The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1913-09-06
WHY DRAG IN RELIG1oNY

Some weeks ago, Governor Sui
ger of New York was impeached
by the legislature and since then
there has been waged an unseen
ly contest for executive control
between him and Lieutenant Gov
ernor Glynn.
An indiscreet friend of Gov
ernor Sulzer is endeavoring to
bolster up his cause by the state
ment that religion is at the bot
tom of the attack made on the
chief executive. This conclusion
is based on the fact that the i'm
peached Governor is a Presby-
terrain, while Lieutenant Governor
Glynn is a member Of the Catholic
Church. A pamphlet has been dis
tributed in which it is stated that
many persons think that the real
cause of the present Sulzer-Mur-
ply fight in this state is not poll
tical but religious; that it is not
political graft, but religious
bigotry that is at the bottom Of
this whole trouble The pamph-
let then goes on to say that the
Jesuits are responsible for the at
tempt to throw out, of Office a
Protestant Governor in order to
put in a Catholic.
To the credit Of Governor Sui
ger, it must be said that he has
repudiated the pamphlet in it's en-
tirety, while the followers of Lieu
tenant Governor Glynn brand the
statement as a "dastardly out
rage" without foundation in fact,
and condemn in no uncertain
terms those who stoop so low as to
try to inject religion into a case
purely political. It is not improb-
able that the pamphlet will harm
the cause of Governor Sulzer and
prejudice his case in the eyes of
all right-thinking men regardless
: of creed.
Catholics are often blamed for
dragging religion into politics
whereas, as matter of fact, it is
usually the Protestant who raises
the religious issue. AS a general
rule, Catholics are very slow to
inject religion into politics even
in cases where a decent regard for
their own rights would counsel
such a course. There are many
Catholics, and doubtless many
non-Catholics, also, who believe
that it is never justifable to mix
religion and politics. Ordinarily
it is the safest course to keep
them entirely apart; and this
is especially true in all cases
where political issues alone are al
stake. But it must be evident tc
all right-thinking men that there
are times when political questions
involve moral considerations and
when the solution must be in &C
cordance with the principles Of
right and wrong taught and en-
forced by religion. In such cases
it is impossible to divorce religion
from politics. There cannot BIZ
two codes of ethics, one for pol
) iticians and the other for Chris
; tians. The fundamental princi
pies of right and wrong are un
changeable, and do not vary will
circumstances. They hold true al
, ways and everywhere because
. they have divine sanction, anC
when the exigencies Of politics
seem to demand the setting asid,
of moral consideration, then it il
necessary for the conscientiou
. citizen to fall back upon tn,
: teachings of religion in order t.
> purify and elevate political con
+ ditions. When politics thus take
q on a moral aspect, it is impossible
to draw the line of demarcatio1
between it and religion and sa,
to each one: Thus far shalt tho
go, and no farther. In all sucl
cases, the voter is justified il
making his political creed measur
> up to the requirements of his re
+ ligious faith. When an issue
n purely political and involves moth
) ing more than a contest between
s political parties, the question o
|. religion should not be raised. T
t do so under such conditions is t
e confess a party weakness whicl
s paves the way for defeat. Gov
d ernor Sulzer may well pray to b
v delivered from his injudiciou
: friends who would inject into
n purely political fight the element
:. of a sectarian bigotry for whic
n there is not justification.
/ THE CUNARD LINE EXPLAINS