SOMEWHAT MIXED by C. P. B.

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 21, 1889

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 15, No. 40.

SOMEWHAT MIXED.

By C. P. B.

THE Examiner (Baptist) of October 3, has an article entitled, "License They Mean," from which we quote as follows:—

"Recently a party has been forming to resist the passage of a law by Congress prohibiting the running of inter-State Sunday trains. This, too, is stigmatized as an unwarrantable interference with the rights of conscience—a first step toward union of Church and State, and the destruction of religious liberty. It cannot be unprofitable, therefore, to inquire what force there is in these representations. The principle of liberty and the idea of law must intersect each other somewhere; the practically important question is, Where should the line of intersection be, that justice may be secured for all?

"The principle of religious liberty requires only one thing: That all religious beliefs should be placed on an equality before the law, so that no one should be either favored or punished because of his opinions, whether privately held or publicly expressed, so that in their public expression breaches of the peace are not provoked. The principle of religious liberty does not require that men shall not be held accountable for overt acts, not directly connected with the worship of God, or even for such acts if they tend to provoke a breach of the peace. The offering of human sacrifices, for example, or immoral orgies, could not be claimed as exempt from civil law on the plea that they were a part of religious worship. But, in a general way, it may be safely said that the State will not, and should not, interfere with any form of religious worship.

"But with respect to the daily conduct of life, the case is otherwise.

"The civil law must, therefore, for the safety of society, prohibit all immoral acts, whether religious sanction be pleaded for them or not. It must punish crime, even if the criminal claim to be the high priest of some religion. It may make unlawful acts, deemed inconsistent with the general welfare—such as unnecessary Sunday labor—without infraction of religious liberty, or taking the first step towards a religious establishment. In short, it may preserve in practice a distinction often recognized in the abstract—the distinction between liberty and license. Liberty is freedom under just law, the freedom to do right; license is freedom without law, the freedom to do wrong. Every man has a right to liberty; no man can claim the right to license."

The proposed law referred to is not so innocent as our contemporary would have us suppose; the designed law would stop not only the running of inter-State trains upon Sunday, but it would prohibit all forms of labor and business upon that day in all places subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It is not, however, the law, but the principle of such legislation, which we wish to discuss.

It is true, as the Examiner says, that "the principle of liberty and the idea of law must intersect each other somewhere," but it is also true that if the principle of liberty is to be preserved, the intersection must be at a point which will not infringe the natural rights of a single citizen. The question then naturally arises, Has the Examiner indicated that point?—We think not. Certainly the editor of that paper could not have considered his words carefully, or he never would have said:—

"The principle of religious liberty require only one thing: That all religious beliefs should be placed on an equality before the law, so that no one should be either favored or punished because of his opinions, whether privately held or publicly expressed."

Would the Examiner agree that perfect religious freedom was enjoyed in a country which permitted the teaching of all the doctrines held by Baptists, but forbade the rite of baptism?—Certainly not. It would insist, and properly, too, that the principles of religious freedom demand not only liberty to believe and teach, but also liberty to practice.

It is objected, however, that "there is not a vice or crime that has not been made a religious duty. The Thugs of India counted murder a holy act, most acceptable to their goddess Kali; the worshipers of Moloch thought it a virtue to cast their babes into the fire; the followers of Ashtoreth and Aphrodite performed a worthy act of worship in sacrificing their chastity." And the question is asked, Shall such things be permitted in the name of religion?—By no means. All of these things, and many others which might be enumerated, are not only immoral, but they are uncivil, that is, they cannot be practiced without infringing upon the rights of others, therefore it is not only the right but it is the duty of civil government to prohibit them; but this it does, not because they are immoral, but because they are in their very nature uncivil.

But the real animus of the Examiner’s article is revealed in the words: "It [the civil law] may make unlawful acts deemed inconsistent with the general welfare—such as unnecessary Sunday labor—without infraction of religious liberty." This is virtually placing Sunday work on the same level with murder and prostitution; but does it belong in the same category?—It does not; for the reason that work is right of itself, while murder and prostitution are always and everywhere wrong and uncivil. If they were right six days in each week, it would be hard to make it appear that they were wrong upon the remaining day; but they are never right; they are never civil.

If Sunday work is in any way evil, it is because of the religious character of the day upon which it is done, and not because there is anything wrong in the work itself. It is this fact which marks the wide difference between it and the offenses against nature with which some seek to class it.

It is very true, as the Examiner says, that "liberty is freedom under just law, the freedom to do right," but is a law that arbitrarily makes a crime on one day that which is laudable upon another, a just law? We answer, No; God alone has the right to command men under penalty of sin, and he alone has a right to judge and punish men for violations of the divine law. Even if it could be shown that the law of God requires Sunday keeping, it would not alter the case in the least; the observance or non-observance of a day, or any number of days, is not a proper subject of legislation.