p. 424 | THAT COUNTER-PETITION by C. P. B.

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Jul 15, 1889

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

THAT COUNTER-PETITION.

By C. P. B.

THE friends of the National Sunday law and other like measures are very much troubled, as well they may be, in regard to the petition which is being circulated, praying Congress “not to pass any bill in regard to the observance of the Sabbath, or Lord’s day, or any other religious or ecclesiastical institution or rite; nor to favor in any way the adoption of any resolution for the amendment of the National Constitution that would in any way tend, either directly or indirectly, to give preference to the principles of any religion or of any religious body above another, or that will in any way sanction legislation upon the subject of religion; but that the total separation between religion and State, assured by the National Constitution as it now is, may forever remain as our fathers established it.”

Joseph Cook and Wilbur F. Crafts have both characterized this as “a misleading counter-petition,”—the former, in an article in Our Day, and the latter, first in a circular letter, and more recently in an article published in the Christian Statesman. Mr. Crafts says that this counter-petition “would be unworthy of attention by the religious press, but for the fact that in many cases it has deceived the very elect.” Just what Mr. Crafts means by the “very elect,” we are not informed. It is certain he cannot use the term in the same sense in which it is used by our Saviour in Matthew 24, for there it is plainly implied that it is impossible to deceive the “elect.” We presume what Mr. Crafts means is that it has deceived some National Reformers.

But why anyone should be deceived by it is more than we can tell. Certainly it is plain and straightforward. All that the petition asks is that Congress shall forbear adopting any resolutions or amendments that would in any way tend to a union of Church and State. It does not say that National Reformers are pressing any such amendment, and if they feel that they are innocent, why should they object to the petition? They profess to be opposed to the Union of Church and State, and if they are honest in this profession they should certainly be in favor of what they are now pleased to call “a misleading counter-petition.”

The petition also asks “that the total separation between religion and the State, assured by the National Constitution as it now is, may forever remain as our fathers established it.” Inasmuch as these National Reformers profess that they want to maintain such a separation, and that they favor the Blair Educational Amendment bill, because it guarantees such a separation, they should certainly favor this petition, and the fact that they do not, shows that they are not sincere in disavowing a desire for the union of Church and State.

It does seem more than passing strange how anyone could be misled by this petition. True, the fact of the existence of such a petition implies that there is a movement on foot to accomplish the things against which it protests. And we presume that it is in this fact that Mr. Crafts and Mr. Cook see what they are pleased to call “misleading.” They deny that their movement tends to a union of Church and State, but their denial does not alter the facts in the case. They ask to have laws passed recognizing the first day of the week as the Sabbath or Lord’s day, and to “protect the religious observance” of that day. The passage of such a law would make the State a party to a religious controversy, and certainly be a step at least in the direction of a Church and State union.

But more than this. These gentlemen are both, if we mistake not, in favor of the Blair Educational Amendment bill, and that bill provides that the principles of the Christian religion shall be taught in the public schools. Now it is as clear as day, that if the principles of the Christian religion are to be taught in the schools, it must first be determined what the principles of the Christian religion are; and when that question is determined authoritatively, these principles become the established religion of this country; in fact, the State religion. It matters not how broad they may be, or how many denominations assent to them, they nevertheless constitute the State religion.

It is true, as Mr. Crafts asserts in his article in the Christian Statesman, that Congress is at present forbidden to establish a religion, but the adoption of this amendment which he defends would virtually annul the first amendment to the Constitution, which now forbids the establishment of a religion, because, as already shown, it provides for the establishment of a religion. This, Mr. Crafts denies, and says that it only extends to the several States the prohibition which now exists. True, it does profess to do this, but in reality it requires each State to adopt Christianity as the State religion, and to teach the principles of that religion in its public schools.

We are as much in favor of the Christian religion as anybody can be, but such prohibition as that contained in the Blair Amendment cannot be carried out without destroying religious liberty in this country. The moment the State lays its hand upon religion, and interferes in any way with religious questions, that moment it abridges religious liberty, and National Reformers are not ignorant of this fact. They know as well as we do just what the result of the adoption of this amendment would be, and instead of the petition against it being misleading, their efforts and their arguments in favor of religious legislation are misleading. Their cry of “stop thief” is simply to divert attention from themselves, in order that they may be enabled to carry forward uninterruptedly their infamous work. C. P. B.