RELIGIOUS RIGHTS IN TENNESSEE.
By Editor
WE do not contend for exemption clauses in Sunday laws, either of the States or nation, but we admire the spirit of true patriotism and the desire for the equality of all citizens in religious matters that actuate some public men who are not personally interested in the faith of the people whose rights they deem it necessary to especially champion, in order to maintain the liberties of which our country so loudly boasts. Of this class is Senator Slaughter, of Tennessee, who has introduced a bill in the Legislature of that State, "To Prohibit Interference with the Religious Liberty of Certain Classes of Persons." In defending the bill against the attacks of certain newspapers, he replies to one in part as follows:— I did know that there were some good Christian people who honestly and conscientiously believe that the seventh, and not the first day of the week, is the proper one to be observed as a day of rest, in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and that there is no direct teaching of the Bible authorizing any other than the seventh day of the week as a day of rest. I further know that the constitution of our State says: "That no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience" as regards religious belief. The bill in question was simply intended to protect in their religious rights certain classes of conscientious, religious, Christian people, known as Seventh-day Baptists, and Adventists, in accordance with the interests and purposes of our State constitution, provided they should in no wise interfere in any manner with the peace, quiet, or religious rights of others. If you will read the second and third verses of the second chapter of Genesis, the fifth verse of the fourteenth chapter of Romans, and then our State constitution, you may learn the grounds upon which I based my authority for introducing the bill named. Replying to another press criticism, his position is made equally clear, and his reasoning is decidedly logical. We present the following extracts:— I cannot see upon what grounds any liberty-loving Christian person can object to an act that only carries out the intents and purposes of the constitution in placing all sects or classes of Christian people upon an equal footing as regards their religious convictions. It should be remembered that the Sabbath or Sunday is not a secular, but a divine or religious institution, ordained, blessed, and sanctified by God himself as a day of rest upon finishing his work of creation. And it is further a well-known fact that, in accordance with the teachings of the Bible, all Sabbaths or Sundays known to either the Jewish or Christian world were originated through God's creation of the earth in six days, and his resting the seventh, which was blessed and sanctified by him as a day of rest for future generations. Therefore it cannot be said that these seventh-day people have no grounds upon which to base their religious belief as regards the seventh day of the week being the proper one to be taken as a day of rest in carrying out the commands of God. As regards myself, I do not claim to be a Seventh-day Baptist or Adventist, and am very willing to accept our Christian Sunday as a day of rest; but as there are others who cannot conscientiously do so I do not believe that it is just or right to enforce upon them a sacrifice of their honest religious convictions as regards a matter that they themselves, and not others, must be held responsible for. . . It may be said by some that they could take two days, and thereby comply with both, with the law, and their own conscientious scruples in regard to the matter, but this, probably, those of limited means could not afford to do in justice to themselves and families. Why are railroads, street car lines, livery stables, newspapers, and various other classes of business allowed to carry on their usual avocation with impunity regardless of the Sunday law, whilst some poor people and good citizens are subjected to fines, imprisonments, and other persecution for simply obeying the dictates of their conscience in carrying out what they honestly conceive to be the teachings of the Bible, in accordance with the will of God? Will some of those who are so much opposed to this slight change in one short section of our code of laws be kind enough to answer this question? Besides this, our State constitution, with which no laws can be allowed to conflict, strictly forbids interference with the religious rights or conscience of any class or set of citizens, as regard to their religious belief, as may be seen by reference to section 3 of its declaration of rights. Upon the whole, there is no good reason why the small minority of Christians known as seventh day Baptists and Adventists should not be accorded those religious rights demanded and enjoyed by the great majority.