THE POSSIBILITY OF STATE RELIGION.
By W. N. G.
UTAH statehood seems to be developing the fact, which many people have been slow to realize, that States may establish religion notwithstanding the declaration of the Federal Constitution that Congress may not do so. While, theoretically, the State Constitution must not be inimical to the fundamental law of the Federal Government, it is true that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." At a late mission conference held in Salt Lake City, the sentiment was expressed by resolution that the Mormon people never were so diplomatic, powerful, and aggressive as now. It was also asserted that Statehood had embarrassed rather than assisted evangelical work. Dr. Wishard, superintendent of the Presbyterian Mission, declared that "Statehood has given the dominant church the reins of power." The discussion brought out the fact, more than once reiterated, that in many places the public schools are run in the interest of the Mormon Church. Dr. Wishard stated that "a young lady who applied for a school near Monroe was asked by the Mormon board if she would close the school every Friday afternoon an hour earlier than usual and devote the time to teaching the Mormon religion. And when she refused to do so, her chance for the position vanished." When interviewed on the subject by a press reporter, a prominent Mormon official replied:— "Let me ask, Would a Catholic select an outsider for a position, with one of his own people available? Would a Methodist, or a Presbyterian?—No. Then would it be expected that our people, when in the majority, would discriminate against themselves, and go hunting around for others on the outside? Have not the others set us an example? Have they ever put a Mormon in a position when they had the power to keep him out?" As soon as they have the power, there is little doubt that the Constitution of the State will be so altered as to recognize the Mormon religion as the religion of the State. But in doing so they will be again following example—following the same principle on which other denominations of professed Christians procure the enactment of Sunday laws, thus establishing their religion as far as they can agree on points of doctrine to such an extent as to unite in asking for their legal enforcement. The masses of the people imagine that a union of Church and State in this country, with all of its attendant evils, is impossible. They rest in imaginary security on the proposition that the Federal Constitution is a permanent barrier to any such innovation. They seem oblivious to the fact that in principle it already exists in nearly all of the States, and that strong, persistent forces are doing all in their power to arouse public sentiment to the point of further aggression along this line. Many are unconscious that measures which they ardently advocate are directly in this line, while others seem regardless of consequences if they can secure political control through any means. Such catching ideas as "Christian citizenship," "applied Christianity," "the nation for Christ," "purifying politics," "protection of the American Sunday," etc., are samples of the alluring baits that are calculated to lead the unwary into the Church-and-State current. The significant fact is that all these so-called reforms are religious in character, while their advocates aim to advance them through political means for political ends. They are worked in the same way and for the same purpose that the Mormons are furthering their cause. The aim is political control in the interest of religious dogma. No religious denomination, or society, or individual, working for the advancement of any sort of religion by political means, can consistently condemn the Mormons for doing likewise. The New York Christian Advocate says:— "We have had some letters from Methodists in Utah declaring that they ought to recognize the Christian part of Mormonism; and one elaborate letter proceeded on the assumption that Mormonism should be recognized as a branch of Christianity." Of course the Advocate denounces all such sentiments; but if Methodists, or any other professed Christians in Utah out of the Mormon faith, so regard the Mormon religion, how can they condemn the Mormons for adopting the same course in the furtherance of their peculiar Christianity that is advocated in principle by other "branches"—not only in Utah but in other States? If the people of the United States would avoid the evils of Church and State union, they must needs repeal all the State laws that foster the principle; then close up the gap in the Federal Constitution which leaves the way open for such a thing in the States; and then guard with jealous eye the civil and religious rights of every individual, no matter how obscure.