1890

January 2, 1890

“‘Is there not a Cause?’” The American Sentinel 5, 1, pp. 2, 3.

ATJ 

IS there not a cause for the existence and the work not only of the AMERICAN SENTINEL, but also of many other papers of the same kind? Let us see. We have said the SENTINEL exists for the purpose of opposing all manner of religious legislation and everything that tends toward any union of religion and the State; and of maintaining the principles of the United States Constitution as it stands separated from religion. What now is there being done in favor of religious legislation? What is being done to unite religion and the State? What is being done against the principles of the United States Constitution as it relates to religion? AMS January 2, 1890, page 2.1

First, there is the National Reform Association, headquarters in Philadelphia, an association in the twenty-sixth year of its existence, whose one leading purpose is to secure an amendment to the National Constitution declaring this to be a Christian nation, empowering Congress to legislate upon the subject of the Christian religion, and pledging the United States Government to the maintenance of Christian institutions and Christian morality, as such, in all the land. AMS January 2, 1890, page 2.2

Second, the American Sabbath Union, headquarters in this city, whose sole purpose of existence is to secure an act of Congress by which the observance of the Lord’s day as a day of rest and religious worship shall be enforced by the national power within its jurisdiction, and thus to make effective by its example all such laws already in existence in the States. AMS January 2, 1890, page 2.3

These two are one so far as the Sunday legislation goes, and with both these to secure what they both demand, are more or less perfectly allied,—the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union; the third-party Prohibition party; the Evangelical Alliance; and last, but not by any means the least, the Catholic Church. The National Reform Association declares for the establishment of a theocracy in the place of the government of the United States under its present Constitution; the National W.C.T.U. declares for the same; the representatives of the American Sabbath Union and the Prohibition party declare that in their work for legislation they are the “representatives of God” and “the successors of the prophets;” and everybody knows what the Catholic Church means by the declaration of the Lay Congress lately held, in favor of legislation, to secure which it proposes to seek an alliance with Protestants. Besides this, Pope Leo XIII. has long ago commanded “all Catholics” to “do all in their power to cause the Constitutions of States and legislation to be modeled on the principles of the true church.” AMS January 2, 1890, page 2.4

Besides the work of these different bodies, as organizations, there are a number of papers which advocate the principles which the organizations seek to have enacted into law. There are two papers—the Christian Statesman and the Christian Nation—representing the National Reform Association. There is one—the Mail and Express of this city—which is the official organ of the American Sabbath Union; besides which the Union possesses the influence of nearly all the religious of the country, both Protestant and Catholic, and of some secular ones. The National W.C.T.U. adds the influence of its organ—the Union Signal; the Prohibition party likewise joins its Voice with all these others demanding religious legislation. And yet in addition to all these there is Joseph Cook’s magazine, Our Day,—Mr. Cook himself being a vice-president of the National Reform Association. AMS January 2, 1890, page 2.5

What have these organizations already accomplished? In the Fiftieth Congress, May 21, 1888, they secured the introduction in the United States Senate of the Blair Sunday-Rest Bill, and worked hard to secure its passage; but that Congress expired, and the bill died without their wish being fulfilled. In the same Congress, May 25, 1888, there was introduced a “Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting establishments of religion and free public schools,” which proposed to enforce by national power the teachings of “the principles of the Christian religion” in all the public schools of the country. This resolution was indorsed by the National Reform Association as embodying the very thing for which that Association had been working for twenty-five years. This also died with the Fiftieth Congress. AMS January 2, 1890, page 2.6

Yet all these organizations have continued, by every means which they could employ, to work up public favor for the legislation which they demand. The Fifty-first Congress had been in existence scarcely a week before Senator Blair re-introduced both his Sunday-Rest bill and the Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and the organizations named are pledged to secure, if possible, the adoption of these measures before the present Congress shall expire. Besides the Blair amendment proposed in 1888 and again in 1889, there is the Edmunds amendment proposed in 1876, which is strongly advocated for re-introduction in the Fifty-first Congress. It only remains to be seen whether these forces shall be able to find enough Senators and Representatives who are willing to play into their hands to the extent of passing their demands into actual law. AMS January 2, 1890, page 2.7

From these facts it is seen that there is already formed and in active working order a combination of all the leading religious bodies for the avowed purpose of securing national legislation in the interests of religion, and for the enforcement of religious observances. The United States Senate, sixty years ago this winter, stated an undeniable truth when it said, “Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are always dangerous.” Here, then, is a religious combination which is about as extensive as it would be possible to form in the United States. It is to effect a political purpose, for it is solely to control legislation; and what is worse, though inevitable, is that it seeks to control legislation in its own interests. It is therefore dangerous, and as dangerous as it is extensive. AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.1

We ask, therefore, whether there is not a cause for the existence of the AMERICAN SENTINEL? And is there not need that something shall be said to call the attention of the people to these things, which are so utterly subversive of American principles, and which involve the most sacred rights of men? AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.2

We know that a great many people pass it by with the remark that there is no danger, and that there is no need of any special discussion of it; and this is particularly so on the part of those who are most active in the demand for the legislation. We know that these things were said four years ago, when the first number of the SENTINEL was printed; and there was not then one-tenth of the forces in existence in this line that there are now. But the SENTINEL knew then as well as it knows now that there is treachery in it. The SENTINEL told the people so then: it tells them so now. It is true. Incredulity will not escape it: unbelief will not disprove it. We do not impugn the motives of the people who are demanding religious legislation. We do not say that all the leaders of the organizations named mean treachery, nor that they are designedly doing that which they know to be fraught with danger to the people. We only say that there is danger in it. It matters not what may be the motives or the intentions of those who are engaged in it, the thing is evil in itself, and danger is inherent in it; and when the thing is accomplished and the discovery made that it is only evil and that continually, it will not be a very great comfort to be assured that those who did it were good people and meant well. AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.3

The AMERICAN SENTINEL knows what it is doing, and intends to be true to its name in sounding the alarm and giving warning of the imminent danger that inheres in the demands that are being made and in a measure granted for legislation in the interests of religion. AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.4

A. T. J. 

“That Sunday-Law Petition” The American Sentinel 5, 1, pp. 3, 4.

ATJ 

IN every possible place in the country there is now being circulated by the American Sabbath Union, and the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union the following petition to Congress:— AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.1

“To the House of Representatives of the United States [duplicate to the Senate”]:— AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.2

“The undersigned organizations, and adult residents (21 years of age or more) of the United States, hereby petition your Honorable Body to pass a bill, forbidding, in the United States mail and military service, and in interstate commerce, and in the District of Columbia, and in the Territories, all Sunday traffic and work, except works of religion and works of real necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week, by abstaining from labor and business, as well neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.” AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.3

This petition has been largely signed, and many times more largely indorsed, but we seriously question whether one of those persons has ever taken the precaution to study the petition to know really what it asks for. We propose to look into it a little, to see what that petition embodies. AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.4

It asks Congress, within its jurisdiction, to forbid all Sunday traffic and work with certain exceptions. What are the exceptions? AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.5

First, “except works of religion.” Suppose then that Congress should pass a bill embodying the very words of the petition so far. Then nobody in the Territories, the District of Columbia, the army, the navy, or in interstate commerce could do any work on Sunday except works of religion. Is that all that would need to be done? Is that they only step that would need to be taken?—Not by any means. The question would at once arise, “What religion is it, whose works only are excepted?” And the question would have to be answered: There are several kinds of religion in the country. There is the Christian religion, the Mormon religion, the Chinese religion, the Buddhist religion, the Agnostic religion, and many others of lesser note. Now there are works that would be perfectly consistent with certain of these religions, and in fact a necessary part of these religions, which would not by any means be consistent with the Christian religion. Such works performed by these on Sunday in perfect conformity with their own religion, would not be considered as being in any sense in harmony with the Christian religion nor according to the Christian idea as to what is proper work on Sunday. AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.6

The next thing, therefore, to do, and it would have to be done, would be for Congress or the Supreme Court to define what religion it is whose works only shall be excepted, and just as soon as that definition should be set forth, there would be an established religion in the United States. For wherever a government selects a particular religion, and bestows favor and protection upon that religion above all others, and at the expense of all others, there is an established religion, and such would be the first and inevitable result if the request if the request of that petition were enacted into law. This is indisputable, because if the phrase “works of religion” be left undefined by the government, and everybody left, each for himself, to decide what works of religion are proper for Sunday, then the law would be of no effect whatever. Besides it is not the right principle of government that the subject shall interpret the law in his own case. The government must interpret its own laws and define its own terms, used in the laws. The government, therefore, having enacted a law in which is found the phrase “works of religion” must define the meaning of the phrase. It must declare what religion is meant; it must define what are the works of that religion; and the moment that is done there is an established religion. And it is needless to say to any well informed person that an established religion is an unmitigated evil in any form whatever. Are all those who have signed or indorsed that petition ready for this thing for which they have asked? AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.7

Again, in excepting, with works of “real necessity and mercy,” only “works of religion,” it is shown to be wholly in the interests of religion that the demand is made. It is clearly religious legislation that is demanded, and they do propose virtually to compel men to religious observances. Of course it does not say in so many words that the people shall do works of religion, but it does say they shall not do anything but that. And, further, if they are willing to go so far at the very first step, having once secured this, how long will it be before they will take the next step and actually demand that the people shall do works of religion on that day which they have got the national Legislature to set apart for that special purpose? AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.8

Secondly, it proposes to “except” “private works by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week.” Whoever, therefore, will come within this exception must “religiously and regularly observe another day of the week by abstaining from labor and business.” Therefore this petition does ask that whoever does not want to keep Sunday shall be compelled to religiously observe another day. In other words, the petitioners propose to have Congress enact a law which shall enforce the religious observance of another day than Sunday upon those who do not choose to keep Sunday. AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.9

But when they propose to compel all who do not keep Sunday, to religiously observe another day, that plainly proves that it is also the religious observance of Sunday which they ask shall be enforced by a law of the United States. This is confirmed by that clause of the petition which speaks of those who “religiously” observe another day “by abstaining from labor and business.” This shows that in the mind of the one who wrote that petition, to regularly abstain from labor and business on a certain day is to religiously observe that day. Now the petition asks Congress to “forbid,” within its jurisdiction, “all Sunday traffic and work,” which, by the definition of the petition itself, is to enforce the religious observance of Sunday. In logical formula the matter stands thus:— AMS January 2, 1890, page 3.10

To regularly abstain from labor and business on a certain day is to religiously observe that day. AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.1

The petition asks Congress to compel all within its jurisdiction to regularly abstain from all labor and business on Sunday. AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.2

Therefore the petition does ask Congress to compel all within its jurisdiction to religiously observe Sunday. AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.3

The truth is that that petition for a Sunday law does not, and never did, contemplate anything else than that religious observances shall be enforced by such law. But the enforcement of religious observances by law is wicked in every form in which it may be proposed. It was to guard the rights of the people from such interferences as this that the Constitution was made to declare that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” For Congress to compel men in any way whatever to religious observance is to prohibit the free exercise of religion—even in those who already practice the religious observances sought to be enforced. This petition asks Congress to do an unconstitutional thing; and any bill introduced in Congress in harmony with the petition will be an attempt to do an unconstitutional thing. AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.4

There is another point in these “exceptions” that is worthy of attention. The petition asks that the law shall “except” “private work by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week,” &c. And the writer of this article heard the author of the petition say that this means “work in the home.” AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.5

Now we should like to know how the Sunday-law people are going to be able to tell whether or not anybody is doing any private work in his home on Sunday unless they enter into that person’s home to see, or else set spies upon him and his home to detect whether he does such work or not. This petition, therefore, does ask that the private affairs, and the homes of American citizens shall on Sunday be made subject to the invasion and the bigoted surveillance of the Sunday-law meddlers. But our fathers supposed they had enough of that to last them and their children through all time to come, when they threw off the yoke of England; and they, therefore, expressed their mind to that effect when they declared in Article IV. of the United States Constitution, that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” That that petition is contrary to this provision of the Constitution, there can be no honest dispute. Under this government every man’s house is his castle. He is lord there. And no man, no set of men, on this earth has any right whatever to invade the privacy of that home. The government itself cannot do it, it is forbidden to do it except upon a warrant issued in proper form. “And no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.6

Therefore it is proved by this count also that the petition for a national Sunday law which is being circulated by the American Sabbath Union does ask Congress to do an unconstitutional thing, and any bill proposed in Congress embodying this part of the petition will be an attempt to do an unconstitutional thing. AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.7

The fact is that the whole Sunday-law scheme which is now so extensively worked, is nothing else than an attempt to carry into effect here that same despotic spirit of religious meddling in civil things that has been the bane of all nations but this,—and this one has been free from it only since the formation of the national Constitution and of the national government by it. AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.8

As we said at the first, we do not suppose that one person in ten of those who have either signed or indorsed that petition ever looked into it to see what it does really ask. This is not spoken of the leaders however; we are perfectly satisfied that they know precisely what the petition asks for, and that they are ready to enforce all its provisions, just as soon as they can secure the much-coveted power to do it. But are all the people ready to have it done? AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.9

For convenience’ sake we here insert the following petition to Congress, which we ask the reader to examine and compare with the Sunday-law petition, and then candidly ask himself whether it is not more worthy of the indorsement of American citizens than the other. This petition covers the other one and more; it is against the proposed constitutional amendment also. AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.10

“We, the undersigned, adult residents of the United States, 21 years of age or more, hereby respectfully, but earnestly, petition your Honorable Body not to pass any bill in regard to the observance of the Sabbath, or Lord’s day, or any other religious or ecclesiastical institution or rite; nor to favor in any way the adoption of any resolution for the amendment of the national Constitution that would in any way give preference to the principles of any one religion above another, or that will in any way sanction legislation upon the subject of religion; but that the total separation between religion and the State, assured by our national Constitution as it now is, may forever remain as our fathers established it.” AMS January 2, 1890, page 4.11

A. T. J.