BELOW we present a few extracts from our contemporaries in different parts of this State relative to the proposed amendment to the Constitution of California. It will be seen that there are editors who still see clearly what religious liberty means. (The bold-face type is ours.)
From the News-Letter and Advertiser, of Jan. 19, 1907, a prominent weekly of San Francisco:
"California never was a fit State for exploitation by the religious intolerant, and it is with regret that we note that a bill is proposed to enforce Sunday closing. It is proposed, by the enactment of this iniquitous measure, to provide a ready-made day of devotion, regardless of the beliefs of the community, or of the individuals forming the community. Such a law comes under the head of sumptuary legislation, and it is an infringement of individual rights! Such a law has no place in a liberty-loving, orderly community. Such a law belongs to the Dark Ages, and not to the present. The Sabbath is wholly a religious institution, and there is much doubt whether the majority of the people of the State of California are religiously inclined at all, and therefore such a law would be a terrible imposition of the religious minority on the irreligious majority. The Constitution of the United States provides for the free exercise and profession of religious worship, and without discrimination or preference. If a Mohammedan within our borders desires to do honor to the Deity on a Wednesday or a Friday, that is his business, and it shall not be prevented by law, and if the said Mohammedan attempt to make the rest of the community observe the same peculiar notion of the proper day for the Sabbath, such attempt on his part shall be construed as an illegal act and an infraction of the rights of the community. The set of men who are trying to enact Connecticut blue laws in modern California are enemies to the State. The bill should be buried. If it is carried no one will observe it. Do not burden the statute books with more useless laws."
From St. Helena's Leading Paper, the "Sentinel" of Jan. 10, 1907.
"The 'Sentinel' takes the stand that so long as an individual is honest in his religious convictions and does not interfere with the rights of others, the State should not pass laws inimical to his method of worship. With this view, it is hard to see why a large class of people should be compelled by law to observe any religious ceremonies, whether it be the keeping of the Sabbath on Sunday, Saturday, or any other day. Compulsory religion has never yet been successful for any considerable length of time, and, as the SIGNS OF THE TIMES aptly remarks, 'Sabbath-keeping is a religious matter.' All religions either do good or disappear, and no laws or set of laws can long maintain any religious doctrines that would not endure without the aid of such laws. Even the Christian religion was at one time unlawful, and the Founder Himself was crucified as a malefactor. Yet Christianity thrived in spite of the law, and still exists as a great and good religion, notwithstanding the many hypocrites that infest it. With the immaterial differences between the various sects of Christians, the State should not interfere, and the particular day on which the Sabbath is observed is only a form of religious belief. If either is right, it will ultimately prevail, laws or no laws."
(To Be Continued.)
M. Georges Python, head of the Fribourg Government. One of the speakers at the Catholic Congress.
