The Howard union. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1865-1866, 1865-08-10
INTERPRETING WITH RELIGION :
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

Considerable effort is being made 10
manufacture indignation out of what is
called the New Constitution interference
with religion. and its restriction upon
religious freedom. We are curious to know
in what respect the New Constitution in
terferes with religion, or how it imposes
the slightest restraint upon religious exer-
else, either in thought or action. 1t requires
an oath of loyalty from all preachers of the
Gospel, but what tenet of religious faith
does that effect ? IL does not concern
predestination, baptism, universally of sal.
WALTON, or any other subject over which the
pulpit has been supposed TO have iurisdo-
ton. II relates purely to matters OF State
in other words, poitcs-and we confess
our utter liability to discover how religious
freedom, or any subject connected with
religion, is in any way involved.
II, however, The Conservative doctors are
right, and the constitutional oath does trench
upon their religious principles, we have
opened up TO us a new understanding of
what their religion consists. That oath can
be said to interfere with nothing but treason
and slavery interdicts nothing else-and
1t it does interfere with any mans religion,
IL must be because his religion consists of
treason and slavery or devotion TO them,
and because he holds his religious freedom
TO consist of the unrestricted license to
preach and practice disloyalty to his Gov.
eminent. Are the directors to the consti-
oath satisfied with this ipterprets.
ton of their religious creed-the only one
their argument will admit OFF If so, we
certainly are, and are perfectly willing to
give them the full benefit Of it.
But it may be said that the Constitu-
ton interferes with religion, inasmuch as it
Furnishes preachers for preaching without
having taken the oath prescribed. 1t i'm
poses penalties upon their persons and thei.
purses, but what has that to do with their
religion ? If anything, their religion must
consist in their persons and purses
hypothesis certainly not very complimentary
to ministers Of the gospel. If it be correct,
whoever takes money from preacher
takes so much religion from him, and
whoever places restraint upon his person.
makes war upon the religious freedom of
the country. Nay more, according to that
the law has always fearfully
abridged the religious liberties of the people
since 1t has required preachers to pay taxes
and held them personally responsible, like
other people, for its violation. According
to this hypothesis, the minister's person is
sacred and can't be touched, whatever he
may do. II he were 10 commit larceny, or
burglary, or arson, or adultery, he could
not be arrested for the crime, without a
breach Of religious freedom. He might saw
to the officer who came 10 arrest him,
GLANDS off! / am preacher, and you can't
modest me without interfering with religion
without imperiling the religious liberty of
the country" This case is precisely par
allel with the one for which the Consti-
tuition provides. 1t treats disloyolty as
crime, as all just lawmakers have done,
and proposes to punish preachers for
disloyalty-that is, for taking a position
against the Government. The preachers
who take this position are criminals, anu to
punish them for it is just as much, and no
more, violation of religious privilege, or
an interference with religion itself, as to
punish the same men for larceny, arson,
rape, or any other crimes of which they
might be guilty. To talk of religion being
in any way affected in this matter is the
height Of nonsense. 1t would be quite as
sensible 10 assert that the punishment of an
editor for murder would be an infringement
OF the liberty OF the press, or the punish
ment of lawyer for stealing, would be
violation of the freedom of speech, or that
the punishment of merchant for cheating
would be an interference with the freedom
oil trade. We are not prepared to admit,
for religions own sake, that ITS integrity
depends upon unlimited indulgence to
rebel ministry or that disloyalty and
religion are so closely identified that you
can't punish one without involving the