with other opposing views would seem to be wholly out of place to interpose a few words. The meeting in question was no exception to the rule.

The one minister, Dr. Conly, spoke in behalf of the league, and said that their work was regarded by some with a sort of a feeling that it was a union of church and state. But he declared the movement to be “as free from church and state as the laws against murder.” Yet, in almost the same breath, he made two statements, the logic of which is a demonstration that it is such a union. He said, “The great body of the American people keep Sunday.” Then in regard to the Sunday saloon he said, “We are simply saying you can’t buy it [liquor] on Sunday.” Now what is the logic of this? Why do people keep Sunday? Why do those who keep Sunday demand the enforcement of Sunday law? And how came there to be any such an instrument as a statute Sunday law? The answer is not hard to find. Here it is:—

The people keep Sunday because it is an institution of the church. The church secured the enactment of these statute Sunday laws to protect this institution of the church, and that she might enforce its observance upon dissenters. And now, in these closing years of the nineteenth century, the church comes forward with her demands for the enforcement of these laws against dissenters.

Now all this being true, what will be the logical result if the state shall listen to these demands and shall enforce these laws secured by the church, for the protection of an institution of the church? Will it, can it, be anything less than a union of the two? Look at the situation. The laws are laws enacted in the interests of an institution of the church. The church, by her influence, secured them. The church then demands that there should be a better observance of this institution of the church. She believes that by the enforcement of these statute Sunday laws, such better observance can be secured. She demands that the state shall enforce the laws. The state listens to these demands of the church, and enforces these religious laws in the interests and at the behests of the church. Therefore, this is a union of church and state—the church and state united in this land of the free, as foretold by our fathers; but now, as told by actual experiences of this generation, in the sending men to prison and to the chain-gang, under the enforcement of these laws, the land of intolerance, persecution, and a rising religious despotism. And what will the end be? Let all who are Christians indeed separate themselves from the whole thing. Christians are called to another work.

H. A. PHELPS.