The Church and Boycotting.
By W.
THE Fresno Democrat thinks that Judge Sawyer’s decision that boycotting is conspiracy, is not just, and says:— “A peaceful boycott against them [the Chinese] and those who employ them was recommended by the Sacramento convention. This is clearly lawful, and even were it not, no number of statutes could prevent it. If this style of boycott is declared against the laws, where will the matter end? Church organizations may be prosecuted for declaring war against theaters, dancing-halls, and the like, and temperance organizations may be held to answer for putting the whisky-shops under their ban. Such strained construction of the law will lead us into foolish and dangerous straits.” The above simply shows how terribly muddled political journals are apt to become when they attempt to enunciate principles of religion. Boycotting the Chinaman, who has as much right to protection from this country as any other person has, and boycotting those who refuse to boycott the Chinese, is no more to be compared with the opposition of the church to theaters, saloons, etc., than Herr Most’s incendiary speeches are to the preaching of the gospel. Any man, or any number of men, may decline to deal with any other person or number of persons. No one has a right to compel them to trade where they do not wish to; and by the same rule they have no right to try to compel others not to trade where they may wish to. This last is just what boycotting is; and any candid man must admit that it is not straining a point in the least to say that for a number of men to combine to ruin another’s business is conspiracy. The opposition of the church and the temperance society to theaters, saloons, etc., has no such characteristics. Christians are by their profession pledged to abstain from all evil; and knowing that theaters and saloons are only evil in their nature, they shun such places. They also endeavor to induce others to shun evil places and associates. But no Christian boycotts either the saloon-keeper or his victim. One who follows the teachings of Christ will be as ready to assist a saloon-keeper if he is in distress as he will one who is in a respectable business; and while rendering this assistance, the Christian will try to turn the man from the evil of his ways. Much less does the Christian refuse all intercourse with the man who may patronize the theater or the saloon. His very profession requires him to “do good unto all men;” and the Master has set the example of kindness to the erring. Therefore when a man compares the work of the church with that of boycotting leagues, he shows that he has no knowledge whatever of Christianity. We have said that no Christian boycotts either the saloon or the theater. Much less will a Christian boycott one who is pursuing a legitimate business, and is doing no injury to any one. But we are compelled to admit that many people who profess Christianity, and whose names are on some church roll, do advocate the boycott. We have heard the boycott advocated from the pulpit, and the Chinese were not the ones against whom the boycott was to be directed. Neither were the saloons and theaters to be boycotted, unless they kept open on Sunday. In fact, it was urged that all who did any business on Sunday, no matter how legitimate that business might be, should be boycotted. The lack of Christianity in this proposed boycott was manifest from the fact that the foulest dives were not to be molested if they kept closed on Sunday. We believe that erelong a large part of the professed church of Christ will go into this business of boycotting. The beloved apostle, looking in prophetic vision to near the end, saw a decree go forth “that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Rev. 13:17. But of one thing we are certain, that no Christian will ever engage in any such business. When the keeping of Sunday is made a test of citizenship, as is desired by the Religious Amendment Party, then hypocrisy will be at a premium; then the church and the world will be identical; and then boycotting and other kindred abominations may be carried on under the name of religion.