California and Religious Liberty
By John Orr Corliss
[Mr. Corliss has been engaged in religious liberty work for many years in three continents, Europe, Australia, and America. He has appeared repeatedly before committees in Congress and in State legislatures. For several years past he has led the religious liberty forces in California. He has in every way studied the question from every side.] V—The Use of the Initiative and Referendum
THERE can be no doubt in thoughtful minds that the real reason why the representatives of the people at California's capitol have refused to enact Sunday rest laws, has been because their long connection with public affairs, and their consequent knowledge of human tendencies, made them fearful of social ruptures which would result in sectarian hatred and vicious retaliations. They evidently studied the problem from all its sides, and concluded that the safest guide to social harmony was to put in statute law no cause of religious contention in the path of neighborhoods now in comparative peace and good-fellowship. Notwithstanding the obvious wisdom of such a course, a few extremely biased and illiberal persons have been determined to secure such a change in the present state of religious affairs, as to have their own system of faith become recognized by law, and therefore have gone from point to point stirring up the people, not so much to be better Christians themselves, but to work in behalf of a civil law that will compel others, with themselves, to the observance of Sunday as a day of rest. The efforts of these few have been greatly increased since the adoption of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, which gives enfranchised citizens the privilege of voting upon any measure desired by a certain per cent of the people, and thus enacting it into law independent of the State legislature. The strong pull now is to stir the people to the exercise of their privilege, and thus secure the required number of signatures, by which to have placed on the ballot, to be used at the next general election, a bill to make Sunday a legal day of rest for all, whether they will or not. Political Methods in Religion
A bare majority of votes at the next election will secure this; and its advocates, having entered politics, will be forced to use questionable political methods to win. This must be evident to all who have watched political contests, and noted the derogatory things said and done by various and opposing parties. Under such circumstances calm deliberation is thrown to the winds, and passion is made to rule action. Especially is this the case in religious controversy. Men can be calm under attack for their political principles, and even for their views of social problems; but if necessary they will go to greater lengths in the defense of their religious faith, than for any other known cause. Many men have given up their earthly possessions, and sacrificed family relations, in order to maintain a consistent bearing toward this treasure of their life. Not for Religious Questions
This is why the Initiative privilege—the proper thing when legitimately used—may become the rock of irretrievable social shipwreck throughout the State. Could the Initiative be employed only in behalf of civil affairs, it would prove a boon to government, because it relates the people more closely than otherwise to all public questions. But affairs of religion are private matters, which each individual must answer for personally at the bar of God. With such the public have, by right, nothing to do, because no one has been divinely appointed to vote upon another his religious responsibilities. This is the business of the Holy Spirit alone, which is sent from heaven for that very purpose, and He performs His work, not by public acclamation, but by a quiet, subtile influence upon the individual heart. It goes without saying that when one shall undertake to vote, at some polling-booth, that some one else shall by law be obliged to observe some religious form, because it may seem the right thing for himself to do, he by that act, assumes the work expressly committed to the Holy Spirit. John 16:13. It is more than that; it is a system by which one passes judgment upon another's attitude toward what he thinks would be pleasing to Christ. Such a course is of itself unchristian, because Christ would in no case do that thing. He came to lead men to a higher plane of life, but said, "If any man hear My words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47. If one would labor in behalf of his fellow men's heavenly uplift instead of tutoring them to vote for laws that will gender strife and hatred in society, he would then be following clearly in the path of our common Master. It may be said, and indeed may be entirely true, that the clergy do not gain access to the common people, in a way to help them, since the people do not usually attend church on Sunday. But this evidently is not because of an absent Sunday rest law, forbidding them to work or to attend places of amusement. If visited at their own firesides, and conversed with there, the most of these very men would reveal that they are longing after and earnestly searching for spiritual truth. They will say that they are yearning for a higher and nobler conception of the Deity than is revealed in the average pulpit sermons of the day. It is this that keeps them from the usual Sunday service, and draws them toward new religious movements like "New Thought," "Christian Science," Socialism, and the like. To such gatherings one goes frequently, where he feels that opportunity is afforded for the development of his individuality. The natural result is that while church pews are comparatively empty, the places of these other meetings are at times filled to overflowing. It is absolute folly to work for a Sunday rest law in hope of enlarged congregations. There must be something besides enforced rest to make men better. If those charged with the welfare of humanity would seek out the people personally, and show them that some one cares for their souls, instead of needing an enforced day of rest, they would have constant longing for each rest day to roll around, that they might avail themselves of its benefits. But instead of this, some so strongly urge a legal rest day as to severely denounce all who do not affiliate with their endeavors. They even sit in judgment upon the motives of those who conscientiously observe the Bible Sabbath—the seventh day of the week—and class them with the riffraff of society. This is done to prejudice honest souls against innocent worshipers, and so secure votes for a Sunday rest law, in opposition to the teachings of those who observe the seventh day. Having done this, they next argue that the proposed Sunday legislation will not affect seventh-day keepers, and those who must do certain kinds of work on Sunday, as an exemption clause in the proposed law will excuse them from the penalty provided for wilful transgressors. This is made to appear so plausible that it is hoped to win votes by the representation made. But in all such political moves, the people will need to be wary, and before assenting to them, consider first of all, how well everything has gone along under the present system. Free citizens should consider well that the measure proposed is but an entering wedge to more stringent legislation at an early date. One of these advocates of the legal rest day spoke three times on the subject in Santa Rosa January 7. In his appeal for votes to secure the demanded legal rest day, the speaker, in his effort to allay possible prejudice against his scheme, was reported to have said that the proposed weekly rest law was "not a movement of the 'blue' type, or a puritanical Sabbath observance law," because he "realizes that California is not ready for such legislation as that." Suppose, however, that by dint of perseverance a sentiment should be worked up that would favor the "puritanical" type of Sunday rest, what then? Would not another and stronger call be issued for a vote to secure that? But what is the nature of a puritanical type of rest day? Every one knows where its history has placed it,—among the most rigid of religious requirements. Yet the Santa Rosa speaker declared, if correctly reported, that the reason why such a type of rest day was not now asked for, was because of his realization that the people are not yet ready for it. He was also reported as saying that "our proposed bill will protect the Seventh-day Adventists to their right to rest on Saturday, and work Sunday." But upon what ground does their admitted right to work on Sunday stand? If it is a natural right, then why are not all others entitled to the same right? But this proponent of a legal Sunday rest says that the right of certain church-members to work on Sunday grows out of and depends on their conscientious rest on Saturday, the Biblical rest day. Such exemption, then, would not only be class legislation, which is expressly forbidden by the California State Constitution, but it would also be religious legislation as well, because it rests on religious reasons for support. It is very evident that this overture is made, not for love to the class proposed to be thus exempted, but is held out as a pacifying morsel to those who have tender feelings toward seventh-day keepers, while not affiliated with them in church fellowship. In other words, it is thought that by the