Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-01-02
LEGISLATIVE CHAPLAINS.

Is Ihelr Election Legal ?-IS it uSt ?-Is it
in Accordance With the Spirit of Our In
situations?
To the Editor of the Globe.
AS the time has again arrived when our
legislative bodies are about to elect their
officers, permit me to express the views
OF very large class of our citizens on the
subject of legislative chaplains adj
vance the proposition that their election
is unconstitutional, unfair to consider
able proportion OF the tax-payes, unjust,
unnecessary, and opposed to the spirit of
herent in our form of government.
First, its unconstitutionality: 1t plain
ly violates, if not the letter, certainly the
spirit of article /, section Is, of our State
constitution. Xxx X Nor shall any
man be compelled to attend, erect, or
support any place of worship, or to main
tain any religious or ecclesiastical minis
try against his consent; nor shall any con-
troll Of, or Interference with the rights of
conscience be permitted 4
Nor shall any money be drawn from the
treasury for the benefit of religious socie-
ties" ETC. These are the portions of
our State constitution which are
violated every time our Senate and House
elects a chaplain. The custom has been
more or less opposed at every session by
those who felt its wrongfulness, and the
time has now come to speak out and de.
mand the injustice be discontinued. Let
the issue be squarely met.
l claim that the praying at the opening
OF the legislature sessions are religious eX-
ercises and make the chambers during
such exercises "a place of worship" If
it is not an act of worship what is itEdone
for? And if done, the members are
"compelled to attend'' 1t may be al
legged that they can absent themselves If
the praying is against their conscience.
They connOt, for it is made apart OF the
order of the daily business which they
are obliged to be present at, if present at
all, and there surely is no warrant for es-
tablishing obnoxious performances in the
two Houses so as to drive members away
and thus interfere with their duties and
with the public business. This is one of
the most uni Just and meanest features OF
the whole system and is absolutely with
out excuse. l make no objection to relig-
ious meetings in the right place, but let
those who believe in them, and find graft
tication in them attend them, and not
force the attendance of others to
full. The excuse will probably be made
"no member has yet made an outcry
against it, There are not many who
would like to incur hostility and abuse by
doing so, or who have the
nerve to oppose system sanctioned by
long custom, even if calling to their own
rights. They generally bear such annoy
ances and wrongs in silence. But it is
no less wrong, because it has not been
challenged and opposed openly before.
Is there any apologist for trampling on
the consciences of others, simply because
that minority is feeble in numbers, and
makes no resistance? This is cowardice.
If there is only one who objects, that one
has his rights, as inalienably as if back
ed by formidable numbers. ''Nor shall
any control of, or interference with the
rights of conscience be permitted" The
constitution protects the humblest Cit
izen in those rights. If that one person
objects, the system cannot override him.
Nor shall any money be drawn" etc.
The expense is the smallest reason
against the system, though a constitu-
tional one. The amount illegally ex-
pended, is only 5000 each session, but it
certainly is "for the benefit of religious
societies, whenever paid to q clergyman
of any denomination, because it aids, by
so much, that person, and that sect, in
operating and propagating their dog
mas and influence. 80 Certainly the con-
stitution trainers intended to prevent,
both directly and indirectly, the use of
the tSates money, to aid any sect. That
the money is so used sometimes, is ev-
ident from the fact that instances have
occurred where small societies have made
great efforts in lobbying to get their pastor
elected chaplain, to exc out the finances
of their church
This much for the constitutional view
these prayers actually accomplish any
livered in a perfunctory manner. A few
verses are read, the prayer hurried
through and off goes the chaplain, well
paid for his five minutes job A few
members perhaps listen to it. The minds
of the rest may be intent on business.
Many others regard it as bore, and en-
dure it only because they have to. Some
view it as burlesque. Not a few, per-
| haps, look on it as an outrage on their
rights. They are there against their will,
compelled to listen Gf they listen at ally
to doctrines and sentiments they perhaps
despise, and which they would not hear
if allowed their free will The Catholic
is compelled to join in Protestant
services, which he knows he ought not
to do. The Jew listens to petitions put
up ''for the sake of Jesus Christ" No
doubt a smile of derison wrinkles his
features. The infidcl and free thinker
cannot help the thought: Suppose
some one should compel these people to
listen to harangue on my views, what a
row it would make" But he is COM
PEELED to hear the other side. all the same
And thus it goes.
And it is not certain but that religion
is more injured than aided by these COM
puIsory exercises. They certainly do no
good to one joining in them on compul-
sion. De they not do the cause Of true
religion actual harm! In some eastern
colleges it is proposed to do away with
compulsory attendance of students on
morning prayers, on the ground that it
violates the spirit of liberation and iber-
ty of conscience which is part of our
political system, and perhaps the forcing
of persons to join in religious exercises
against their will does them and the
church which practices it, more harm
+hop orOo1 If cortain1v docs