The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-02-25
VI Y.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN-Sir; My letter
protesting against the enforcement Of the civil
law for the use OF profanity, has been criticised
by a gentleman signing him self ANTI
Swearer." Quoting from q work OF Judge
Cooley. he states: The criminal laws Of
every country have reference In a great degree
10 the prevailing public sentiment. and punish
those acts as crimes which disturb tho peace
and order AMI tend to shock the moral sense
OF the community. The moral sense il
mcasurably regulated and controlled by the
religious belief; and. therefore. it is that those
things which are estimated by a Christian
standard as ~profane and blasphemous ara
properly punished as offensive. since they
are offensive in the highest degree to the
public"
wish 10 refer "Anti-Swearer" to a greater
work than that OF Judge Cooley-the Con-
~stitution Of the United States. Article |. OF
the Amendments, which states: Congress
Of religion, or prohi6iiing. the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom Of speech,
or the press. or the right OF tho people peace
ment for a redress OF grievances" / saw that
a civil law passed in the interest OF any church
is a law respecting an establishment Of a reli-
gious doctrine, and contrary to the spirit Of the
Constitution. notwithstanding the opinions Of
Judges Cooley and Whiteheld and the decisions
Of the supreme and Circuit Courts OF Missis.
sippi. Reason cares nothing for the opinions
fthe great, To call a man a damned rascal
or liar is no more against the civil law than to
call a man a rascal ora liar Both are breaches
greatly BIASED by his religious o%niniors, and
to my mind erred as to what constitutes pro-
family,
future time become preron1erant In this coun-
try her doctrines would be- the religious belief
GontrollinG and regulating, ths moral sense.
This Church declares that the Eucharist Is the
body and blood Of Christ. declares Christ is
God and that the denying or Insulting remarks
against this doctrine are blasphemy; conse-
auently the. denying or. passing insulting
remarks against the doctrine OF the Eucharist
would be one Of those things which are prop
erly punished as offensive, since they are
public sense and have a direct tendency to
undermine the moral SUPPORT OF the laws and
corrupt the community. What you'd tho
obey a law commanding them to speak Of tho
Eucharist with the same respect as they speak
Of God Almighty? Could they consclentiously
| the word Protestant, l mean all outside the
| Church Of Rome, who now are in a great
majority, should pass a law that the doctrine
| Of the Eucharist IA promulgated by the Roman
Catholic Church is, a blasphemy against God
| trine Is profane. would. the Roman Catholics
thing they would do would be to have such a
law repealed as unconstitutional,
The fathers or the United states COnstitu-
| ton had the experience of all mankind before
them when they executed this great document
of freedom. aud knowing the evils Of the con-
solldation Of Church and State positively re-
fused to insert any clause acknowledging the
truth Of any religion. With this knowledge
before me. my opinion is still: ! do not object
10 the Church prohibiting her adherents from
the use NJ ~profane language. but | do object to
| her overlapping her rights and demanting
the enforcement Of her doctrines By civil law.
This closes the subject SO far as J. am con.
cerned. T.. NJ, {.
NEW YORK Feb %