The American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 30 (August 4, 1892) | AdventAI

Your Shelf Your Projects

In this edition

WE had the right to protest against the establishment of a national religion; and we have the right to protest against this national religion now that it is established. We had the right to disagree with the ecclesiastical combination which was bending every effort to secure the establishment of a national religion; and now that they have secured exactly what they have been demanding, we still have the same right to disagree with them. We had the right to dissent from the propositions, the doctrines, and the dogmas of this ecclesiastical combination, before the United States Government took their side of the controversy and championed their cause; and we have the same right still. In other words, we have the divine and everlasting right to dissent from any and every religious organization on earth; and when the Government joins a religious organization, then we have the same right still, and the right extends now to that of refusal of obedience to the Government itself, in so far as it is joined to the religious organization.1 paragraphs
THE one great object of the grand movement to secure governmental recognition of religion was to secure legislation by which Sunday observance could be enforced throughout the Nation, backed up by national power and influence. We protested against their movement, and disputed their right, to use the governmental power for any such purpose. Now that they have secured it, we still dispute their right to use it. We had the right to dissent from their claim of right to use the Government for any such purpose; and we have still the right to dissent from their use of the governmental power for this purpose. We had the right to refuse to keep Sunday when it was required by the churches without the aid of the Government; and we have the same right to refuse to keep it when it is required by the churches with the aid of the Government. In other words, governmental aid of churches in enforcing their dogmas and ordinances can not take away any man's right of dissent from those dogmas and ordinances. The Government does wrong in aiding the churches; and men do right in dissenting from both churches and Government in the things wherein they are allied.1 paragraphs
IN this act of closing the World's Fair on Sunday, Congress has distinctly taken sides in a religious controversy. Congress in this, and the Supreme Court in its decision, have committed the Government of the United States to the decision of a religious controversy. Neither the act of Congress nor the decision of the Supreme Court, will convince the Jew or the Christian who observes the seventh day, that Sunday should be observed. No <page-break/> more will the National Reformers be able to convince these with the aid of the power which these acts give, to inflict pains and penalties upon dissenters. We disagreed with the National Reformers before; we disagree with them now. We denied before that Sunday should be observed; we deny now that it should be observed. We refused before to keep Sunday; we refuse now to keep Sunday. We rejected before, the National Reform claim of right to use the governmental power to compel anybody to keep Sunday; and although they have secured the use of the power, we reject now their right to use it.Alonzo T. Jones7 paragraphs
It was lack of power to convince the people that they ought to keep Sunday as the Sabbath, that caused the churches to demand the governmental power to aid in compelling the people to do this. Lacking the power to persuade the people, the churches resorted to power to compel the people to observe the ordinance of the Church. The religious controversy, as to whether Sunday is a sacred day or not, has been going on in the United States longer than has the movement to secure the recognition or declaration of the national Government that it is. Those who demand that Sunday shall be observed have admitted over and over again that there is no divine command for it. And the effort of these churches to secure the alliance and aid of the Government was only an effort to get the national Government to take their side of this controversy. They now have the Government committed to this. In the effort to gain this they have been boastful, and arrogant, and insolent, enough, in all conscience, as has been abundantly shown by their own words all these years. If any one is inclined to think they will be any less so, now that they have their wish, then the writer only wishes that that one could have sat where he did, in the gallery of the House, when the final vote was taken by which Congress committed the Government to their side of the controversy, and could have seen and heard their exultation.1 paragraphs
WE knew it was coming. We knew it would be done. And this is why we so continuously and so earnestly protested, and warned the people, against it. We knew not exactly how this thing would be done; we only knew that it would be done; but we knew enough about the evil thing, to be able to recognize it when it should be done, by whatever way it might be done. We have protested against the doing of this great evil; and now we protest against the thing since it is done. We protest against the evil principle itself, and we protest and shall continue to protest against any and all the consequences of the principle.1 paragraphs
ALL of this is now done by the United States Supreme Court decision of February 29, 1892, and by Congress, in the act closing the World's Fair on Sunday. In these two governmental actions there lies wrapped up, and only waiting for swift development, all that THE SENTINEL has been telling about, and warning against, these seven years.1 paragraphs
THE AMERICAN SENTINEL is in the seventh year of its publication. From the first number that was ever issued, it has been telling the people that in the national Government, though forbidden by the Constitution, there would be established a national religion; and that there would be national Sunday legislation at the demand of the churches.1 paragraphs
Some Scraps of New England History.[^1]10 paragraphs
The Evil Precedent is Established.17 paragraphs
The Church in Politics.E. J. HIBBARD8 paragraphs
“The American Sabbath.”7 paragraphs
Look on This, and Then on This.9 paragraphs
The “Civil Sabbath” vs. Religion.7 paragraphs
Great Is the American Sunday.4 paragraphs
“A Breath of the Puritan.”Francis Hope8 paragraphs
It Has Spoken.L. A. S.4 paragraphs
Disgraceful Sunday Laws.8 paragraphs
All this and More.4 paragraphs
NATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ASSOCIATION.23 paragraphs
A Fulfillment of Prophetic Word.4 paragraphs
THE San Francisco Examiner gives a column and a half to short interviews with clergymen of the city on the subject of the Sunday closing of the Fair. One declared that “of course the clergy is a unit on this proposition;” and so they would have been but for the sensible utterances of Rev. C. I. Miel, editor of the Pacific Churchman, who said:—2 paragraphs
The authorities of San Jose, Cal., are enforcing their new Sunday closing law.1 paragraphs
HEALTH FOODS.17 paragraphs
SMITH'S DICTIONARY of the BIBLE.7 paragraphs
FOUND AT LAST!7 paragraphs
THE CHRISTIAN'S SECRET OF A HAPPY LIFE.5 paragraphs
SMITH'S10 paragraphs
The difference then between the idolaters of India and of Tennessee is that the one worship the works of their hands and the other the creations of their minds. It is as true of the one as it is of the other that they neither know nor understand the true God and the all-reaching justice of his eternal law. Their eyes are shut that they can not see the difference between sin and righteousness, legalized injustice and divine equity. Their hearts are hardened against their fellow-citizens who do not bow down and worship the god which they have made, the image which they have set up. The image which the King of Babylon made, on the plain of Dura, was no more an idol than is this self-made fiction of pseudo-sacredness which the State of Tennessee puts in its statute books, and to which it requires that men shall bow. The bowing to the image of brass was idolatry; the bowing to the fiction of law would be no less idolatry.1 paragraphs
IN the two leading speeches in the United States Senate (those by Hawley and Hiscock), in favor of Sunday closing of the World's Fair, the chief of all the arguments used was that the churches demanded it and it should be granted, because it was “not wise statesmanship” to disregard the demands of so large a number of religious people. This is precisely the doctrine enunciated by United States District Judge Hammond. It may, therefore, now be considered as the established doctrine of the Government of the United States. Consequently, all that now remains, is for the churches to demand a thing, and they will surely get it; for they are officially notified that it is “not wise statesmanship” to disregard their demands. Thus, in this Sunday legislation, there is fully established the doctrine of Church domination of the civil power, and using it for whatever purpose she chooses.2 paragraphs
COMMENTING upon the imprisonment of Adventists in Tennessee, a correspondent of the Elmira Spectator, a Missouri paper, says: “How long will it be before the State of Tennessee will be ready to burn men at the stake? She imprisons them now from forty-five to ninety days simply because they happen to differ with a set of intolerant religious bigots in regard to which day of the week should be observed as the Sabbath. She has exalted herself above the God of heaven and demands that men educate their consciences by the laws of the State in preference to the law of the God that created them. Rome made the same demand under similar pressure—religious intolerance; but some men went to the stake as these men went to prison rather than violate their consciences in regard to the law of God. And so went the three Hebrew children into the fiery furnace, and Daniel into the lion’s den. When men posing as ministers of the gospel of Christ ask for the civil power to enforce any religious institution, we may know that they have not the spirit of Christ, the gentle Shepherd, but are actuated by the same evil spirit that led the Jews to persecute the prophets, crucify the Saviour, and put to death his disciples.”1 paragraphs
Now that Congress has committed itself and the Government to the fallacy and the falsehood of Sunday sacredness, the next thing in order will be for it to commit itself to that other widespread fallacy and falsehood—the immortality of the soul. Nor need we expect it to stop there. And, indeed, why should we? Having entered the field of religious controversy, and taken sides in one point of dogma, why not go the whole course? Nor is it sufficient to ask, Why shall it not do it? the real question is now, How can it possibly keep from doing it?1 paragraphs
Circuit Judge Swiggart, of Tennessee, in ordering the Seventh-day Adventists to prison, also ordered that they, “educate their consciences by the laws of Tennessee.” And this in the face of the Constitution of Tennessee which plainly declares that “no human authority can in any case whatever interfere with or control the rights of conscience”! And thus again, he who sits to judge men “according to the law,” commands these same men “contrary to the law.” See the original instance in Acts 23:1-3.1 paragraphs
ARE the civil laws of Tennessee the moral enactments of God, that men shall educate their consciences by them? Does God judge of the righteousness of the citizens of Tennessee by the measure of their subjection to Tennessee statutes, and that alone? If the Tennessee statutes are the educational standards for the consciences of the citizens of that State, who made the laws of Tennessee? The State, or the citizens of the State, or Jehovah? If the State made the laws, and the citizens are the State, then the citizens have established the standard for their own consciences, and are a law unto themselves,—their own God. If the State, which is a corporate body of their creation, can make laws to which their consciences must be educated, then the State is their God, and they are themselves above it, for they have made it.1 paragraphs
UNITED STATES senators have declared it to be “not wise statesmanship” to disregard the demands of the churches for legislation deciding a religious controversy as to whether Sunday is the Sabbath, or not. Now why shall not this principle apply in other cases? Why shall not the Spiritualists now work up some issue by which they can demand legislation which will decide the question as to whether or not people are alive when they are dead? There are as many Spiritualists as there are church members; and, of course, it would not be “wise statesmanship” to disregard their demands. Besides this, they would have the unanimous and hearty support of all “the evangelical churches” in the country. And as Congress has granted the demands of the churches alone on this Sunday-Sabbath question, how much more would the same body grant the demands of the same ones over again with largely increased numbers with them. For such would only be “wise statesmanship,” according to the latest definition of the term. What queer ideas these gentlemen have of what statesmanship is! The truth is that it is not statesmanship at all. It is sheer demagogism; and that of the worst sort. These gentlemen should be told that statesmanship does not pander to the selfish and arbitrary demands of classes; it creates sound and healthy public opinion.1 paragraphs
THE influence of this religious demagogism in the Congress of the United States has been shown during this session in the passage of the proviso for the Sunday closing of the World's Fair; in the confirmation of an ordinance for the punishment of profanity in the District of Columbia; and by a favorable decision upon the Sunday ice bill for the District by the House and District Committee of the Senate. The Supreme Court has decreed this to be a Christian Nation. Will the citizens of the United States be invested with natural immortality by decree of the Court or by act of Congress.1 paragraphs