THE QUESTION OF A STATE RELIGION IN HAWAII.
By C. D. M. Williams
[The Honolulu Commercial Advertiser gives place to an article by C. D. M. Williams, replying to an editorial on the subject of a moral code for the Territory. Following is a part of the article by Mr. Williams, which very clearly states the principles involved.] THE proper sphere of civil government is to secure to men their rights. This is the fundamental principle upon which the Federal Government of the United States was established. For in the Declaration of Independence we read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." But when it comes to teaching any form of religion, either sectarian or national, by the government, then you take up a line of teaching with which governments have no business and for which this government was never established. You speak of this nation resting "on the unities of all the religions compatible with advanced civilization." This government rests alone upon the rights of the people, and to secure these was it established. But that your articles were for the purpose of establishing some form of religion it is very evident; for you speak of getting some point where Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile, could stand in harmony. If you do not wish to establish a religion, why do you name these different sects and try to find some point in which they are in harmony? They are not out of harmony on any particular essential except their religion. Therefore, from this and other portions of these articles, we are forced to the conclusion that you wish to establish a state religion and teach it in our public schools. Whenever a system of state religion is established, even tho you and I and every Christian may accord in it, then and there the foundation is laid for all state religions that any people whatever wish to have. In 1776 the Presbytery of Hanover, with the Quakers and Baptists, sent a memorial to the general assembly of Virginia in which they said: "Certain it is that every argument for civil liberty gains additional strength when applied to liberty in the concerns of religion; and there is no argument in favor of establishing the Christian religion but may be pleaded with equal propriety for establishing the tenets of Mahomet by those who believe in the Alcoran." "Neither can it be made to appear that the Gospel needs any such civil aid. We rather conceive that when our blessed Saviour declares His kingdom is not of this world, He renounces all dependence upon state power." James Madison and the citizens of the country presented the following: "We, the subscribers, citizens of said commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration a bill establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' conceive that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of law, will be a dangerous abuse of power." You may call this state religion that you wish to establish a man of straw if you wish, but it is the infant cry of a giant which is crystallizing into youth with all his swagger of importance, in the United States in the form of Sunday laws and other religious legislation. And for the terrible crime of not believing and following this state religion, men, women, and children are arrested and cast into the felon's cell in the land that was once known as a land of freedom. It is this same principle a little larger grown in England where every property holder is compelled to contribute to its coffers to support the clergy of this state church. This man of straw, this state religion that you wish to establish here, is the incipiency of the fiendish giant that is now stalking abroad in Russia, and with the state troops protecting the murderers of the Jews because they do not believe in the state religion. I have no idea that you think to carry this to the extremes named, but when the principle is once established, who can tell where it will stop? It is the principle that we oppose. Not that we think that you intend anything but what you think is for the best interest of the state. The true religion of Jesus Christ needs no national power behind it; all the power it needs is the power of the Holy Spirit. It needs no law to compel men to teach it; all it needs is a heart cleansed by the blood of Christ and consecrated to His service, and the burden of souls impelling them to service. All law-enforced teaching in this line will forever be a dead weight upon both teacher and pupil. Then, unless you can by examination test the hearts of the teachers to see that the Holy Spirit is dwelling there, you will be liable to get some hypocritical teaching which will drive all who receive it farther from the source to which you wish to draw them. It is not because religion is not taught in our public schools that infidelity is coming in like a flood; it is because the popular religion of to-day makes no impression on, or change in, the lives of the mass, those who profess it; it is because many religious teachers have left the Bible and taken man-made theology and higher criticism for their standard; it is because they have rejected the Spirit and power of God, and are now seeking the power and laws of the state to enforce their religious dogmas. Let them return to the Word of God and follow its teachings in such a way that the world may know that they have been with Jesus; let them humble themselves before God in such a manner that He can fill them with His Spirit, and you will need no law to have religion taught in the public schools. "Not by an army, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord."