FIRST PRINCIPLES, OR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
By H. F. Phelps
Even in Religion, and in Religion above All Things.
No ONE thought of vindicating religion for the conscience of the individual, till a voice in Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the life of humanity, by establishing a pure, spiritual, and universal religion for all mankind, enjoined to render to Cæsar only that which is Cæsar’s. The rule was upheld during the infancy of the gospel for all men. No sooner was this religion adopted by the chief of the Roman Empire than it was shorn of its character of universality, and enthralled by an unholy connection with the unholy State; and so it continued till the new nation,—the least defiled with the barren scoffings of the eighteenth century, the most general believer in Christianity of any people of that age, the chief heir of the Reformation in its purest forms,—when it came to establish a government for the United States, refused to treat faith as a matter to be regulated by a corporate body, or having a headship in a monarch or a State. Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of accepting, in its relations to God, the principle first divinely ordained of God in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the people of the several States, withheld from the Federal Government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the Spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom, and purity, and power.—History of the Formation of the Constitution, in Two Republics. The only reason why “the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience,” was not withheld from the several States which adopted the Federal Constitution, was because of the jealousies that existed at the time of its adoption, in regard to State rights, and because of the fact that nearly all the States did have laws, either defining or enforcing religion and religious institutions, which were considered necessary to the welfare of the State, and by which they could “invade the home of reason,” and because so many, at that time, were so firmly wedded to the idea that a union of religion and the State was necessary. Witness their laws against sabbath—Sunday—breaking, blasphemy, and witchcraft, also laws imposing taxation for the support of religious instruction, and compulsory attendance at public worship—laws which had existed from almost the first settlements, some of which exist even to this day. If the framers and defenders of the national Constitution had insisted that these laws did “invade the realm of conscience,” disputing the right of the States to enact or to enforce such laws, it would only have resulted in the defeat of their plans for a general government, and the rejection of the Constitution itself. Thus, while it was the purpose of our fathers616to vindicate the rights of the individual, and in the general Constitution they did even dare to vindicate “the right of individuality even in religion, and in religion above all;” yet the several States adopting the Constitution were left with the fangs of that hideous monster which has cursed the world,—a union of religion and the State,—fastened upon their very vitals. And each succeeding State entering the sisterhood of States has adopted similar laws, thereby stultifying their own constitutions. Now these very things are brought forward by the horde of National Reformers and Roman Catholics as proof that a union of Church and State, or religion and the State, always has existed in this government, that this is as it should be, and that the Constitution itself teaches the same. Thus it is that they subvert, instead of guarding, the rights of the individual—“individuality even in religion, and in religion above all.” And not only so, but these laws, in the hands of ignorance, bigotry, and superstition, entirely supersede the supreme laws of the State and nation. As proof of this, we look at one of the original States, Maryland, where Seventh-day Adventists are suffering loss of property, or are confined in loathsome jails, because their individual rights in matters of religion are not respected. Their Declaration of Rights says:— ARTICLE 36. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under color of religion, he shall disturb, etc. And yet the very same section brings in a religious test, in that no person is to “be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; Provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such a person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come.” So, if a person does not “believe” in all this, he is not competent. And section 11, article 3, Legislative Department, reads:— No minister or preacher of the gospel, or of any religious creed or denomination, . . . shall be eligible as senator or delegate. Thus in one line they declare for freedom for all men, and in the next place a barrier in the way of that freedom, or else a bid to a man to stifle his own convictions. But this glaring inconsistency is made more apparent as we examine their Sunday laws. Not only does the State constitution, as we have seen, declare in preference of the man who professes faith in God (and in this we see a bid for hypocrisy), but the State declares in favor of the “Lord’s day” as the Sabbath, which, of course, is true; but it says that the day is “commonly called Sunday.” And it says that no person having children or servants “shall command or willingly suffer any of them to do any manner of work or labor on the Lord’s day;” nor were these “to profane the Lord’s day by gaming, fishing, fowling, hunting,” under a penalty of five dollars. Engaging in trade or sale of various kinds of merchandise is deemed as Sabbath breaking, and punishable by a fine of from $20 to $50, while other so-called offenses are punishable by heavier fines and imprisonment, as, for example, a man is to be imprisoned from three months to one year if he shall catch oysters on Sunday. Another example of this glaring inconsistency may be seen by examination of Georgia’s “Declaration of Fundamental Principles”:— SECTION 1. Protection of person and property is the paramount duty of government, and shall be impartial and complete. And yet, in this State, under cover of her Sunday laws, a minister of the gospel, and a teacher in a school, both Seventh-day Adventists, are held to answer at court for working in the rear of a school building, with saw and hammer, on Sunday, like offenses(?) of which are often witnessed, but without arrest. But all this is done in face of the following:— SECTION 6. Perfect freedom of religious sentiment shall be, and the same is hereby secured, and no inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property . . . on account of his religious opinion. And yet the penalty for violation of her Sunday laws is very severe. Persons convicted “shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment not to exceed six months, to work in the chain gang on the public works . . . not to exceed twelve months, and any one or more of these punishments may be ordered in the discretion of the judge.” So that if the judge should be a bigot, he could impose the whole list of penalties. More than this; take these men before mentioned, who are observers of the “Sabbath day according to the commandment,” should they be found guilty and be sentenced to the chain gang, their consciences would not allow them to work on the seventh day of the week; and by this refusal they would, according to their law, “be deemed guilty of a capital offense, the penalty of which is death, or such other punishment as the judge in his discretion may inflict.” Thus the life of the offender(?) will depend altogether upon the humanity of the judge. Take, for another example, a Northern State, lest the reader may think that such is especially peculiar to these States, and that such is not the case in the North. The “Bill of Rights” of Minnesota declares that— The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed, . . . nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. Yet the Sunday laws of the State define Sunday as the sabbath, and also define sabbath breaking, thus declaring in favor of a certain religious institution, and thereby giving “preference” “by law,” to a certain “mode of worship,” thus contradicting and making utterly void, in fact, all the guarantees of the Constitution, and making it possible to repeat the same persecutions in Minnesota as are now seen in Maryland, Tennessee, and Georgia. Not only so, but at the last session of the Minnesota Legislature a law was enacted by which it is possible to place violators of these Sunday laws upon the streets with the chain gang. And nearly every State, if not all of them, are in the same predicament, declaring for perfect freedom of conscience in the supreme law of the States, and denying these same principles in the statute laws. As before stated, and experience emphasizes the statement, these, in the hands of bigots, become paramount to the supreme law of the State, while the principle of individual rights, freedom of conscience, is totally lost to sight, and the supreme law trampled in the dust. All of this but emphasizes the fact that these principles should be studied and better understood by the people. To this end we ask the army of readers of this paper to follow us carefully through a few papers touching this subject, not that they will be exhaustive of the subject, but we trust they may be an incentive to deeper thought.