A CORRESPONDENT of America, who signs himself “An American from Choice,” in reproving the Lutherans for their objections to the Bennett law of Wisconsin, says:—AMS October 23, 1890, page 329.1

It is quite evident from this objection to the compulsory school law, that no amendment, short of a repeal of the compulsory feature, will satisfy the German Lutheran Committee, and that those same Lutherans do not consider the American public school adapted to the educational needs of a Christian family.AMS October 23, 1890, page 329.2

The Lutherans are not the only ones, by any means, who do not consider the American public schools, or any other public schools, adapted to the needs of a Christian family. He would be a queer kind of a Christian indeed who would consider it so. The American public school is not a Christian school. America is not a Christian nation. The education which it proposes to give is not a Christian education; and in the nature of the case it is impossible for it to give such education. Consequently the American public school never can be adapted to the educational needs of a Christian family.AMS October 23, 1890, page 329.3

But the opponents of religion in the public school are not the opponents of the public school. On the other hand, they are the friends of the public school and the best friends it has; because just as soon as it becomes a settled thing that the public school shall undertake to supply the educational needs of a Christian family, or teach religion in any way, it ceases to be a public school and becomes but a mere sectarian thing, through which the power of the State is exerted to compel the people to receive the dictates of a certain class in matters of religion. Then the public school becomes of no worth whatever to anybody, but only a channel through which a religious despotism, can be exerted. Therefore, those who favor the teaching of religion in the public school do, in fact, favor the destruction of the public school, and in that the destruction of the American State, that is, the free State; and the substitution for it of the European State, that is, a despotism.AMS October 23, 1890, page 329.4

Yet, this correspondent admits that “the public school has not of itself an absolute claim upon the attendance of all children living within its jurisdiction.”AMS October 23, 1890, page 329.5

But at the same time he argues that the private school shall be subject to public control, which virtually makes all schools public, and contradicts his admission that the public school has not an absolute claim on the attendance of the children; and he says that “from such control there shall be no exemption on any pretense whatever.”AMS October 23, 1890, page 329.6

This is again a contradiction to the admission that he had already made, because if a public school has not an absolute claim upon all the children living within its jurisdiction, then what right has it to exert an absolute control with no exemption whatever? This is only to say that the State can exercise absolute control where it has no absolute claim.AMS October 23, 1890, page 329.7

Next he argues that the public school is a part of the Government, and says:—AMS October 23, 1890, page 329.8

If the public school is a part of the Government, then any sect or other body of men, denying that the public school is a place where their children can be educated without violating their consciences, must be considered as hostile to the Government—in this case, the people of the United States—and, if they claim citizenship in the United States, as traitors to their Nation.AMS October 23, 1890, page 329.9

Such despotic principles as these need no comment. They furnish their own comment. It would be well if those “Americans from choice” would learn what American principles are, before they begin to assume the prerogative of asserting the despotic principles of the Government which they failed to leave behind them.AMS October 23, 1890, page 329.10

A. T. J.

“The Purpose of Sunday Laws” The American Sentinel 5, 42, p. 330.

ATJ

IN discussing the Sunday newspaper, Rev. George P. Hays, D. D., reveals the purpose of all Sunday laws. Dr. Hays says:—AMS October 23, 1890, page 330.1

Now, the Sabbath was given to them for religious thoughts and spiritual improvement. When that Sabbath is taken for secular reading and business affairs, it is as distinctly perverted as if it were used for hoeing corn or spading the garden. These Christians go to church for the avowed purpose of hearing God’s ambassador discuss moral and spiritual subjects for their religious improvement. What chance, however, can a minister have to reach a soul which has rusted itself all over with the affairs of this world, by the Sabbath morning’s reading of the fluctuation of stocks, murders and robberies of the past night, and the schemes of politicians? Every thoughtful minister would very much prefer, so far as his opportunities of influencing his congregation are concerned, that his people should come to church from the hay-field or the work-shop rather than from the Sunday newspaper. They would not be so likely to have their minds filled with their physical labor to the exclusion of the sermon, as they are to have the sermon expelled in the sensationalism of the Sabbath journal.AMS October 23, 1890, page 330.2

That shows plainly enough that all Sunday laws are directly in the interests of the church. The only earthly object in stopping men from labor is that they may go to church, and then when they read the Sunday newspapers that must be stopped also in order that they may go to church with minds fitted to receive the sermon. If these Sunday-law advocates be allowed to go so far as that, and many choose to read books or something else on Sunday, the next thing in order will be a law prohibiting them from engaging in any kind of reading at all on Sunday, except such as the American Sabbath Union demand, that is, only the reading of the word of God.AMS October 23, 1890, page 330.3

But suppose the reading of the word of God should keep them from church, and especially should lead them to think differently from what the minister preaches, which in many things they will have to do in order to be right; and suppose they should thus be led to choose not to go to church; then will follow a law prohibiting even the reading of the Bible, and if after all that men still refuse to go to church and to be benefited by the sermon, the next thing will be a law to compel them to go to church.AMS October 23, 1890, page 330.4

And all this is out of the abundance of the sympathy of the preachers for the workingman, and their anxiety that he shall enjoy physical rest and the benefit of a civil Sabbath! It is the same kind of sympathy that in the Middle Ages tormented men to death to death to save them from hell. The spirit of the Inquisition is inseparable from Sunday laws.AMS October 23, 1890, page 330.5

A. T. J.

“Important” The American Sentinel 5, 42, p. 334.

ATJ

THE Pearl of Days, some weeks since, it called “two important letters,” one of which was from Bishop Littlejohn, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the other from Patrick T. O’Hare, Rector of St. Anthony’s Catholic Church. Both letters were written to the Sunday Observance Association, of Kings County. Mr. O’Hare says:—AMS October 23, 1890, page 334.1

With regard to the observance of the Lord’s day, you will kindly permit me to give you an extract of the Third Plenary Council, held few years ago, in Baltimore. The decree may be found under title 3, chapter 3, and No. 112. It is known as the decree on the “Liquor Traffic and the observance of Sunday.” It reads as follows: “A Christian should carefully avoid not only what is positively evil, but what has even the appearance of evil, and more especially what commonly leads to it.”AMS October 23, 1890, page 334.2

This is an important letter, and it touches upon a matter that will prove in the end to be much more important than these so-called Protestant advocates now imagine. Mr. O’Hare simply does in this letter what all the Roman Catholics do when referring to Sunday observance; that is, for authority he quotes the decree of the Baltimore council. And when Protestants receive these letters as official communications, and put their indorsement printing them, and otherwise, they find that one of these days they will be held as subject to the authority which they have thus recognized; and if they undertake to reject that authority they will be held strictly to answer for it. If Protestants would not be held amenable to the Roman Catholic Church, they must keep as far from any recognition of it as the east is from the west. It is true they do not intend this, but that matters not, the thing for them to do is to let this be known by keeping far from it.AMS October 23, 1890, page 334.3

A. T. J.

October 16, 1890

October 30, 1890