JUDGE MAGUIRE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
By Editor
THERE is much said at the present time with reference to religious liberty, especially since the A. P. A. became so prominent. Of course it is claimed by the friends of that organization that they are working for religious liberty. The Roman Catholics and their friends claim as strenuously that the A. P. A. is the foe of religious freedom, while they, the Catholics, are the only true conservators of religious liberty. It is stated by one party that our own government grants religious liberty; by the other it is denied. So far as these two organizations are concerned they both stand on the same principles and are actuated by the same motive. We will leave them out of the question. The great danger which menaces this nation is the ignorance of its people, many of whom really desire religious liberty, and who believe that we now have it. This is preached from pulpit and platform. Many times good things are said, but generally there is that with the good things which virtually nullifies them, or which tends to produce absolute indifference on the part of the hearer. An instance of this is found in the following eloquent words from one of California's representatives to Congress, a learned jurist, the Hon. James Maguire. In a recent speech in San Francisco he said:— "The civil and religious liberty, of which, as I have said, our common-school system is the greatest conservator, cannot be too clearly apprehended nor too often called to the minds of our fellow-citizens. We are too likely to underestimate the difference between the religious liberty for which this country stands and the mere religious toleration of some of the older countries, from which the founders of our institutions fled in order to enjoy the splendid boon of real liberty to worship God according to their varying beliefs. In this land there is no more sacred right of citizenship than that of being absolutely free in matters of religious thought and worship and teaching. Here citizens of all churches and of all sects are absolutely equal in all the rights of citizenship, and the denial of any right of citizenship merely because of difference in religious belief is a violation of one of the most sacred principles of American liberty. The government of this country is a purely civic organization, professing no religion, but respecting and defending all religions. The Democratic position upon that question has ever been that the State shall never interfere in the affairs of any church, and that no church shall ever interfere in the affairs of State—that in the public service and in the broader domain of citizenship there shall be neither bar nor privilege arising out of any man's religious opinions; that he shall be judged as a citizen and as an officer by the qualities of manhood, of intelligence, of honesty, and of patriotism which his own conduct discloses." We have but two faults to find with the foregoing:— 1. It is not true as respects this government. It was once measurably true. But in 1892 this government in its three branches committed itself to religious interference in the matter of the Sunday sabbath. In doing this they discriminated in favor of those who regard Sunday as holy, and against those who do not. In the King case, of Tennessee, the Circuit Court of the United States, speaking through Judge Hammond, in 1891, justified persecution for religion's sake; and from the action of the Supreme Court in its decision in the Trinity Church case, rendered Feb. 29, 1892, we have no reason to believe that Judge Hammond's decision would have been reversed. 2. The second fault we have to find is with the following sentence:— "The government of this country is a purely civic organization, professing no religion, but respecting and defending all religions." This may have been spoken of "religionists." If so we would have no criticism to offer. We take it as we find it in the Oakland Times. A civic government has no business whatsoever with any religion. It cannot in the very nature of the case defend all religions. How would it have defended the idolatry of the East and Mohammedanism at the same time during their bloody wars? How could it, in the nature of the case, when a majority of its subjects were Christian, defend the religion of the Chinese or the fetishism of the negro?835Civil government has no business to interfere with any religion. It has no business to stand for or against any religion. It is the business of civil government to protect its subjects, no matter what religion he professes. If nine hundred and ninety-nine are Christians and one is a Jew, the Jew is as much entitled to all the protection of the government as are the nine hundred and ninety-nine; but not because he is a Jew, but because he is a man, entitled to equal rights and privileges. If the Jew were a thousand and the Christian were one, the principle is the same. If the one thousand Jews wish to observe the seventh day, they may, but they have no right to compel the Christian to observe it, nor has the government the right to aid them. The Christian has the right to work on that day if he chooses, so as not to interfere with the worship of the Jew. But he has no right to demand that the Jews shall rest or refrain from labor on the first day because he does. They have a perfect right to do just as they please, providing their actions are not uncivil or criminal. The Christian should be willing to accede the right of the Jew to labor on the first day, even as he demands of the Jew the right to labor on the seventh day. The many have no more right to disturb the one than the one the many; neither have the many the right to dictate to the one his religious duty to God or his fellow-man any more than has the one to dictate to the many. Religious liberty means absolute equality, not of religions, but men. The religions are matters of which the government, as a government, should know nothing. Religion is a matter solely between man and his God, and concerns only him and whomsoever of his fellows man may voluntarily unite with apart from all governmental control, interference, or privileges. But, as Judge Maguire says, the matter of civil and religious liberty "cannot be too clearly apprehended, nor too often called to the minds of our fellow-citizens." The best place to learn the truest principles is in the gospel of Jesus Christ.