A STRANGE CONCLUSION by John O. Corliss

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Nov 10, 1914

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 41, No. 44.

A STRANGE CONCLUSION

By John O. Corliss

WRITING on the proposed one-day-of-rest-in-seven law appearing on the initiative ballot for November 3, a correspondent of a local paper presents a paragraph as follows: "What is a free government? Answer: It is a government in which every man not only respects his neighbor's opinions, but he is willing to grant to him the (Golden Rule) same rights which he so highly values for himself."

That is divine doctrine, and if lived out among men, would provide the highest type of society, equal to that of the loftiest form of moral ethics. But the next sentence, designed as explanatory, befogs the whole issue. It is this: "How is this secured to the citizen in a democratic form of government? Only one way possible — by submitting to a majority vote."

CAN MAJORITIES ENFORCE THE GOLDEN RULE?

The "Golden Rule" is a law of heaven, and is supposed to be enforced by the direct influence of God's Spirit on the heart. How, then, can a majority of human votes give force to that which only God is supposed to regulate by a heavenly, mysterious influence? Is not this unwarranted interference with the program of heaven? Is it not an attempt to enforce a heavenly rule upon men whether they desire to have it so or not, and that by a majority vote of men many of whom have never themselves yielded to the call of God to give Him the heart? What right have a majority of that sort to prescribe morals for their fellow men? Finally, is that doing by the minority as such majority would have done to them, were they in the place of the minority? No one can truthfully affirm it. On the other hand, such doings are entirely contrary to the Golden Rule, being born, as they are, of sheer selfishness.

A RIGHT TO IT WITHOUT A LAW

In the matter of Sunday rest, every one has the right to it without a law regulating its observance. One may go to church or refrain from such attendance. He may ride or walk for healthful exercise, or sit in the shade and read, — all this without any legal restrictions. What further rights can one ask for, which civil law could promise? One thing alone a civil law along this line could do, and that is, compel the minority to follow the religious course of the majority, simply because that majority wills it. But this is not the prerogative of a human majority, for the reason that Heaven has not vouchsafed that right to one body of men over another, no matter how much more numerous they may be than the others.

The American Declaration of Independence also declares that all men were created free and equal, and have been endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why, then, not be good Americans, and maintain the integrity of that immortal document, by which this nation became free from the arbitrary dictation of potentates, who claim to rule men by divine right? J. O. C.