The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1885-03-25
THE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP.

Keeper Laverty, of the State Prison al
! Trenton, 1t is said, has written letter
in which he had the hardihood to defend
the so-called "freedom of worship
| theory, and to urge its introduction into
| all the public institutions of the State.
| Whether Keeper Laverty is churchman
or not makes no difference SO far as this
criticism of his utterances go whether
he be Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Pa
gan, the reasons here to be advanced
against the fallacious principle which he
| is represented to advocate will hold
equally good. The ''freedom of worship
movement has been recently infused
with new life In several of the States,
| and if Keeper Laverty's letter is intended
to bring the issue before the people OF
New Jersey or their representatives,
now is the time to dissipate the notions
which are back of it, and the sophstries
employed by its advocates.
The subject of the so-called freedom of
worship can only be discussed in a consti.
tutional sense. Such being the fact it is
we'll to 90 to the Constitute and con-
suit its provisions. Article one of the
Constitution of the State of New Jersey
says
No person shall be deprived of the
right of the inestimable privilege of
worshipping Almighty God in a manner
agreeable to the dictates of his own con-
science ; nor under any pretence whatever
to be compelled to attend any place of
worship contrary to his faith and Judge
ment.
There shall be no establishment of one
religious sect in preference to another
no religious test shall be required as a
qualification for any Office of public
trust.
In these two clauses is embraced the
VIII ole theory of the right to worship God
according to the dictates of ones own
conscience. So generous is the provisi on
that it takes in the unfortunates and
scamps who, through the process of law,
have become wards of the State or out
laws of society. No religious service can
be forced upon any citizen according to
this clause, and it is reasonable to sup
pose that the managers or directors of
any public penal reformatory or elemo-
synary institution do not presume to
compel those under their charge to attend
any special kind of devotions. 1t is true
that moral ideas are endeavored to be
incu lcated in the minds of those whom
the laws have made State wards. These
services do not partake of sectarian bias.
They are simply and purely moral dsser-
tations.
Bat this safe system does not please
the advocates of so-called freedom of
worship" They want Baptists, Presby-
terians, Catholics, Episcopalians, and
what not, to administer to the inmates
of public institutions as their preference
inclines. The result of such a system
can be easily imagined. The quiet and
discipline SO necessary to many institu-
tions would be disturbed. The various
scots would likely come to regard each
public punative and reformatory institu-
ton as broad field for earnest mission
airy work. The zealots would intrude
themselves, and what the end would be
men of fair minds can see. The bill of
rights says hands off. Let every citizen
exercise his right of conscience to the
fullest extent, but keep the propaganda
out of public institutions as it Is out OF
the schools. Morality can be taught with.
out preaching church tenets the teach
ings of the Nazarene can be presented
without resorting to sectarian ceremonies,
but the so-called freedom of worship
deciples are too blind to see it.-Nepark
Ecening Nesos.