The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-11-10
ROOSEVELT ON ToLERATIoN.

and to the point. The President very
truly says that Mr.. Taft IS religion is his
own business, and that questions Of this
kind have no right to enter politics. A
man should not be ostracised in politics
because Of his religion. nor should con
tormity to religion como into play either
for or against any candidate of any
party, or in political principle.
The thing that called forth the Prcs.
| dent s letter was the activity among
certain zealots against Mr., Taft during
the recent campaign because Of Mr.,
Taft s membership in the Unitarian
church. 1t was claimed that in such
membership Mr., Taft denied the divini
ty of Christ, and that it would bo Il
proclamation TO elect man who was
practically an intdel, according to those
orthodox standards, to be President of
the United States, a Christian country.
The President goes very thoroughly into
the matter of refuting this intolerant
idea, and he does it most effectually,
But he goes little too far, even TO the
extent Of condoning lswlessness under
religion; in fact, meeting the extreme
Mormon idea, when he says, after ex-
planning that man s religious belief is
purely bis own private concern, is n mat
ter between him and his Maker. a mat.
ter Tor his own conscience. etc, when
he adds his endorsement 10 the "right
of each man to act in religious affairs
as his own conscience dictates This
needs to be qualified in order to meet
the Utah situation, most decidedly.
There must be the proviso added that
the man s acts, even when conscientious
and sincere, must not violate the law.
and he must not, in the namc OF religion
and conscience, undertake to introduce
q system of criminality of any kind
whatever. Speaking from the civic
standpoint, it is mans first duty TO
obey the laws of the land and conform
to the institutions Of his country. And
he cannot plead liberty of conscience as
an excuse for infringing the law or de.
flying the Just regulations of society. |
II may he said that all this is under.
stood, But not in Utah, Precisely the |
reverse: that man S conscientious acts |
should have free scope, REGARDLESS of |
law, is the prevalent idea here.
Of course, in Mr.. Taft's case there |
was nothing ulterior behind his mem
oership in the Unitarian church. That |
'hurch docs not claim any divine right
% control the votes of its members, nor
loes 1T have any exalted prophet, seer,
md revelator. who claims the right of
as well as spiritual rule over
he people Of that sect More than all.
here is not in Unitarianism, there is
lot any pastor or leader in the Uni
arlan church, any one who "takes his
hances against the law in his deter.
nlnatlon TO live a criminal life, and to
lefy the laws of God and man. And
light there is the meat of the whole
question. Every one of liberal and fair
mind IS entirely with the President in
rs adherence of religious prescription
r intolerance. Every one agrees with
i'm that it is altogether out of place in
Republic to fix and require religious
ests, Every one acknowledges that the
Individual rs accountable TO his Maker
lone for his religious views, and for his
deas Of theology and Of future saliva.
ion.
But Just as firmly and as strongly as
very well disposed citizen agrees to
hose points, every well disposed citizen
lso agrees to the proposition that no
erson, under whatever claim he may
ct, has any right to indulge in living
re disobedieut to the laws of the land
70 person, no sect, has a right. for ex-
mple, to introduce suttee into the
United States-the burning Of widows
the funeral pyres of their husbands. |
20 one has the right to introduce the
oh-wa-nee cult. which calls for the mur- ,
er and strangling of selected victims, ,
specially strangers within our gates.
20 one has the right to introduce as a {
ellglous cult, human sacrifice of any 6
md IN this country. On similar lines, !
o one has any right To Introduce as /
ny form of religion, or claim the right
} exercise 1T. under the guise of toera. c
on and freedom OF conscience, the
ractice of polygamy, free love, or any t
Lher form of criminal lust; nor the re. &
erse form of sexual irregularity in. c
olved In poIyandry, for the woman 7
no does so is liable to the pains and d
enalties Of the law, just as the man (
no introduces the opposite-polygamy 7
: more properly, polygyny-each being u
ike contrary TO law.
1t Is IN the transgression Of the law, !
morals. and the reversal of our mod.
n civilization, that the complaint .
rises, where it arises at all, against +
ny miscalled religious practice. And +
lc person guilty of it cannot in the :
'es of the law be anything else than a 7
iminal no matter how pious he may :
'etcnd to be, nor how fcrvently he may :,
'otest that he is merely following the y
ctates OF his conscience and obevinp 4
hat he claims to be the voice of God. q
Right there is the difference. Religion =
Id religious faith arc entirely free. n
he law has no ControI over ,Laeo IL