Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1876-04-07

DANCING AND CuRIsTIANITY.-Undcrth this head
wri;er, in the Daily over the signature of
Truth, had some structures on dancing and chris
tianity, which ELECTED reply over the signature
of Critic, in which the latter took the ground
that dancing per sc, or of itself, was no sin, a
proposition 80 sef-eyident that one would hard
ly have supposed any intelligent man would at
tempt 10 controverE it. But not 80. Truth in his
rejoinder, not ouy cont ends that dancing is SIN
ful in ITSELF but imagines that he can prove it 10
be so by scriptural references. There never
a book SO Outrageously perverted as the
Bible, ana that too, frequently by persons who
profess to revere it most. Truth, in order to
sustain his position 9uotes an authority TO shcw
that dancing is included in reYeliDg," or in
other words, because a man in n drunken de-
bauch may chose to dsnce, dancing must ncces-
sarily be sinful. BY the same syllogistic rea-
soning he might prove that singing is sinful be-
cause In these rspels singing is perhaps more fire.
quently INDUCED in than dancing. 4 revcl Is
properly defined to be "a riotOus feast" and by
the same system OF reasoning Truth might es-
taslish the fact that eating WAS sinful because
it is essential part of reyel. The idea there
fore, In attempting to prove that dancing and
reyelry are synonomous terms is simply absurd.
Again he quotes from the SD chapter of Exc
dus, 18th verse as follows: ''Moscs came unto
the camp and saw the calr and the dG,.ci,sg."
Why did Truth omit the preceding verse in
which Moses says, she also heard singing" Moses
says distinctly that she heard them SinginJ,"
and when he came nigh unto the camp che saw
the eGJ and the dGnciIig and his anger waxed
hot" Now what right or authority has Truth,
or any one else, to say that the anger of Moses
was aroused by the dancing more than the
singing. The tenor of the whole chapter shows
that the Indignation of Moses was caused by
the worship of the golden image, ard had not
the remotest reference TO either the dancing or
singing, and there is not word in the entire |
chapter that can be construed rs condemnatory |
Of either one or the other.
To talk Of the idolatry OF dancing is sheer
us much SO as would be the idolatry |
of singing. Dancing Is sot only recognized in |
he Bible, but has been cultivated among chris
ians as an agreeable and innocent amusement
n all ages. and there is high authority, that it |
vas practiced at one time as religious
lite among the Jews, and is even now among
one .ects OF christians. On the other hand |
,luttony is invariably condemned, and yet we
'ear OF no denunciaiions from the pulpit against
casting, or excessive feeding, which is strongly |
onducive to gluttony, an evil ten times more
INJURIOUS, physically, than even excessive
ancing. There is scarcely a privilege we en-
oy, or an amusement We indulge in, that may
ot be abused, and he that cannot discriminate
etween the use and abuse of thing is not 4
Il or proper instructor in morals or religion.
Because some kinds of dancing may be, and
$, sometimes, Objectionable, It does not follow
hat the graceful movements and measured
teps of a cotilios, especially in our own dwell
ngs should be discarded as improper and irreii-
ions, and for which is sometimes substituted,
tupid plays OF more than doubtful propricty.