The Work in Effect of the "Christian Statesman"—Shall We Maintain the Separation of Church and State?
By W. F. MARTIN
THERE lies before me at this writing a copy of a magazine called the Christian Statesman. It is printed at Pittsburgh, and is issued under the auspices of the National Reform Association. On its editorial staff and among its contributors are a number of men who affix to their names such titles as LL. D., D. D., Ph. D., etc. Some of these men are well-known speakers and writers in the religious world. On the inside front cover of the magazine is to be found what we take to be a declaration of principles, setting forth the plan and scope of work of the National Reform Association and the purpose of the magazine. This reads as follows:
"The Christian Statesman is a monthly magazine of forty-eight pages, designed to promote needed reforms in the action of the government touching the Sabbath, the institution of the family, the religious element in education, the oath, and public morality as affected by the liquor traffic and other kindred evils; and to secure such an amendment to the constitution of the United States as will declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and to indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land."
REGULATING A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
According to this, if the thing considered of first importance is that placed at the head of the list, the first energy is to be expended in securing the passage by the government of a law regulating the observance of the Sabbath, thus securing governmental action on this question. The true American will naturally stop to wonder what this involves, why the government should act or legislate on the Sabbath.
The Sabbath is strictly a religious institution. It is a matter that pertains to God and not to Caesar. If the government should, through its lawmaking branch, act regarding the Sabbath, it would be legislating on a religious establishment. That would be opposed to the national constitution. That document says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
One can but wonder how far these noted divines are in harmony with this most truly American feature of our constitution. Jefferson, an American of Americans, said, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Boston Photo News Co.
CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
The Sabbath, whether regarded as occurring on the seventh or on the first day, is altogether an establishment of religion. The idea involved in the first amendment is strictly American. It has been called America's gift to the philosophy of government. A Sabbath law would be in square contradiction to the constitution, and hence un-American. We are not inclined to question the intended loyalty of the LL. D.'s, Ph. D.'s, and D. D.'s who champion the policy of the Christian Statesman; but we do most emphatically say that their intentions are, knowingly or unknowingly, in direct opposition to the religious liberty guaranteed by the general government.
Aside from the general principle of the thing, the people of the government are not a unit as to which day constitutes the true Sabbath. The body of the people, to a greater or less degree, regard Sunday, the first day, as sacred, or to say the least, observe it after a fashion. A respectable and growing minority, however, observe with a commendable strictness the seventh day. For the general government to step in, and by a legislative act favor either one of these classes, would not be treating all its citizens with equality. Not only this, but by thus favoring one sect above another, the government would repudiate its avowed principle of civil and religious liberty. Apropos to this, note the following:
"The legislatures have not been left at liberty to effect a union of church and state, or to establish preferences by law in favor of any one religious persuasion or mode of worship. There is not complete religious liberty where any one sect is favored by the state and given an advantage by law over other sects. Whatever establishes a distinction against one class or sect is, to the extent to which the distinction operates unfavorably, a persecution, and if based on religious grounds, a religious persecution. The extent of the discrimination is not material to the principle; it is enough that it creates an inequality of right or privilege."—"Cooley on Constitutional Limitations," fifth edition, page 580.
We would humbly recommend a careful study of this paragraph to the men who compose the editorial staff of the Christian Statesman. Americans can not be too jealous of the rights purchased by blood and sealed to them by patriotism and self-sacrifice.
