Why We Oppose Religious Legislation
By Charles P. Whitford
Civil government was ordained of God to protect men in the enjoyment of their rights. Freedom of conscience in religious matters is one of these rights. Religious legislation deprives individuals of this God-given right. All true religious service must spring from the heart and be performed in love; but when religion becomes an affair of law, it ceases to be a service of love. Religion is a matter of faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him." "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." No amount of religious legislation can make men believe God. "God is a Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." No amount of religious legislation can make men worship in spirit and in truth. Where enactments concerning matters pertaining to our duty to God begin, there moral suasion ends. The darkest pages of history are those recording the results of the invasion of the civil power into the realm of conscience. Religious legislation may make men act religious; but the religion of such men is vain, if they can not say as did the apostle Paul: "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." To compel a man to pray, is to make him act the part of a hypocrite, and a hypocrite in God's sight is worse than an open sinner. We enter our most emphatic protest against civil government engaging in a work that will make hypocrites. To compel a man to observe a day for the Sabbath, which he does not believe is the Sabbath, is to compel him to commit sin; for we read in the Bible, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Civil government has the same right to compel men to be baptized, or partake of the Lord's Supper, as it has to compel them to keep the Sabbath. To compel men to conform to any religious rite or ceremony in which they have no faith, is to outrage the conscience. "If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing the world."—John Stuart Mill. Religious legislation is class legislation. It favors a class of citizens in matters of religion. It is therefore a respecter of persons. But why should civil government be a respecter of persons? "God is no respecter of persons." It is wrong for civil government to be a respecter of persons. It is contrary to every principle of good government. It is contrary to the United States Constitution, which declares, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Religious legislation robs men of their dearest and most sacred rights, and is therefore wrong. The object of the writer in presenting the above thoughts, is to engage the serious attention of the citizens of our state to the question, Is it right for civil government to legislate on religious questions?