The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1851-12-25

"'"'oo WIN INC ireeuom ana sovereignty OF our
own Government. In these statements you
have my opinion in regard TO civil and religious
liberty both at home and elsewhere"
What he says of the policy of Sweden, of
the creed of the editor of the Tribune, of the
degradation of Catholics in certain Protestant
countries, has nothing to do with the position
of Mr. Hughes himself and that of the Catholic
Church, so far as he represents it truly, on the
Question of Religious Freedom This is what
the American People are concerned to know
and Mr. Hughes thus defines it:
81 claim to be q friend of civil and religious
liberty in a sense more Just and true-that is,
in my opinion of course--than any which you
are in the habit of attaching to those words"
He proceeds to impute to Mr.. Greeley doc
trines which he justly dsclaims, which no Prot
cstant believes, and which we have never
heard preached by anybody:
81 In my opinion he says "your system of
religious liberty goes to put God and the Devil,
truth and falsehood on the same level You
hold it religious right no less sacred to DEM
God If q man thinks proper, than to worship
HIM and hence you implicitly deny to God
himself the right to impose ON man the obliga-
ton Of ,corshiP for that would take away the
freedom of his right to be an Atheist"
Of course, Mr.. Hughes does not believe in
any such religious liberty as this-nor does
any Protestant, or sane man, whatever his
creed. He must be fool, who holds that
man has a sacred, religious right to deny God
or that God himself has no right to impose
on man the obligation of worship. Mr. Hughes
has adroitly evaded the real point in the
controversy. Every true friend of freedom
holds, that while God, being the creator and
supreme lawgver, has a right to demand wor-
ship and obedience from his creatures man
has a right to worship and obey for himself;
without dctation or coercion from any other
man, or set of men; and that if he does not
choose to obey or worship, it is for God to en-
force his own laws, and no man or set of men
has any right forcibly to interfere, unless such
disobedience should be manifested in a violation
OF the rights of others, and then, force is to be
used not to compel obedience to God, but to
prevent trespass on the rights of man. This
is the essential principle of Professionalism, and
OF Repubicanism. 1t is Incorporated on the
creeds of Protestant sects, however their action
may at times contravene it, It is sOlemnly
recognised in the Federal and State Constitu
tlons, and by our laws. 1t is as vital prin-
cipie OF Democracy as that other principle,
which afirms the right of every man to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-in other
words, to govern himself and direct his own
energies under the dictation Of his own judg-
ment.
II Mr. Hughes is sincere believer in this
principle then his friendship for civil and re-
hgious liberty is as unquestionable as that of
MIR. Greeley or of the soundest Democrat and
Protestant in the country. If he is not all his
professions are sounding brass and tinkling
cymbal We shall soon see whether he is or
| is not
81 deny" he says, "with the Catholic Church,
any right of one man, by physical coercion
to compel the conscience of another man.
Hence, therefore, | am opposed to all penal
laws having the coercion of conscience for their
object"
Standing by themselves, these declarations
appear to contain an affirmation of the principle
we have just stated but they are Immediately
followed by such avowals, as show that they
are used by the gentleman in an equivocal
sense. Either he does not use the phrase, coer-
ciOn of conscience, in the sense in which it is
generally understood, or he practically contra
diets himself-for, after thus affirming his own
opposition and that Of the Catholic Church., 70
all penal laws having for their object the coer-
cion of conscience, he justifes the. Pope in his
Introduction of Protestant religion in Rome,
and assumes that religious liberty in countries
where opinions are divided is the result of neces-
sity not principle, and that, Is in countries
where opinion is one it is not necessary. there
fore, it ought not to exist. The reader may
Judge for himself whether this be misrePre-
scntation.
First, as to his justification of the Papai
policy:
al am not aware that a Protestant o.s'o,
such as Sweden, is bound by way san,e
religious liberty, to place Atheism 0" '''' '''
footing as Lutheranism."
In passing, we would rena,A ,"a1
Government of Sweden w''nho'u 'ro" I'LL
Atheist privileges it grants to a Lutheran,
or undertakes in any way to give preference
10 one over the other on account of the religious
opin;ocs Of one and the absence of religious
a. o,her IL is an uniustifable in