Legislation to Prevent Sin
By L. A. S.
SOME weeks ago that influential journal, The Outlook, expressed the opinion that a great mistake had been made in the management of the St. Louis fair, in closing its gates on Sunday, while neighboring beer gardens and other demoralizing resorts remained open. Replying to this, Rev. W. F. Crafts, who was mainly instrumental in securing Sunday closing, argues that the opening of the fair would not diminish the Sunday crowds at the beer gardens, and adds:— The whole theory that we can draw people from one sin by giving them another, one grade higher, would call for a graduated scale starting with the opening of a Sunday fair to draw from a beer garden. . . . Congress has wisely decided that the fair at least shall exhibit, in celebrating the Louisiana purchase, not the French Sunday, but the American sabbath, which is by far our best exhibit. In this statement Mr. Crafts reveals the real motive which actuates him in his zeal for the enactment and enforcement of Sunday legislation. It would be a sin, he says, to open the fair on Sunday. It would be drawing the people “from one sin by giving them another.” So he has the fair closed by Congressional legislation to prevent sin. He asks Congress to legislate on sin. It is easy to see what is involved in this. If Congress is to legislate to prevent sin, Congress must know what sin is, and be prepared to distinguish between sin and righteousness. Some religious authority must be recognized in Congress to which appeal may be made, and by which Congressional legislation may be guided. Congress must become a religious body, and not only that, but also, an orthodox religious body. It must legislate in harmony with the prevailing religion. And from this it follows that only those men should be elected to Congress who are properly qualified from a religious standpoint. But it would necessarily fall to the church to determine qualifications of this sort, hence the selection of members of Congress and of State legislatures would be in the hands of the church, and the church would be the supreme power in the nation. A legislature selected by the church would naturally legislate as the church directed. Congress would be a thoroughly religious body, and there would be a complete union of church and state. This would also involve a conflict between the churches—Catholic, Protestant, and Protestant divisions—for supremacy in the matter of directing State and national legislation, and the old contests of former centuries, to decide which religion is the orthodox one, would be renewed. Or, there might in these days be formed a church trust, composed of the more numerous and powerful religious bodies, to the exclusion of the smaller and less popular ones, to whom the trust would dictate as it saw fit. In any case, there would be deadly moral confusion and strife, religious persecution, and the complete overthrow of Protestant republican government in this country. All this, we say, would be involved in any carrying out of the idea that Congress ought to legislate to prevent sin, as Mr. Crafts desires and designs shall be done. All this is contained in the system which Mr. Crafts is working to foist upon the nation. But, it may be said, murder is sin, and surely there must be legislation to prevent murder, hence there must be legislation to prevent sin. This argument ignores the distinction between sin and crime. Men legislate against murder, theft, false witness, etc., as crimes, not as sins. They consider the offense against man and against society, not the offense against God. The offense against man, the invasion of his rights, is a crime; the offense against God and invasion of his rights, is sin. Of such acts God himself will take care, and he asks no assistance from man. He has appointed a day of judgment and he will execute judgment on all the transgressors of his law. He has his own spiritual agencies to restrain men from evil and to punish them for wrong-doing—agencies far higher and more powerful than any the state can command. It is not the business of the state to concern itself with any act as an offense against God. It is not possible for any legislature, State or national, to determine what is sin, and what is not, or to deal with sin in any effective way. If it is proper for Congress to legislate against the sin of Sabbath-breaking, it is also proper to legislate against covetousness and the worship of idols; for these are just as plainly sins as is the desecration of the Sabbath. If Congress ought to legislate against one sin, it ought to legislate against all sins. But, as stated, Congress and other legislatures do not legislate against murder, theft, etc., as sins, but as crimes; and with any act which does not invade the rights of mankind—any act which is not a crime—the legislature has rightfully no concern. Mr. Crafts says that the “American sabbath” is by far our best exhibit at the fair. What proper business has Congress with the exhibition of a religious institution? What proper concern has Congress with the question whether the first day of the week or the seventh day is the Sabbath? with the question whether the original Sabbath remains in force, or whether the Sabbath was changed at the resurrection of Christ? or with the question whether the law which contains the Sabbath commandment has been abolished, or whether it is still binding? What business has Congress with the religious controversies which exist between the various sects in this country? What right has Congress to legislate in favor of one side, or the other of such controversies? These are questions that need to be raised and answered by the people; for it is the aim of Mr. Crafts and the associations allied with his “reform bureau” to unite church and state in this country through Congressional legislation upon religion, and they have already made alarming headway.