The American Sentinel, The Sentinel of Liberty, Vol. 15, No. 25.
Rome Defies the Government in the PhilippinesPage 1
Rome Defies the Government in the Philippines.
By S.
The Philippines have been taken from Spain, but they are still held by Rome, and that power has no intention of having her grasp upon the islands loosened in any degree. If the islands are to be held by the United States, they must, Rome is determined, be held subject to the claims of the papacy and to the institutions she has planted there to hold the people under her dominion. The United States must come in either like Spain, as a partner with the papacy, or as an inferior power, subject to the papal authority. This purpose on the part of Rome is now, according to the Manila Times, being openly manifested by the papal partisans in that city. According to the Times of April 9 last, leaflets have been scattered broadcast in the churches of Manila, containing quotations from the pope, setting forth that the orders of the American government through its representatives there count for nothing as against the authority of the church. The leaflet quotes Archbishop Chapelle, who was sent to Manila by the administration to settle affairs there in harmony with the American policy, as saying repeatedly that “the church will and must do exactly what it wishes, without tolerating the slightest interference on the part of the government.” Other declarations made in this papal circular are as follows: “The commands of the church must be obeyed in the same manner as the law of God.386 “You must subject your own judgment to that of the church, and think exactly as the church thinks. “You must reject and condemn liberty of worship, liberty of the press, liberty of thought, and other liberties of perdition (as Pope Leo XIII. calls them) condemned and rejected by the church. “You must also reject and condemn liberalism, and also modern progress and civilization, as being false progress and false civilization. “You must also condemn and reject the interference of the civil authorities in any ecclesiastical affairs, so much in vogue nowadays. “Children must be educated solely in Catholic schools, and must be taught to condemn what the church condemns. “You must hold that the church is superior to the civil authorities, and reject and condemn the doctrine that the church should submit to the state, or that the state is independent or ought to separate itself from the church. “You must utterly abominate civil marriage, and regard it as pure concubinage.” (This refers to all marriages performed by Protestant ministers.) These and other like utterances are supported by quotations from the pope and the Catholic Scriptures. The circulars have, says the Times, been distributed at houses throughout the city, as well as in the churches. This is a plain defiance of the American government, and the significance of it all lies in the fact that it is done under the direction of one so well acquainted with the exact situation of things in America to-day as is Archbishop Chapelle. It lies in the fact that this papal prelate believes that under the existing situation Rome can successfully bid defiance to the American government in the islands, and bring the United States to her terms. If she can do this, she will have gained a tremendous victory. The administration deferred to the wishes and overtures of Rome touching the policy to be pursued in the islands, as being the best way to secure peace, and now Rome turns around and repudiates the administration and everything that is American. To quote further from the Times: “Civil marriages are established by general order of the Military Governor, and these truculent priests defy him and his general orders. Freedom of worship and freedom of thought are established in the proclamation of General Merritt on the occupation of Manila; again in the proclamation of President McKinley, published officially by General Otis in January, 1899; and again in the proclamation of the commissioners last April. These pamphlets disseminated broadcast in the churches and homes of Manila roundly ‘reject and condemn’ McKinley, Otis, Merritt, the commissioners and the American nation at large. Nay, more. They ‘reject and condemn’ the whole civilized world, calling modern civilization a false and reprehensible thing. They will not tolerate the existence of a civil government, except under the control of the church. They defy the state, they defy the United States government, and they forbid the trembling Filipinos to obey the law, on pain of the utmost penalties of eternal perdition.” This is the outcome of the frequent conferences between the President and Archbishops Ireland and Chapelle relating to the governmental policy to be pursued in the late Spanish possessions. Commenting on the report made by the Manila Times, the leading Methodist organ in Michigan says: “Thus it appears that the real war in the Philippines has been only fairly opened, and that it is to be a war to the knife, long and bitter. The priests have taken their stand, and are backed by the bishop of Manila and by Archbishop Chapelle, and unless President McKinley grapples immediately and decisively with the issue, the outcome may involve much trouble.” Very true; but is the President prepared to “grapple immediately and decisively with the issue?” Is he prepared, on the eve of the national political campaign, to alienate the Catholic vote in the United States by a manifestation of hostility to the papal program in Luzon? Rome, evidently, does not believe that he is. And all this shows how the American government, in following its imperial policy, is playing into the hands of Rome; and it is all natural enough, for Rome is an imperial power, and one form of imperialism has a natural affinity for other forms. While the United States remained a republic, it was naturally antagonistic to the papal system, which is a monarchy and a despotism of the purest type. The change from republic to empire must necessarily greatly strengthen the hands of Rome, and prepare the way for the final work of that power in the earth which is portrayed in the prophetic Word. S. Churches Seeking the Power of the State
Just in proportion as churches have lost the power of God they have sought the power of the state. Government Has No Jurisdiction Over Eternity
No civil government has any rightful jurisdiction over anything pertaining to a future state of existence. Self-control and love of justice are essential to “government of the people by the people.” To lose these is to lose liberty. No live, spiritual church of Christ ever used or desired to use the civil law to enforce religious dogmas or promote morality. The State Cannot Judge Morality
The state is not competent to decide what is morally right or morally wrong. It cannot do this without infringing the rights of conscience. The teachings of Luther were held by the chief civil authorities of his day to be highly immoral. His books were burned and he narrowly escaped the same fate. In some countries even to-day it is held to be highly immoral and even blasphemous to speak against the Virgin Mary. There is no certain standard by which the state can decide such questions. To undertake such a decision on the basis of the divine law is only to decide by some human interpretation of that law. Liberty and Popular Government
Popular government can be long maintained only by a people devoted to the principles of liberty. Equality in Religious Service
All men are equally God's servants, hence no man has any right to dictate to his fellow man in any matter pertaining to God, for of each one it is said by the Lord himself: “To his own Master he standeth or falleth.” A Boston paper very truthfully remarks that “patriotism, in war times, being manifested simultaneously by two opposing nations—the just and the unjust—is therefore not necessarily a virtue.” This being so, “patriotism” ought always to be secondary to love of principle. But what then would become of the sentiment: “My country; may she ever be right. But right or wrong, my country.” The fact is that a country in the wrong is no better than an individual in the wrong. Both officers and men often feel perfectly justified in doing acts of injustice, acts which they know to be unjust, simply because commanded so to do by their superiors, or by “the government.” They excuse themselves by saying, “We only did our duty.” But how can it ever possibly be any man’s duty to do wrong? It cannot be. “Strictly considered, all duty is owed originally to387God only.” Nothing can be duty in any proper sense that is not right. It can never be duty for a sheriff to execute an individual whom he believes to be innocent of the crime for which he was sentenced. But what can he do? Resign his office. And this he will do if he is a God-fearing man rather than do an act of injustice even in obedience to an edict of the courts. It is the individual and not the court or the state that must answer at the bar of God. Prosecution Under the Sunday Law of North Carolina.
By Editor
We have received the following letter telling of the arrest and prosecution of a seventh-day observer in Greensboro, North Carolina, for breaking Sunday: “Grissom, N. C., June 12. “Editor Sentinel of Liberty: Mr. Barefoot, of Greensboro, was arrested Friday, June 1, for working on Sunday. He was tried and fined one dollar and costs. “It seems that on Sunday, May 27, Mr. Barefoot went out in his garden after sundown and was preparing ground for planting same peas when one of his neighbors spied him and had him arrested. Mr. B. had often split wood and done other little chores on Sunday, but no attention had been paid to it. We were having meetings on Sunday nights and prayer meeting at his home Thursday nights, and this may be the reason why this neighbor was offended and acted as he did. Mr. B. will not pay the fine. Whatever may have been the motive for the arrest and prosecution in this case, it is plain that only the bitter spirit of intolerance could prompt any individual to inflict injury upon his neighbor for doing a little quiet work in his own garden. For some reason—probably because of Mr. Barefoot’s religion, he being a Seventh-day Adventist—this neighbor became offended at him and desired to do him harm; and there on the statute books of the state was the Sunday law, an ever ready instrument for use against observers of any other than the common day of rest. It is thus that the Sunday laws of the states lend themselves to the unworthy designs of evil-minded persons. There is no exemption in North Carolina for observers of the seventh day. The Baptist minister of Greensboro, Rev. Livingston Johnson, in the true spirit of Baptist principles, made a public protest from his pulpit against this intolerant proceeding, report of which protest appeared in the Greensboro Telegram, from which we quote: “Mr. Johnson said he desired to enter his protest against this because he did not believe that it ought to be allowed to go without protest from some pulpit of the city. It was, he said, an infringement upon religious liberty and a denial of a man’s right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, which should be a man’s sole standard as his duty. The officer might be carrying out the law, for the speaker did not know about the statute, but the law was wrong and had no right of existence. The law had no right to say to a man what day he should keep, as he was responsible alone to God, and he must search God’s Word and decide for himself such questions. “It may be said,” continued Mr. Johnson, “that this man was disturbing others. I reply that he was not disturbing any one half as much as do these trains which dash continually through the country and intrude their noise and disturbance upon Sabbath keepers in all parts of the land.” We shall keep our readers apprised of whatever further developments may arise in connection with this effort to enforce Sunday observance in North Carolina. An Interesting Constitutional Question.
On another page we print an article from the Springfield Republican reviewing briefly Judge Townsend’s opinion touching the status of Porto Rico in its relation to the Constitution. Referring to this article as it appeared in the Republican, ex-Senator Dawes raises these questions: “1. What is the true significance of the word ‘all’ in the last clause of the 3d section of Article IV. of the constitution, which reads as follows: ‘The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States?’ “2. What particular ‘rule’ or ‘regulation’ respecting territory belonging to the United States, Congress has not the power to make?” The Republican makes reply as follows: “Does the phrase ‘or other property’ refer to people or to communities of people who may chance to inhabit any territory of the United States? Were the framers of the constitution accustomed to speak of human beings as property or ‘other property?’ Did they even refer to the negro slave as property, in that great instrument? On the contrary, did they not speak of the slave as a ‘person,’ as ‘such persons,’ and as a person held to service or labor? (See section 9 of Article I. and section 2 of Article IV.) And hence does not the clause in question, ‘territory or other property belonging to the United States,’ relate to territory considered only as real property? In a strict construction of this clause no other meaning is possible, and everybody knows that as a matter of fact the clause referred to the unoccupied lands held or owned by the several states under their colonial charters, which were generally ceded to the United States prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1787. “Nevertheless, even conceding that the power of Congress to govern the territories flows from this clause, is the word ‘all’ to be taken as possessed of the sweep and force which absolves Congress from all constitutional restraints and limitations in dealing with388the territories? The constitutional interpretation of a century gives but one answer to this question. It is well stated by John Norton Pomeroy, a recognized authority, in his ‘Constitutional Law,’ a text-book which the United States government employs at the military academy, in the following: “But is Congress absolutely omnipotent over these districts and territories? Is it, like the British Parliament, bound by no limitations save those which are self-imposed? This cannot be; nor does the language of the constitution require a construction so much opposed to all our ideas of civil policy. The safeguards of individual rights—those clauses which preserve the lives, liberty and property of the citizens from the encroachments of arbitrary power, must apply as well to that legislation of Congress which is concerned exclusively with the District of Columbia or with the territories, as to that which is concerned with the states. The reasoning which leads to this conclusion is irresistible. * If it were thought necessary that Congress should be hedged round with restrictions while it is legislating for the inhabitants of the states, who may be partially protected by their local governments, how much more necessary that the same body should be restrained while legislating for the inhabitants of those districts and territories over which it has an exclusive control, an undivided sway.” “And we may add that Mr. Pomeroy belonged to the broadest sect in the school of loose constructionists. The precedents all support him in the above statement. “2. And as to the particular ‘rule’ or ‘regulation’ respecting territory which Congress has not the power to make, here are several: “It can make no rule or regulation respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech or press, etc. “It can make no rule which deprives any person of the right of trial by jury in cases where the value in controversy exceeds $20. “It can make no rule imposing excessive bail or fines or cruel and unusual punishments. “It can make no rule tolerating slavery, or tending to deprive a person of his life or liberty or property without due process of law. “It can make no rule or law sanctioning titles of nobility, or attainting objectionable politicians. These and much more. “And, finally, accepting Chief Justice Marshall’s definition of the term ‘United States,’ Congress can make no rule or law which destroys uniformity in duties, imposts and excises ‘throughout the United States,’ including all territory under its jurisdiction. “But Judge Townsend holds that Congress is hedged round by no such restrictions, or any other, in dealing with the territories. He is able to summon to his support in this extraordinary position not a single distinct precedent out of 112 years of constitutional interpretation, so far as we have been able to discover. We accordingly describe his decision as revolutionary. It will of course be passed upon by the higher courts, but even they will not settle the question for all time. “There will remain the appeal to the people, as in the Dred Scott cause. That decision wrote ‘property’ over the word ‘person’ in those sections of the constitution we have referred to; and we venture the prediction that the present attempt to write ‘property’ over the word ‘person,’ as he may be found in the territories, will fare as badly in the final judgment as did that earlier and quite similar effort.” Hon. James A. Brice, Member of the British Parliament, on the Eastern Question.
Hon. James A. Brice, M. P., author of The American Commonwealth, has contributed to the Saturday Evening Post of June 2 a most interesting article on the Eastern Question, in which he gives a plain, unvarnished statement of the relations which the several great Powers sustain to the Porte, and their several interests in Turkish territory. The Eastern Question has long been one of absorbing interest to all the civilized world, and especially to those who view its settlement in the light of divine prophecy. Both inspiration and the logic of events point unmistakably to the utter extinction of the Turkish empire. And if prophetic expositors read aright the divine predictions, momentous issues are at stake in the settlement of this question. The crowned heads of Europe see in it only an opportunity to enlarge the trade of their people or to extend their frontiers; but to the student of prophecy it means the ushering in of the everlasting Kingdom of God. Of course Mr. Brice deals with the question only from the standpoint of the statesman. The “dim foreshadowings of the future,” which he says “we seem at last to see,” are seen only in the trend of events. But in this case human foresight and divine foreknowledge are in practical agreement so far as the former goes. They part company only because when the finite fails the Infinite goes on telling what shall be after the settlement of the Eastern Question by the Powers of earth. “The passionate eagerness,” says Mr. Brice, “with which all Europe has been watching the struggle in South Africa during the last six months tends to throw into the background other questions of not less real and permanent importance, questions which have before now formed the central point of European politics, and which may do so again. “Among these,” he continues, “is the condition of the always moribund but never expiring Turkish Sultanate.” The loss of Crete two years ago is referred to as “another stage” in the decadence of the Turkish power. But since this “the Sultan and his crimes have receded from view, though those who know something about the maladministration and race hatreds in Macedonia, know how critical the situation continues to389be there, and how easy it would be for either the Servians or the Bulgarians to light up an insurrection in those regions which would involve all Eastern Europe in the flames of war.” To Austria and Russia, Mr. Brice gives the credit of preserving peace for the time being. The former controls Servia, the latter Bulgaria. “So things remain tolerably quiet, and the only change likely to occur in the near future is the erection of Bulgaria into a kingdom, an access of dignity which Prince Ferdinand is believed to desire and to be steadily working for.” THE GERMAN EMPEROR AND HIS PROGRESSIVE POLICY.
But while the status quo is being preserved in European Turkey by Austrian and Russian influence, "some very interesting developments have been going forward in Asia Minor. It is now at least twenty years," says Mr. Brice, "since the idea of possible German action in that region presented itself to forecasting minds, though under the regime of Bismarck, who was severely practical and averse to new or speculative enterprises, little or nothing was done to push forward such action. By degrees, however, German officers began to be engaged to reform the army system of the Turks, and German capitalists were found at Constantinople pressing for, and before long obtaining, concessions for railways, for mines, and for other large industrial enterprises." All this has been pleasing to Emperor William, who "has encouraged his subjects to embark their capital in Turkey, seeing in this another market for German industry and another field for German enterprise." While his people have been investing their capital in Turkey, the German Emperor has not been an idle spectator. "His courtesies to Abdul Hamid," remarks Mr. Brice, "which caused some surprise in 1895 and 1896, and which culminated in his visit to that monarch in November, 1898, have usually been attributed to this motive." But whatever the motives of the Germans, their success in a business way has been well-nigh phenomenal. "They have quite superseded the English, who used to play the leading part in the commercial and industrial affairs of the Turkish Empire." The reason assigned for the great change is that "ever since the taking of Cyprus by the English government in the days of Lord Beaconsfield, and the vehement condemnation of Turkish cruelties by Mr. Gladstone, England has been the Power most odious to the Sultan, while since the Armenian massacres of 1895-6 it has been recognized that there can be no more of such protection given to the Sultan by the English as was given in the old days when England thought it essential to her interests to check the approach of Russia toward Constantinople." Occupying this vantage ground, and receiving "from their Ambassador that diplomatic support which is essential in an Eastern court, they have shown great energy, especially in projecting railways. Recently a concession has been granted to them for extending the railway from Constantinople to Angora, already built by German capital, farther out south-eastward from across the center of Asia Minor and through Mesopotamia to the Persian Gulf." RUSSIAN INFLUENCE IN ASIA MINOR.
And now comes if possible a still more interesting chapter in this story of European diplomacy, “Russia could not be indifferent to the sanction thus given to an enterprise of such magnitude,” says the writer whom we quote. “Some think that she resisted it. Others, with more apparent reason, hold that she had been previously ‘squared’ by Germany, as it is pretty certain that England was squared by the secret agreement concluded between her and Germany in 1898.” “It is a first principle of German imperial policy,” continues Mr. Brice, “not to quarrel with Russia. Be this as it may, Russia used the event as a basis for the demand to have her right to similar railway concessions in another area recognized; and the Sultan, with much reluctance, has found himself obliged to yield to this demand. He had nowhere to turn to for support, for while France, of course, always supports Russia, Germany, having had her own share, could not in this instance interfere against her, and England no longer comes into question.” VIRTUAL PARTITIONMENT OF ASIA MINOR.
The significance of what has been thus accomplished, not by war but by diplomacy, will be seen in the light of this statement: “Thus there has been effected by these railway arrangements a virtual partitionment of Asia Minor into two ‘spheres of influence,’ to adopt the expression which has been used in Africa and in China to mark the acquisition of European claims to territories not yet actually annexed by European claimants. Germany takes the south and south-east of the country; Russia the north and northeast.” It is not thought probable that Russia, with so much undeveloped territory elsewhere, will actually build the railways authorized by the concessions she has obtained, but she can keep out rivals and competitors. “The Germans, however, will doubtless make their railway. They have promised to offer part of the capital to be subscribed in France, with the view to propitiating French opinion, and it is believed that the enterprise may turn out a pecuniary success.” “The times have been when such an advantage as Russia has gained by the virtual admission of her influence over the whole northern part of the Turkish Empire,” says Mr. Brice, to say nothing of the advantage she is now gaining in China, “would have filled the English with alarm and aroused them to opposition. Even so late as 1878, Lord Salisbury’s Anglo-Turkish convention bound England to defend by arms the Turkish frontiers against the Czar. But England is now so absorbed in her South African troubles as to have no thought of those interests in the Orient which were lately held so precious.” From Mr. Brice’s viewpoint at the time he wrote, “sudden and startling as this change in English policy is, it” did not seem to him then a thing to be regretted. “It had become impossible,” he says, “for England to support the Turks, and it was impossible for her to replace their bad government by a better one of her own. She was too far off—she has her hands already too full in other places. She may see without disquiet the partitionment of Asia Minor between Germany and Russia, for she was not in a position to claim a share, even would it have been to her interest to do so. Egypt, which she has got already, which she has done much to improve, and which she seems now likely to keep, is really a burden rather than a source of strength. The influence of Germany cannot fail to better the lot of the unfortunate Christian subjects of the Turk, nor will she show herself unfriendly to American missions and to Western education, as the Russians sometimes do. And if England wishes to keep Russia from coming down to the coasts of the Levant, the interposition of Germany is, from the English point of view, to be regarded as an absolute gain.” “These, however,” he concludes, “may be deemed minor matters. The great fact which stands out is the admission which Russia has at last secured of her exclusive influence over the whole northeast of the Turkish dominions, and the acquiescence of her three old antagonists of Crimean War days. France is silent, because she must have the alliance of Russia at all costs. England is silent for the reasons already set forth. Austria and Italy follow Germany, and Germany has got her own share. We seem at last to see, in dim foreshadowings of the future, the outlines of a settlement of that ‘Eastern Question’ which has so grievously perplexed English and Continental statesmen for more than a century.” An Interference With Religion.
By S.
With reference to the prosecution of a seventh day keeper in Greensboro, N. C., to which we refer elsewhere, the editor of the Greensboro Telegram says the following in defense of the action taken: “Were the keeping of one day in seven a matter of religion solely, grounded upon the sole fact that it is a Biblical command, then men would have a right to keep whatsoever day they chose, and the state would have no right whatever, upon the principle on which our system is founded, to take any notice of the fact at all. The state would have no right to say what day should be observed, any more than it would have the right to say whether baptism should be administered by immersion or by pouring. Were the Sabbath only a religious institution, by taking note of it and regulating it by law, the state would be abridging religious liberty, because some citizens hold that the first day of the week is the proper day, while a very large class hold that Saturday is the day, and yet others believe in Friday. By forcing a believer in Saturday to worship on Sunday, that man’s religious freedom would be destroyed. From that standpoint, Mr. Johnson would undoubtedly be right. “But Sunday is not merely a religious institution, it is more. As a mere religious institution it could not be reconciled to the principles of our government, as Mr. Johnson suggests. It is an institution founded upon facts of physical experience which happen to coincide with Biblical commands. The experience of mankind has taught the physical truth that more can be accomplished in a given length of time by working six days and resting one, than by working seven and resting none. Thus it is best for society that this principle391be recognized by law. The law does not compel a man to worship on Sunday, it merely compels him to desist from all labors because his labor disturbs the rest which society has imposed upon itself. If this principle be allowed, then it follows that the state has a right to say that a specific day shall be observed, because of the impossibility of accomplishing the desired end in any other way. If it were left to each individual to observe whatever day he chose, then there would be no rest for society, and both society and individuals who desired to rest would be denied the privilege.” It is admitted in this argument that if the Sabbath were merely a religious institution, then “by taking note of it and regulating it by law the state would be abridging religious liberty.” This is true, and the admission is fatal to the conclusion reached, that it is right for the state to take note of the Sabbath and regulate its observance by law. For if such interference with the Sabbath would be wrong by virtue of its being a religious institution, such interference must be wrong in any case, so long as the Sabbath remains a religious institution. If such action by the state would interfere with conscience and with religious belief and practice simply because the Sabbath is a religious institution, then plainly, so long as the Sabbath remains a religious institution, such action must still be an interference with religion. The same thing which would be an interference with religion in the one case, simply because the Sabbath institution is religious (the only reason that could be assigned for it), cannot cease to be an interference with religion in case it were true, as claimed, that the Sabbath is more than a religious institution, because the religious character of the institution would still affect the action of the state in the same way. There would still be the same existing cause, producing the same result. And whatever the Sabbath may be to others, to Christians it is purely a religious institution, and any regulation of its observance by the state must be to them purely an interference with religion. Such it is in the case of the seventh-day Christian prosecuted in Greensboro, and such it has been in all the numerous similar cases that have arisen in the last few years. If it were not an interference with conscience, these people would not have suffered the penalties of the law as they have done, rather than obey it. “Russia,” says Mr. Brice, “can afford to wait. She has scored a great success. She has made another of those onward steps by which, more frequently without war than through war, her territory is constantly growing, and her influence extending beyond the limits of her territorial authority. She is now predominant in Persia, a hopelessly feeble state with a vast area and a scanty population. She is also predominant in Manchuria, and will, when her Trans-Siberian Railway has been completed, be able to terrorize China. Across the whole length of Asia, from the Black Sea on the west to the Yellow Sea on the east, she can, when she pleases, add without difficulty many thousands of square miles to her dominions. Having time on her side, she is prudently anxious to perfect her railway system and have some money in hand before she absorbs fresh districts on which much money would have to be spent. Still more recent events—events still future when Mr. Brice was writing his article for the Saturday Evening Post—further strengthen Russia’s position, especially in eastern Asia. The Czar was the only European ruler having a really effective land force within easy striking distance of Peking at the time of the “Boxer” outbreak there, which, it seems possible, may end in the speedy partitioning of the Chinese Empire. Are Sunday Laws Necessary?
By S.
This is a question which many good people are answering in the affirmative, for certain “reasons” which to them appear very satisfactory and conclusive. A brief survey of the grounds upon which their conclusion is based will be instructive. They say, for example, that without Sunday laws the Sabbath will be lost—that it will be driven out by the encroachments of corporate greed and the love of worldly gain and worldly pleasure. As a theory this idea might be given some degree of plausibility, but unfortunately for the theory its falsity is shown by the facts of actual experience. For there exists a Sabbath day, observed by many thousands in this country, and by some in all lands, which has no support at all in the civil law, but has existed through all the centuries of time without such support, and yet has never been lost and gives no sign of becoming lost to-day. Corporate greed and the love of worldly gain and worldly pleasure have had full opportunity to do their utmost against it, yet it has not succumbed to their attacks. And more than this, it has withstood also the opposition of popular custom and tradition, the opposition of the example and teaching of the religious world, and even the opposition of the civil law; yet it survives to-day, and is steadily making headway against all obstacles both passive and active. This Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, observed by the Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Baptists, and others. Not many years ago there were but a few thousand observers of this Sabbath in the world; but to-day there are sixty thousand such in this country alone. Thus has the observance of an unpopular Sabbath spread and advanced amidst all those opposing influences which are said to necessitate laws for the preservation of Sunday, and against even greater obstacles interposed by religious people themselves. The conclusion is plain: if the Sabbath which encounters the most opposition can succeed against it all so as to be in no danger of getting lost, then certainly the Sabbath which has the least opposition cannot be in need of civil legislation to insure its continued existence, if it is the true Sabbath day. And if it be not the true Sabbath, then certainly there should be no civil law enforcing its observance. But it is said that Sunday laws are necessary to provide the laboring man with a day of rest; and by the use of certain facts and figures quite a plausible argument is constructed in support of this assertion. But here again experience lays a destroying hand upon the theory, for if the laboring man who desires to observe Sunday needs a law to secure him in this privilege, then surely the observer of the far less popular seventh day needs a law to secure him in like manner.392Yet the laboring men of the latter class are able to succeed in business without the aid of any law for Sabbath observance and have never thought of petitioning for such legislation. Actual present-day experience therefore demonstrates that Sunday laws are not needed either to preserve the Sabbath institution itself, or to enable the workingman to observe the day and continue to provide a living for himself and his family. It is demonstrated that such legislation is not needed for the protection of the minority; hence it certainly cannot be needed for the protection of the majority. For what reason then are Sunday laws necessary? If not for the reasons we have noticed, can there be any sound reason for them at all? We think not. s. Religious Dogmas and Civil Law
Religious dogmas or beliefs have no rights which can be claimed for them before the law of the land, and no law for their “protection” has any rightful place on the statute books. Human beings have a right to hold these dogmas as a part of their belief, but the exercise of this right does not require the aid of legislation. Some rights are best served by the absence of any legislation touching them.