A CHRISTIAN NATION by Judge Henry C. Minter

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Feb 13, 1893

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 19, No. 15.

"A CHRISTIAN NATION."

By Judge Henry C. Minter

BY JUDGE HENRY C. MINTER.

History abundantly demonstrates that human life stripped of civil and religious liberty is but a painful mockery. In the light of this knowledge, the wise and sagacious framers of the great republican form of government of the United States of North America exhausted their ingenuity in their efforts to establish and perpetuate the enjoyment of these boons of priceless worth.

History further instructs us that civil liberty cannot survive where religious bigotry or intolerance is suffered to invade and hold in subjection the domain of private conscience. Hence, civil and religious liberty must coexist or they must together perish.

The recent agitation of Sunday legislation has revealed the fact that we have already crossed the danger line. Therefore, we may well awake to alarm and to action in discovering the distance we have drifted from sound and fundamental principles.

Nearly all the active elements of our population are so absorbed in selfish pursuits or so intent on grasping and amassing so-called wealth that they are unaware that the very foundation stones of their temple of freedom are being displaced.

Had I the ability to do so, it would require too much space to review the actions of our judicial tribunals in this connection and point out the distance to which some of them have drifted from our republican traditions. The Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion delivered by Justice Brewer in the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. the United States, less than one year ago, and unanimously concurred in by the members of that tribunal, gives utterance to declarations which should excite alarm in all thoughtful minds, regardless of the soundness or unsoundness of the legal utterances of the court.

I shall not attempt to enumerate the declarations of the court in that opinion, but refer the reader to the opinion itself. I will content myself with mentioning only one declaration. In that opinion the court solemnly and judicially declares that this is a "Christian nation." Were this a nation of true Christians, it would be great cause for rejoicing. But it is not. Neither is it a Christian nation in any sense whatever. It is a nation of men, women, and children, containing among them a few true Christians, doubtless. And any one of these true Christians would be furthest of all others from pronouncing this a Christian nation. Though an humble espouser of Christianity myself, I fiercely oppose the idea of incorporating, in any degree or in any manner, into the government of this country the religion of Christianity or any other religion. In fact, to do so with true Christianity would be utterly impossible. To do so with spurious Christianity would be quite easy. That the nominal Christian and the nominal Christian church do favor union in some form with the arm of civil government in order to enforce and perpetuate their religious dogmas and observances we have abundant proof.

For this class the aforementioned decision

of the Supreme Court comes laden with rich promises of religious legislation. One writer of this class, in an article published in the Christian Statesman, seizes at once upon the logical conclusion to which the opinion of the Supreme Court leads. Commenting on the judicial decision of that tribunal that this is a "Christian nation," he says: "Then this nation is Christ's nation, for nothing can be Christian that does not belong to him. Then his word is its sovereign law. Then the nation is Christ's servant." Of course the idea of this religious bigot and the idea of the whole class of bigots which adhere to false theories of Christ's religion is that the government of this country should engage in religious legislation and the execution of religious laws. And why not? Have not their ideas the sanction of the court?

The numerical strength and the political potency of this class of false or deluded Christians is revealed in their successful efforts to extort from Congress Sunday legislation in connection with the Columbian Exposition. This action of Congress is purely religious legislation, being had from a purely religious point of view, by religionists, in connection with a religious observance and for religious motives. One need not possess equal intelligence with these legislators to know that each one of them voting in favor of Sunday observance in connection with the Fair, has not only done violence to the history and traditions of republicanism in this country, but has violated his oath of office. If Congress can legislate respecting one religious subject, it can legislate respecting any and all religious subjects. It can make laws "respecting an establishment of religion." It has already in this very act "prohibited the free exercise of religion." A conscientious observer of the seventh day, by this action of Congress, would be religiously legislated into the necessity of observing two days before entering the Fair.

Religion from its very nature is a purely personal and individual concern, and can never justly be made the subject of human legislation in any manner. Neither the observance nor the non-observance of any day can, in itself, be considered either right or wrong. It is a matter wholly within the domain of religion and individual conscience—a domain into which religious zealots have never yet forced the arm of civil government save with disastrous effects on the liberties and natural rights of men.

It is not the extent to which we have already gone in the wrong direction that is so alarming, but it is the principle involved and on which we are proceeding. The beginning made is ominous of a ruinous end. It is not from violent revolution, it is not from shot and shell and cannon's roar, that we need fear the greatest danger to our ship of State. Our greatest peril lies in silent innovations and precedents which, left unchecked, noiselessly forge the chains of slavery.—St. Louis Republic.

Keytesville, Mo., Jan. 19, 1893.