“A TEST,” says the *Press*, “is to be made in Erie County of the legal rights of
Page 1
The American Sentinel
February 12, 1891
Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · February 12, 1891
“A TEST,” says the Press, “is to be made in Erie County of the legal rights of doctors to advertise. The claim is set up that under an old statute they will thereby forfeit their diplomas. If such a law exists it is not in keeping with the spirit of the age. The physician whose study and experience have made him a specialist in any branch of surgical or medical science, so that he is able to treat the maladies of his fellow-men with greater skill than his fellow-physicians, should not be compelled by law to hide his light under a bushel. If he chooses to do so under the code of medical ethics, that is a matter for his own conscience. But the law should not be utilized to compel him not to advertise any more than to compel him to advertise. This is a free country.”
With such laws as this referred to by the Press, and with some that are proposed, what may we not expect? Is it not about time to call a halt and allow to the individual some freedom of choice, some chance to exercise private judgment, without violating a statute of the State?
A Brief Review.
By C. P. B.
Indifference can not but be criminal, when it is conversant about objects which are so far from being of an indifferent nature, that they are of the highest importance.—Addison.
It was with a kiss that Judas betrayed his divine Master; and we should be admonished, no matter what our faith may be, that the rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of holiness.—Richard M. Johnson.
RELIGIOUS liberty has been so long enjoyed in this country that most people think that it never can be otherwise. But in this very sense of security lurks a serious danger. “It is the unexpected that happens.” Signs are not wanting, to indicate to those who have been watching the current of events, that unless the people awake to the danger a large share of their boasted liberty may slip from their grasp ere they are aware that their hold upon it is being loosened in the least. Those who have carefully noted the changes that have taken place during the past twenty years, must admit that not the least among them has been the change in public sentiment touching the subject of governmental interference in matters if not directly religious, at least closely akin to religion. The causes which have led to this change are manifold; but by far the greater part of the change is due to persistent organized effort to bring about in this Nation an alliance between religion and the State.
One agency which has been at work in this country to bring about the indicated change, is the National Reform Association, which was organized nearly twenty-seven years ago. Its avowed object is to secure such a change in the Constitution of the United States as will “place all our Christian laws, institutions, and usages on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” This is their own language, and to make this change in the Constitution would be, as they themselves admit, to recognize Christianity as the true religion, and to make the Bible the basis of all civil legislation. This they say would not be a union of Church and State, but only a union of religion and the State. But this is making a distinction where there is no real difference, as we have many times shown in these columns. We will, however, briefly restate some of the arguments which show that this would be a virtual union of Church and State.
It is certain that if Christianity is to be recognized as the true religion, somebody must define what Christianity is. That definition must be that which somebody believes, and that which is believed is a creed; for the simplest definition of creed is “that which is believed.” It matters not whether there be one article or forty articles in a creed, it is a creed nevertheless. This is illustrated in the case of the Unitarians, who have reduced their creed to a single article of faith.
Neither does it alter the case if those who unite in forming this creed should differ upon many points not defined in the creed. This again is illustrated by the fact that in almost all churches we find a multitude of various opinions held upon what are called minor points, or “non-essentials.” Churches are formed, at least nowadays, by people getting together and uniting on a few doctrines which they term “essentials.” And just so with those who favor official recognition of Christianity; should they be successful they would unite upon what they would deem to be a few “essential” points upon which the majority could agree, and that would of necessity be the established religion of the United States. What degree of toleration50would be granted to dissenters would probably be determined by circumstances.
But we will suppose, and indeed it will probably be claimed by many, that the matter would not be carried so far as we have indicated. Possibly not at first. But suppose it is only carried so far as to make the Scriptures, or the law of God, the fundamental law of the land, would the case then be very much different? It would not, for in that event some authority, either the courts as at present constituted, or some tribunal created for that express purpose, would have to decide when legislation had been modeled in accordance with the law of God. This would be absolutely necessary from the fact that even the most ultra National Reformers would not wish to have enforced all the laws contained in the Bible. It is held by everybody that many of these statutes were only for the Jews. Hence if the Bible were to be the fundamental law of the land, the courts, or the tribunal created for that purpose, would have to decide what principles of the Bible should be followed in molding our legislation; and then when laws had been passed, if they were disputed, some tribunal would have to decide whether or not these laws were in accordance with the law of God. This the National Reformers have themselves declared they would not permit the courts to do, but that the churches would decide such questions, and then the civil Government would enforce their decisions.
But it may be objected that the National Reformers are comparatively few in numbers, that their views are radical and ultra, and can never be adopted in this country. Let us examine that proposition a little. Twenty-seven years ago, when the National Reform Association was first organized, it was few in numbers and exerted very little influence. Since that time it has grown both in membership and in influence, until now it numbers among its many vice-presidents, senators, governors of States, judges of supreme courts, editors of newspapers, judges of district courts, presidents of colleges, besides many other leading men. But more than all this, it now has several powerful allies which it did not have five years ago, viz., the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Prohibition party, and the American Sabbath Union, while no inconsiderable part of the Farmers’ Alliance is looking in the same direction, as is indicated by action taken in the Osceola meeting.
Perhaps none of these organizations are at present in favor of going quite as far as are the National Reformers themselves, but they advocate the same principles, and whether they realize it or not, when once started on the National Reform road it will be impossible for them to stop short of the logical conclusion, without repudiating the very principles which they now hold dear. The case of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union will illustrate this. They have declared that it is their object to make Christ “this world’s king,” “king of its courts, its camps, its politics,” and that his will is to govern all things. That is simply putting into a little more poetical language the declaration of the National Reformers themselves, that the Bible shall be the fundamental law of the land, and everything that logically follows such a course as that would follow the other.
Again, many will object to classing the Prohibition party with the National Reformers, but as we regard it, that is where they belong. They have repeatedly declared in their platforms, both State and national, in favor of Sabbath legislation, and for such a recognition of religion as would make it necessary for our courts to decide religious questions. They have not gone so far, it is true, as either of the other organizations referred to, but they are in a fair way, sooner or later, to reach the same conclusion. In fact, they must do it or repudiate past utterances.
As to the American Sabbath Union, so called, it is so closely identified with the National Reform Association that none can deny that its tendency is in the same direction. It advocates governmental interference in matters of religion; and altogether the organizations named form a gigantic religious combination to effect a political object; and this, a committee of the United States Senate declared in 1828 was dangerous. The question then up for consideration was a petition to suspend the carrying of the mails on Sunday. The committee in reporting on that petition said:—
Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are, in the opinion of the committee, always dangerous. This first effort of the kind calls for the establishment of a principle which, in the opinion of the committee, would lay the foundation for dangerous innovations upon the spirit of the Constitution, and upon the religious rights of the citizen. If admitted, it may be justly apprehended that the future measures of the Government will be strongly marked, if not eventually controlled, by the same influence.
This was true then; it is none the less true now.
But this is not all; if it were, the danger would be small indeed compared with what it really is. It may be thought by some that if even Protestant sects could unite to carry out a scheme of this kind, it would be impossible for Protestants and Catholics to unite in it. So it seemed a few years ago, but times change, and people with them, and religious bigotry as well as politics makes strange bedfellows. In an article in the Christian Statesman of August 31, 1881, Rev. Sylvester Scovel, writing of the desirability of uniting with Roman Catholics for the purpose of securing so-called National Reform, said:—
We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, and the time has not yet come when the Roman Church will consent to strike hands with other churches, as such; but the time has come to make repeated advances, and gladly to accept co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it. It is one of the necessities of the situation.
The same sentiment was expressed by the Christian Statesman, December 11, 1884, in these words: “Whenever they [the Catholics] are willing to co-operate in resisting the progress of political atheism, we will gladly join hands with them.” This shows what Protestants are willing to do. But let us see how the Catholics look at this. We have their answer given in the Baltimore Congress of 1889. In the platform adopted by that Congress, the Catholics say:—
There are many Christian issues in which the Catholics could come together with non-Catholics and shape civil legislation for the public good. In spite of rebuff and injustice, and overreaching zealotry, we should seek an alliance with the non-Catholics for proper Sunday observance.
When two parties are so earnestly seeking each other, there can be no question but that they will soon come together. For the purpose of “resisting political atheism,” by which they mean the secular theory of government, which has been, thus far, the prevailing one in this country, the Catholics and Protestants, so called, are now virtually one; for they have the same object in view. And that the possibility of such a union is not an “iridescent dream,” but a stern reality is demonstrated by the fact stated in the January number of Our Day, namely, that in the recent Sunday-law campaign in Los Angeles, California, “the entire Catholic clergy was brought into co-operation,” with the Rev. Edward Thompson, a Protestant minister, and Pacific Coast Secretary of American Sabbath Union, and with other Protestants associated with him. If in 1828 there was danger in a combination formed by some sixty thousand Protestants to accomplish a political object, viz., the discontinuance of mails on Sunday, how much greater is the danger when over eight million Catholics unite with an equal if not larger number of Protestants, to demand, not only the discontinuance of the mails on Sunday, but that the Constitution of the Nation shall be molded “according to the principles of the church.”
There is danger; and not the least danger lies, as before intimated, in the fact of the indifference of those who, while not in sympathy with this National Reform scheme, do not actively oppose it, and think that it can never amount to anything. Americans would do well to remember that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” C. P. B.
“GIVE us a day of rest!” cry the agitators. “Take a day of rest,” say we.—Colorado Graphic.
“THE sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.”
THE conclusion is inevitable that the line cannot be too strongly drawn between Church and State. If a solemn act of legislation shall, in one point, define the law of God, or point out to the citizen one religious duty, it may with equal propriety, proceed to define every part of divine revelation, and enforce every religious obligation, even to the forms and ceremonies of worship, the endowment of the Church and the support of the clergy.—Col. Richard M. Johnson.
“RELIGION is a terrible arm when directed by the passions.”
“Sunday Labor.”
By G. E. Fifield
“THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS TO BE PETITIONED TO PROTECT THE BAKERS FROM IT.”
The above is the heading of an article we clip from the Boston Herald, of Monday, the 19th ult. A portion of the article reads as follows:—
The bakers of Boston affiliated with the Knights of Labor, took possession of District Assembly No. 30, Knights of Labor, yesterday afternoon, and urged that body to petition the Legislature to enact a law abolishing Sunday work in all bake-shops.
It was claimed that Sunday work was unnecessary, and that it had a demoralizing effect upon the craft; that its abolishment would tend to create thrift, industry, and more temperate habits among the bakers. The Assembly unanimously voted to comply with the request of the bakers, and to instruct its delegates to the State Assembly, to urge that body to take up the bakers’ cause.
Here, indeed, would be something laughable in the extreme, if it were not, when viewed in the light of history, so prophetic of coming evil. It seems that the bakers of Boston are desirous of stopping work on Sunday, but for some reason they do not dare to do so until they can induce the Legislature of the State to compel them to do the very thing they declare they want to do. So they desecrate the sacred day by holding a business meeting to urge the Knights of Labor to petition the Legislature to make a law to prohibit them from desecrating it. Well, well, can it be that these bakers who live under the very shadow of “Bunker’s shaft of gray” have forgotten so entirely their rights as American citizens?
The very Declaration of Independence, which was the beginning of our national existence, declares that “all men are created free and equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
What is meant by liberty, which is here declared to be an inalienable right? What but the right of every man to his freedom, and the use of his time as he sees fit, limited only by the rights of others?
It is the inalienable right of every one of these men to stop working when they please, and to work when they please, provided they do not interfere with others’ rights.
When they petition the Legislature to make laws compelling them to stop work on Sunday or on any other day, they petition the Legislature to take away their inalienable rights. They petition the Legislature to do what no legislature on earth has the right or power to do; for no human power can in reality take away a right which God has given, and which is therefore inalienable. “Despotic power may invade these rights, but justice still confirms them.”
It has always been the tendency of legislative bodies to be aggressive, and infringe on the rights of the people; hence they have had to be checked by Constitutions, and all sorts of limitations. When, therefore, the people come to humbly begto be enslaved, and to fairly plead that their most sacred right shall be infringed upon, will it be strange if the Government accommodates them sooner or later, and makes them slaves indeed? One is reminded by all these things, of the time when the Roman people became incapable of self-government and so looked more to the representative power for everything. Thus was built up a paternal government, and finally, an absolute despotism. “Can it be that we too are in the last days of the Republic, as then was Rome?”
Sure it is, that when any considerable proportion of the citizens of a nation, come to request, or even to peaceably permit their inherent rights to be infringed, those rights will not long remain secure.
G. E. FIFIELD.
“The Nine Demands of Liberalism.”
By Editor
WE have recently had occasion to pass some friendly criticisms upon the American Secular Union. And now we are asked by a Southern correspondent to give our views of the “Nine Demands of Liberalism,” which are as follows:—
1. We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall be no longer exempt from just taxation.
2. We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in State Legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all other institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued.
3. We demand that all public appropriations for educational and charitable institutions of a sectarian character shall cease.
4. We demand that all religious services now sustained by the Government shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible in the public schools, whether ostensibly as a text-book or avowedly as a book of religious worship, shall be prohibited.
5. We demand that the appointment, by the President of the United States, or by the governors of the various States, of all religious festivals and fasts shall wholly cease.
6. We demand that the judicial oath in the courts, and in all other departments of the Government, shall be abolished, and that simple affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be established in its stead.
7. We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.
8. We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of “Christian” morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of natural morality, equal rights and impartial liberty.
9. We demand that not only in the Constitution of the United States and of the several States, but also in the practical administration of the same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity or any other special religion; that our entire political system shall be founded and administered on a purely secular basis; and that whatever changes shall prove necessary to this end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made.
These are the original “Nine Demands of Liberalism,” and are almost identical with the demands of the American Secular Union. But why they should be the demands of Liberals more than the demands of Christians is not exactly clear, for with little exception they are, in our opinion, perfectly proper and just, though in some respects scarcely strong enough.
The first demand is eminently just. We sincerely wish that everywhere church property might be speedily subjected to its just share of taxation. This is now true of all church property in California, and recently the Baptists have shown a disposition, in several quarters, to favor such taxation. Indeed, one Baptist congregation in Canada has asked that its property might be taxed the same as other property. We do not see how anybody can deny the justice and the propriety of this demand, come from whatever source it may.
The second demand is likewise a righteous one. The employment of chaplains by the State, is a relic of the union of Church and State. So far at least as the Federal Government is concerned, it is in violation of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” In the States, it is, to say the least, subversive of the fundamental principles of American institutions; and is everywhere contrary to the principles taught by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Number three is correct in its intent, but is not broad enough. The word “religious” ought to be in it in place of the word “sectarian,” so that it would read, “We demand that all public appropriations for educational and charitable institutions of a religious character shall cease.” This, we understand, is what the demand really means. If this is not what it means, we know that it is what it ought to mean. The religious sects are now playing such casuistical tricks with the word “sectarian” that under cover of it they can obtain all the religious instruction they demand at public expense.
Number four is in harmony with number three, and is perfectly just. The Government should know neither religion nor irreligion. Civil government should be purely secular.
Number five is a proper demand, and especially so as regards the President of the United States. The position of Jefferson, and the opinion of Madison on this question is the true doctrine of the principles and the Constitution of the national Government. It would have been well for the country, and especially for the people, if all the Presidents of the United States had firmly maintained the position so ably announced and maintained by Jefferson. It is as follows:—
I consider the Government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision, that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that, also, which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise,52or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. . . . Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.
Number six as it reads, demands too much. It demands the unconditional abolition of the judicial oath. But those who believe in the propriety of the judicial oath, and are willing to take it, have as much right to use it as those who do not believe in it have merely to affirm. To demand that those who believe in the judicial oath shall not have the privilege of acting accordingly, and to ask that they shall submit to the demands of those who do not believe in it, is to go to the same extreme in this direction, that those have already gone in the other direction who seek to force their views of the judicial oath upon those who do not believe it. What is referred to here as the judicial oath, is, in fact, the religious oath which is established in many of the States, and which is forced upon those who do not believe in the religious forms or solemnities, or even the Deity, contemplated in the oath.
It is well known that in certain States in the Union no man can be a competent witness in court, who will not take an oath upon the sacredness of the Bible as the word of God, and before the God, whose word the Bible is. Now there are a good many people in all the States who do not believe at all in the sacredness of the Bible, and do not believe in God. Now to compel such a man to take such an oath is really to destroy his value as a witness. An oath, to be of any value whatever, must be taken by something that the person respects as much or more than he does himself or his own word. To require, therefore, to take an oath upon that which he respects less than he does himself or his own word, is to lessen the value of his testimony. When any State compels any man who does not believe either in God or the Bible to take an oath by them both, it requires him publicly and sacredly to profess to believe what he does not believe, and compels him really to commit perjury. In other words, when any State or any Court compels such men to take such an oath it compels them to commit perjury in order to be admitted as competent witnesses. It compels them to commit perjury as an evidence that they will not commit perjury. It compels them publicly to profess a lie as evidence that they will tell the truth. Could anything be more incongruous, or more subversive of civil polity?
This demand, therefore, is eminently just, in behalf of those who do not believe in the religious judicial oath. All that any Court may properly require of any man is such a pledge as is held in greatest respect and as most binding upon the conscience of the person taking it, whether that pledge be by oath or affirmation, or a simple promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We are of the opinion that such is the real intent of this demand, but as the demand is worded it calls for more than that, and therefore goes too far. Those who believe in the religious oath have just as much right to use it as those who do not believe in it have not to use it.
The seventh demand as it is worded is not strong enough. It demands that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, shall be repealed. The demand ought to be that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday, or any other day, in any way or to any extent whatever, as the Sabbath or anything else, shall be repealed. By this we would not be understood to deny the right of the State to set apart certain days as legal holidays. This is perfectly legitimate. But for any Government to forbid common labor or business upon any day is quite another thing, and is a most unwarranted abuse of power.
The eighth demand is just and good, with the exception of “the requirements of natural morality.” The requirements of natural morality are, and have always been, a most uncertain and a most dangerous standard by which to hope for civil security. Natural morality is only the natural outgrowth of the natural heart, which is enmity against the highest moral authority and not subject to the highest moral law; therefore, where the majority of a people conform only to the requirements of natural morality, there is no such thing and there can be no such thing, as assured civil security. If, by the phrase, “natural morality” this demand means civility, and if it would then say what it means, then the demand taken altogether would be a perfectly proper and just one. The demand should read thus: “We demand that all the laws looking to the enforcement of Christian morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of civility, equal rights, and impartial liberty.” Then it would demand just what ought to be.
The ninth demand is perfectly sound, entirely just, and well stated, and in it we can see no room for improvement.
With the changes which we have suggested, the nine demands simply express what ought to be in this Government, and in every other civil Government on earth. With the changes suggested, these demands express precisely what THE AMERICAN SENTINEL has always advocated, and always expects to advocate. We know that some people will lift up their hands and cry, “O, you stand with the infidels!” to which we quietly reply, Not at all; we stand with the Christians. And when infidels happen to stand there too, then they stand with the Christians, and are to be respected in paying such tribute to Christian principles. THE SENTINEL always has advocated these things, and expects always to advocate them, because it is a Christian paper devoted to Christian principles; and with the changes suggested, these nine demands are in strict accordance with Christian principles.
This is our opinion of the “Nine Demands of Liberalism.”
A Review of the Address of the Woman’s Moral and Educational Union to the Chicago Board of Education.
By A. F. Ballenger
It is by no means a pleasant task to criticise a document, emanating from a body of women, who, one believes, are actuated by the purest of motives.
But inasmuch as the principles enunciated in the late Address of the Woman’s Moral and Educational Union, to the Chicago Board of Education, are, in the mind of the writer, fundamentally wrong, and in direct opposition to the principles of our free Government, it becomes a duty to point out some of the vital errors contained in the document.
After commending the faithfulness with which the Board of Education had performed its duties, in which we heartily join, the Address makes known its request to the Board in the following words:—
We wish to have portions of the Holy Bible read at the opening exercises of all departments of the public schools of Chicago.
The reason for asking for portions of the Holy Bible to be read, instead of the Bible as a whole, is, as explained to the writer, that since the patrons of the schools, include a large number of Catholics and Jews, who differ materially in regard to what constitutes the Holy Bible, it was decided that the reading of only portions of the Bible be petitioned for, with the expectation that scriptural selections would be made upon which all could agree.
A committee, representing the Woman’s Moral and Educational Union, called upon Archbishop Feehan, and Rabbi Hersch, with a view to securing their co-operation in the above plan, but were kindly informed, by each of these representative men, they could not favor the proposed compromise. Notwithstanding this information, the Union is still working to secure its object, which cannot be interpreted otherwise than that they proposed to force the reading of portions of the Bible upon the Catholic and Jewish patrons of the public schools, in the face of their expressed protest.
An attempt is made to base the present movement on Article 3, of the territorial law for the great Northwest, enacted in 1787, which reads as follows:—
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind53schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
It is insisted that this article requires the teaching of religion in the public schools of Chicago. This is a forced construction, and was so regarded by the Supreme Court of Ohio, in the decision of the case of the Cincinnati School Board et al. vs. Minor et al., which was based on this same article now incorporated in the Constitution of Ohio.
At the bottom of page 2, is found the following quotation:—
The State demands that the religious and moral sense of the people be educated, such instruction being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, and there can be no right of conscience superior to this prerogative, if it is not abused.
First, it is not true that “the State demands that the religious and moral sense of the people be educated.” The State makes no such demand, and cannot without violating both the State and the Federal Constitutions, and the very foundation principles of justice. The State cannot teach a religion that would not conflict with the views of religion held by some of its citizens, and for it to force a religion upon unwilling subjects, or exact from them money in support of a religion antagonistic to their own, is the very embodiment of tyranny. It will be admitted that religion and morality are necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, but the best service that government can render religion is to keep its secular hands off it.
One of the great mistakes made by these worthy women, and many would-be reformers of our day is that they teach that secular education is antagonistic to religion. The Address makes this error in the following words:—
In seeking to escape from bigoted sectarianism, the schools have fallen into the grasp of illiberal liberalism. Exclusion of all religious instruction is the propagation of irreligion as certainly as darkness reigns where the sun never shines.
Darkness and light are directly opposed to each other and cannot exist together, and by this illustration we are taught that geography, grammar, and reading are antagonistic to religion. This is a humiliating confession, and one which Protestantism is wont to shoulder on the Roman Church but which she usually denies for herself. Our schools are no more irreligious because religion is not taught in them than are schools of telegraphy and phonography in which religion is not taught. The State when it teaches geography, grammar, etc., is simply attending to its legitimate business, which the Sunday school, and the denominational school, and the Church do when they teach religion.
Again, “the right of the State to give secular instruction cannot be admitted if the right to give religious instruction is denied.”
This conclusion is most illogical. When analyzed it means just this: Because the State is rightfully supreme in civil affairs it can therefore dictate in matters of religion. Because the State may compel a man to work his poll tax, it can therefore compel him to do penance. To prove that these principles lead to compulsory attendance upon church services, the following quotation is submitted:—
No church or sect can go out in the highways and by-ways and force children into its Sabbath school or house of worship, hence it is the imperative duty of the public schools to impart to them that instruction without which they are becoming adepts in vice and villainy.
In other words, public sentiment is against forcing attendance upon the Sabbath school and church service, therefore we must turn our public schools into Sabbath schools and churches where we can force attendance upon them. For the State to resolve itself into a great sect and compel attendance upon religious instruction and religious services, is just as inconsistent as for the religious sects to do it.
Another strange-sounding statement, coming as it does from a body of Christian women, is found at the top of page 4. It reads as follows:—
The religion, morality, and knowledge which they (the children) are to be taught is the religion, morality, and knowledge essential to the welfare of the State and to the happiness of mankind, not to the salvation of souls.
Can it be possible that this organization of Christian women proposes to prostitute the Holy Bible and the religion it contains to the mere preservation of the State. The religion of the Bible was revealed to man for the salvation of souls, and any religion which falls short of this is no religion in the sense in which religion is regarded by our orthodox churches, where these ladies hold membership. What is the difference between a “ghostly agnosticism” and a religion which lands a man just outside the heavenly gate,—or in hell? The boy or girl who goes to hell with such a religion is no better off than the one who goes without it. Again, such a religion is of no value to the State. It is a soul-saving religion which exerts an influence upon a nation and adds to its stability. Take from religion its soul-saving power, and you take from it its heart, its purity, and its influence for good upon the individual and upon the nation, and what you have left is a mere form, a religion of hypocritical policy.
On page 7, is found the following quotation:—
Should one say, “The Bible is a sectarian book,” we ask, “To what sect does it belong?” Should he say, “It means a union of Church and State,” we ask, “Of what church with the State?”
The writer of the Address regards the question following the above objections as a complete answer to them, but are they? If the King James version is accepted by one hundred sects and rejected by a single sect, it is sectarian so far as the dissenting sect is concerned, and it is a well-known fact that the Roman Catholics do not accept of the King James version. They have a right therefore to regard it as a sectarian book, though accepted by all Protestant sects.
Neither does the question, “Of what Church with the State?” answer the objection, that it means a union of Church and State. A union of Church and State is just as essentially brought about where several churches unite to force the teaching of doctrines which they hold in common, as where a single sect compels the teaching of a doctrine held by it. The difference is that some of the sects form a religious “trust” by which to control the teaching of religion in the State schools, to the exclusion of views held by the dissenting sects and unbelievers. It is not necessary in order to have an essential union between the Church and the State to have that union to consist of a single church and the State.
For want of space we will notice but one more quotation, as follows:—
But it is urged that the Holy Bible may be abused and misused. So may bread and meat, and water and fire. Shall these agencies be banished for this reason?
Yes, banish them from every place where they do not belong. While bread is good when taken into the stomach, it should be banished immediately if gotten into the eye. Fire should be banished from every place where it will cause a conflagration, although good in its place. The Bible though good in its place should be banished from the public schools where it does not belong and where it creates religious strife which is worse than a conflagration. A. F. BALLENGER.