The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-05-06
The Religion of the Editors.

|
SIR-By your reference to the statement
OF The Olneyville Times, "your religion
| being that of a Methodist" one cannot
really tell after all Of what persuasion you
are. Most of the people / meet only
supposed you were giving the Met hodists
the same good showing you did Moody
and General Booth, when they had the
great conference gathering the first of
this month. A mans religion, or church
affinity, or atfiliation ought to be his
own affair. BY what topsyturvyness
of things yours has become matter
of general interest is passing strange.
Now, / am not in the least curious and
would scarcely give fig to be given the
name of your church or creed, but /
happened to be this day where gossip
ruled the hour, not ladies' church
aid society. Oh, no! And every
gossiper a male-nothing malicious
and the religion of the Providence ed itors
made chat and conjecture rife. That Of
The Telegram editor was called Roman
Catholic. Your correspondent demanded
proof. None could be given. The com
pany said by the Consensus of opinion"
it must be the editor OF The Tele-
gram was a faithful devotee of the
Pope's large flock. BY the same dictum
the editor of the Journal and Bulletin
was stated to be the Protestant Episcopal
body. standing order" was the way
some referred to that body. Here again
called for proof. The only one
advanced was substantially this:
to put it in my own and
briefer phrase by the eternal fitness of
things that the editor should be of that
persuasion. Most generally people con-
slider the Journal man cynic. Now does
cynic fairly represent Protestant Epis-
copalian? Certainly the editorial depart
ment OF our morning newspaper gives
you the idea OF Someone's sort of WISE
acre-knowing how everybody should do,
bnt how they do not, a Thomas Carlyle
saying England has a population of
3O,0O0,000, mostly fools" But | am not |
convinced that this spirit is fostered by |
the "Standing Order" The editor of |
the Journal and Bulletin is-well |
ne is figment, the creation OF the mod |
ern nondescript independent in politics, |
which means in reality the Democratic |
party. So your correspondent was per-
verso enough not to be convinced about
the religion of The Journal man.
Well, sir. your case was, after all, the
most in doubt-even though the Olney-
vile Times said you were Methodist i'm
religion and you didn't deny 1t. From
what was limited your case is in doubt,
for one thing-because you are
not straight haired third party
Prohibitionist. What, you ask, are all
Methodsts of that party? No indeed.
But few who have fixed on what the
Methodoxy must be to be orthodox have
decided that to the Credo shall be added.
"And believe in voting the
Prohibition ticket every time, careless
Of consequence" Your correspondent
humbly suggested that you might be open
TO question about your religion. None
is bold enough to bring you to book,
however. Nor do /. Be assured all the
foregoing was in good spirit. And
it does strike me as pleasant to an
editor to find that anybody cares
about his soul, or cares about
him at all, except to execrate him for
what does not suit the reader of his
paper. But to the question about the re.
Iigion OF THE NEWS editor: You have n
right TO say "none OF your business" beg
ring your pardon for thrusting this on
your attention, j only add: More is going
han you can begin to get in "Tea Table
Talk" THE "CHIEL AMANG THEM.n