Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    March 8, 1900

    “Front Page” American Sentinel 15, 10, p. 145.

    ATJ

    RELIGIOUS legislation brings both law and religion into disrepute.AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.1

    THE so-called “civil Sabbath” could not stand a day if deprived of its religious support.AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.2

    THE right of the people to be free is as much a right on Sunday as on any other day of the week.AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.3

    THE law can justify or condemn, but it has no power to reform. Hence moral reforms are not promoted by legislation.AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.4

    THE reason why some people do not have a “quiet Sabbath” is that they are too much concerned with what other people are doing on that day.AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.5

    A RIGHT of conscience is not a right to interfere with the liberty of others, but one affecting only the conscience and conduct of the individual claiming it.AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.6

    SINCE legislation represents the will of the majority, religious legislation depends for justification upon the utterly fallacious idea that the majority in religion must be in the right.AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.7

    THE province of religion is not to increase the population of the jails, but to add souls to the kingdom of God. At least this is the province of Christianity. Hence it has no need for a Sunday law.AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.8

    THE rights of all men are equal; and all men, as regards their rights, are equal. One man or class of men, cannot have a right which demands the subversion of the rights of others.AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.9

    A WEEKLY day of rest is either the Sabbath of the Lord which he set apart at creation, or a counterfeit of it; and as such it must be a religious institution, and the resting upon it must be a religious act.AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.10

    “National Reform and the Rights of Conscience” American Sentinel 15, 10, pp. 145, 146.

    ATJ

    ONE of the objections to the National Reform movement which are “answered” by a leading exponent of that movement in a “Manual of Christian Civil Government,” from which we quoted last week, is that of its infringement of the rights of conscience. The author of this National Reform “Manual” assumes to answer this objection and to dispose of what he styles “this high-sounding claim,” in this way:—AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.1

    “What are meant by rights of conscience? and what is an infringement of them? Has any citizen a right of conscience to object to the Thanksgiving proclamations by our President and State governors? Has he a right of conscience to object to the employment at government expense of Christian ministers to pray in Congress or State legislatures? A certain citizen doesn’t believe in these things: must they be abandoned as an infringement of his rights? The name of God in our State constitutions offends him: is this an infringement of his rights of conscience?”AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.2

    Any person who would answer these questions in the affirmative, he says, is a “secularist Tartar.”AMS March 8, 1900, page 145.3

    “Yes,” we reply, “all these are, in principle, an infringement of the rights of conscience; and because they embody this evil principle, they ought to be abolished.”AMS March 8, 1900, page 146.1

    The principle upon which Thanksgiving proclamations by Presidents and State governors, State chaplaincies, and recognition of God in the State constitutions, rest, if the principle of church-and-state union. While in themselves not of much consequence, comparatively, they afford a basis upon which to build a complete church-and-state despotism without introducing any new principle of injustice. Once admitted and sanctioned by the people, they furnish the logic for all subsequent steps of oppression and persecution.AMS March 8, 1900, page 146.2

    To meet the objection presented by the rights of conscience, however, the National Reform advocate sets up the claim that a secular form of government infringes the rights of conscience of people who want the government to be “Christian.” This claim is worth noticing; hence we quote further from the “Manual“:—AMS March 8, 1900, page 146.3

    “But suppose this high-sounding claim of rights of conscience were granted—repeal our Sabbath laws; abolish the oath; banish the Bible from all our schools; hush the devout aspirations of prayer in Congress and State legislatures; discontinue all national and State calls to thanksgiving and prayer—do all this, and more than this, in deference to this plea of rights of conscience,—would the difficulty be ended? would the problem be solved? would no individual rights of conscience now be infringed upon? What about Christian citizens who believe that they have a right to a quiet Sabbath? What about citizens who believe with Washington that the oath is essential to our courts of justice? ... Is there not an overwhelming majority of our citizens whose most sacred and precious rights would be wantonly and impiously trampled under foot by a government administered on the basis of the godless political creed of modern secularism?AMS March 8, 1900, page 146.4

    “And whither would this cry lead us? Roman Catholics claim that our common schools are an infringement of their rights of conscience. Must we therefore destroy the most magnificent system of public instruction on the face of the earth? The war power of the national Constitution is opposed to the conscientious convictions of thousands of our best citizens. Shall we disband our small army, scuttle our iron-clads, and level our forts to the ground? ... The consciences of multitudes are grievously oppressed by capital punishment. Shall we therefore forbid the execution of the murderer?”AMS March 8, 1900, page 146.5

    The point to be observed in all this, to perceive its utter fallacy, is that the rights of conscience demand only individual liberty. A right of conscience is not a right to say what some one else shall do, but only what the individual who claims that right, shall do. This is a broad distinction, and one which the National Reformer purposely ignores. The so-called “right” to say what other people shall do, is just the sort of right claimed by these “reformers.” They want to be allowed the “right” to mind not only their own business, but other people’s as well. They have such a surplus of conscience that they want to be conscience not only for themselves, but for everybody else.AMS March 8, 1900, page 146.6

    Thus, “what about Christian citizens who believe they have a right to a quiet Sabbath?” Does this “right to a quiet Sabbath” mean that nobody else has any right at all to the day? The right to rest is not more sacred than the right to labor. These people who want to rest on Sunday ignore the rights of the people who want to work or to engage in recreation. They can have a “quiet Sabbath” if they wish it, either at home, or in the fields, or at church. They are perfectly free to secure a quiet Sabbath in any of these ways, but they demand that other people shall not be left free. They can have a “quiet Sabbath” without disturbing other people; but that is not what they want. They want all work stopped, no matter if they are ten miles away from it. They want all plays and amusements prohibited no matter how far removed from their sight and hearing. They want to be allowed to say not only how they themselves shall regard Sunday, but how other people shall regard it. And they have the impudence to demand this as one of their “rights.” If they would learn to mind their own business, certainly one of the civil obstacles to their enjoyment of a “quiet Sabbath” would be removed.AMS March 8, 1900, page 146.7

    And so of the other infringements of “rights” which he mentions; they are all infringements of the “right” to say what somebody else shall do; which of course is not a right at all. Let Roman Catholics, and other religious bodies, instruct their children in religion in their own schools. Nobody denies them the privilege. And let religion be kept out of the public schools, in order that no one be taxed to support a religion which he repudiates. Let every one be free to support his own religion to the fullest extent, but not “free” to say that some one else must support it also. Freedom to dictate what other people must do is not freedom at all, but despotism.AMS March 8, 1900, page 146.8

    And let those conscientious citizens who do not believe in war, stay away from war. They can claim no right to say what other people shall do in the matter. Likewise those who do not believe in capital punishment,—let them order their own conduct in the matter as they see fit; nobody will interfere with them. And let them leave other people equally free.AMS March 8, 1900, page 146.9

    The simple rule which governs the whole matter is that no one—not even the National Reformer—has a right to interfere with the rights of other people.AMS March 8, 1900, page 146.10

    “Back Page” American Sentinel 15, 10, p. 160.

    ATJ

    RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, as meaning that which can be affected by the law of the land, is only a part of civil liberty. It is civil liberty in religious matters. Hence a person’s civil liberty cannot be denied without affecting his religious liberty; and a denial of the right of self-government is as truly an assault upon religious freedom as is the enactment of a Sunday law. The person whose civil rights are not respected, will in vain look for any deference to be shown to his religious. This is logical, and this is the way it has always been in history.AMS March 8, 1900, page 160.1

    MAN, as a prophet, is a dazzling failure. Yet the world to-day is full of would-be prophets who assure us there is a better time just ahead, and whose predictions find ready acceptance with the people. Here is an illustration which we find mentioned in an exchange. A Frenchman, M. Bloch, last year wrote a book showing that war is impossible, on account of the marvelous efficient of the modern army rifle. Soon after its publication came the Transvaal war. And now the author has reissued his volume under a different title, and shows in it that with modern weapons the civilian is as good a fighter as the regular soldier; thus proving as our exchange remarks, that “the more effective and deadly the weapons, the more general will war be; and that is what anybody might have known beforehand.”AMS March 8, 1900, page 160.2

    THE Sunday laws exalt idleness above honest labor, make tobacco a greater “necessity” for people than bread, distinguish between a forenoon “shave” and an afternoon “shave” on the same day, and present endless similar inconsistencies and restrictions upon honest industry and individual freedom. What is the necessity for such laws? Why not class them with the outgrown relics of church-and-state times, where they belong, and drop them from the statute-books of the nation? Why not allow that the people have the right to be free on Sunday the same as on other days? Why treat them as capable adults six days in the week, and as children who must be kept under surveillance the remaining day? Will some advocate of the Sunday laws please tell us?AMS March 8, 1900, page 160.3

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents