Year: 1876

advantage. If 1t be true that, according to


our fundamental political principles, we


have no vocation in any way to recognize


anything about which there may be a relig


lous dispute, our Sabbath laws are uncon-


stitutional and oppressive. If the govern


ment ought to avoid the recognition of


everything that has the label OF religion


upon it, We have no right even TO recOg


nIze the Christian year. 1t may be also


said that We recognize Christian marriage,


not IN It's strictly religious, but its legal as
! pect. In the same way the government


might, although ] am not aware that 1t


does, recognize pagan Chinaman's mar


rage. The state. as such, does not pro-


nounce upon the religious element in that


marriage. 1t has no theory nor conviction


upon that subject. 1t only recognizes the


citizens right to marry according to religi-
| Gus preferences. But | submit that, ac-


cording to that theory of the case. the


state ought to commission the clergyman


as a civil magistrate, and no one ought to be


allowed to marry for the state, simply as


clergyman, the representative OF the church.


not of the state. But the clergyman in this


state performs the marriage service simplyas


clergyman, not magistrate. have never


held commission from this or any other


state to perform the marriage service. do it


simply as representative OF the church.


In other words, the state has Sd thoroughly


identified itself with the church, that 1t ac-


cepts the acts Of Its representatives as its


own legal acts. Have we state religion


| submit that any skeptic or pagan China


man has right to protest. as against


usurpation, if it be true that We ought to
give Christianity and the church no such
recognition. Ii gives the church a certain
advantage as against the skeptical element
OF our American society. Ia fact. We in
effect give Christianity uore decided re-
cognltIon IN our treatment Of the marriage
question than we should by introducing the


reading OF the Christian Scriptures into our
schools. for strictly secular or political
ends, as We might legitimately, | think In
the interest of good citizenship.


lt Is pertinent TO ask, then, whether we /
are willing and able 10 carry II its minutest /
and last application the theory that the /
state has no right 50 to recognize religion, |
IN any way or for any object, as to give il /
the slightest advantage or precedence ? \ |
rigid application of the theory would ex-
punge all Sabbath and Christian marriage |
laws; would withhold all recommendation |
OF special days Of religious service ; with
draw the oath from the law courts drive
the representative Of religion from all gov
ernment service blot the name of God and |
Christ from all public documents, and all
religious recognition from ou. school litera-
ture and textbooks. This Is legitimate.
Public money supports the public institu-
tons What right have We to introduce
these yexed questions into what the public
money supports? | say nothing about the
moral result OF such application, or its
moral unseemiiness Let 1t be that we thus
cut God off from the state, and blockade
Him as etfectuallY as we can that We lose
the high sanction Of law and government
that we lose the restraining and ennObling
influence of decor0us recognition of re-
ligion /, that we involve ourselves IN the
singular position that God may have all
ready access to a nation, but none whatever
10 Its government that We cut ourselves
from our past, pervert some OF the best ear
IL work, put ourselves alone among the SIS
ter nations-let il be. | waive that. But
can We do it? Can We blot and expunge.
and steer adroitly enough, thoroughly 10
effect the work? Is it practicable? Is not
the demand so radical as to demonstrate its
ImpossibilitY ? Are we ready 10 try that


What, then. Is the conclusion? II We
withdraw religion from the schools we must
lind some other basis Of procedure. The
theory that the state has no right 10 rec0g-
nize religion will not carry it. or carry 1t
30 far as to reveal its Inconsistency and IN
practicability. What remains That We
surrender the whole question on strictly
prudential and political grounds or that
we apply the majority principle 10 ques-
tions of conscience, as TO all other. Tho
conscience claim IN particular cases may be
legitimate. So long as the state makes a
man the responsible guardian of his child,
until the child reyerts to the guardianship
of the state, 1t has no right to dictate its
cd, ]
no right to thrust our Bible OF religion
upon the child of any unwilling citizen,
whoever he may be. aud whatever his con-
science, genuine or perverted or simulated.
But, Is applied to the general question, it
Is lllegitlmate 1t j. illegtimate because
YOU cannot universally apply the principle
on which the claim rests Let u see that
the state ought to withhold all recognition
from religion. and let u apply it consist
emily and thoroughly, or confess that the
application of the theory TO the specific case
before US is illegitimate. To make, then,
the point of attack on the ground alleged,
without carrying II through ID the end. Is
a movement entitled to little confidence for
its consistency. But it is illegitimate ac-
cOrdlng to the majority principle Till the
position can be satisfactorily demonstrated
and enforced, that the state ought to with
hold all recognition from religion, or. will
add, that it ought to pay for the support Of
a particular religion, which is the Roman
ist claim, this is a question of one class Of
conscience as against another. The ques-
ton is, shall few thousands Of secular or
skepticsl, or few millions Of RomanIst
it against cJnsclences
that far outnamber them, native conscien-
ces, trained in sympathy with our institu-
tions? If We say yes, have only to reply
It is. to put it al the lowest, a strange sur
render OF the majority principle.