THE separation bill now under discussion before the French Chamber, must be especially interesting to the readers of the SIGNS, from the fact that it related almost entirely to the matter of religious liberty.
Article 1 declares that "the state does not adopt nor support any form of religious worship," and that "the public establishments of religion now in existence"—which means the Catholic, Protestant, and Hebrew—"are abolished, as are also all expenses from the public treasury applied to the support of these forms of worship."
M. Briand, reporter of the bill, stated that the condition of things contemplated in it "is the only one which safeguards the rights of everybody, whereas the maintenance of an official religion is like throwing the gauntlet in the face of reason and common sense."
Article 8 says that the ministers of the denominations now supported by the state shall receive a life-pension equivalent to one-half or two-thirds, as the case may be, of their present salary.
Article 9 says that all cathedrals, churches, chapels, synagogs, seminaries, and parsonages belonging to the state shall be allowed for use, free of charge, for two years to the churches which are now using them. After this, said edifices and buildings shall be rented for terms of no less than ten years, at a price not exceeding one-tenth of the annual income of such church organizations as shall desire them.
Article 15 says that the cash property of the various churches shall not exceed a sum five times equal to the amount annually spent for their current expenses, with the exception of sums raised for the construction, purchase or repair of necessary church buildings or furniture. This is aimed at the proverbial custom of the Catholic Church to accumulate funds, an example of which is the billion of francs owned by the religious orders in France.
Court-house and Jail, Raton, N. M., where Mr. E. K. Cassell is incarcerated for "Sabbath desecration."
Article 18 says that meetings for regular worship can be opened at any time, provided due notice of the fact shall be given to the proper authorities.
Article 23 pronounces a fine of 16 to 200 francs, and an imprisonment of six days to two months, against "those who by means of threats or violence," "shall cause any one to attend or refrain from attending religious worship, or cause him to support or refrain from supporting religious worship, or cause him to celebrate certain feasts or to observe certain rest days, and, as a consequence, to open or close his shops or stores and to perform or quit certain jobs."
Above article is certainly one of the most remarkable guarantees offered to religious liberty that were ever enacted by any state. It is quite similar to Article 15 of the Belgian Constitution of 1830, which says:
"No one can be compelled to contribute in any way whatsoever to the rites and ceremonies of any religious worship, nor to observe its days of rest."
The French law is more explicit than the Belgian. Not only does it protect man in his observing or not observing of religious rest days against state interference, but also against threats or violence on the part of individuals.
This article of the French bill carries to its farthest logical conclusions the principles of liberty of conscience, as applied to the matter of religious rest-days.
Article 24 enacts the same penalties for those who shall in any way disturb or trouble religious meetings.
Article 26 threatens a fine of 500 to 3,000 francs, and an imprisonment of a month to one year, against the ministers of any religious denomination who shall outrage a public official or influence the votes of any citizen.
Article 27 pronounces from three months to two years' imprisonment against any minister who shall deliver a discourse or allow any printed matter to be distributed in any place of public worship, the plain meaning of which shall be to oppose the execution of laws, or to cause citizens to take up arms against one another.
The last two articles are evidently directed against any possible interference of the Catholic clergy in political matters, thus endeavoring to protect this law against clerical reaction.
An era of complete protection against papal oppression seems ready to open before France with the enactment of this law. May we not hope that this new era shall be improved, by those who know the pure Gospel, in scattering its blessed seed on this very needy soil? Alas! most of the 600,000 French Protestants are even now so weak spiritually that they consider the $320,000 which they expect to lose annually, as too dear a price to pay for untrammeled liberty to perform their God-given mission in behalf of their own countrymen! Where shall the true apostolic, self-denying messengers come from? God knows. May there be no delay.
