| OCR Text |
Show IHIO.VG O.N THE FACE OK IT. It is jiruvocMlive of thought to read the comments made tioiii time to time upon titl'iiii's in I'tali. "The Monnons must be govertieJ with a strong hand;" 'stem measures iuu -t lo adopted tjwavd the Mormons;" sue'u and sueh a course "will insure a Mormon defeat ;" or il something else ho done it will ' permit a Mormon vietory." This is simply and (.daringly wrong, and shows a strange ignoring of constitutional enactments and republican principles. Mormon-isui, Mormon-isui, so-called, is a religion. Is the nation engaged in a contest to defeat a religion '.' What has the nation, as a republican nation, or any political party in it, to do with religion ? Il the religion called Mormonism is deemed to radically and essentially wrong that its defeat should be widely sought, defeat it upon republican principles. prin-ciples. Meet it with the arguments of reason, with greater l'ght, with the weapons of truth, and, i' God's name, defeat it if you can. Convince its votaries vo-taries that they are in error ; reach their understandings, appeal to their judgment, and bring forth your strong arguments ; but it is about time this old leaven of a barbarous age, of crushing crush-ing out a religion by stern government aud prescriptive measures, was thrown to the winds. How absurd it would sound to talk so of the Methodists, or the Baptists, or the Koman Catholics. What is the difference ? Is there any principle in this thing called Mormouism more repugnant re-pugnant to republican institutions than there is in Catholicism ? It is a poor showing for the strength uf those who assume to lead a conflict agiiust the people whose re ligious faith is accepted by most of the inhabitants of this Territory, that they can present no stronger claim upon public sympathy for a justification oi their course than that the "Muraiou.; should be defeated." ! Wc ire not viewing this from a ic-iigioU, ic-iigioU, but from a political standpoint, vo man has any right to interfere with the political or religious views of another an-other man, unless they infringe 'upoi. t ie r'ghts of his neighbors; nor to proscribe pro-scribe him for his faith, nor to stir up enmity against him ; and they who seek to do so are enemies to the Constitution, Con-stitution, ibes to republicanism, aud only lack the opportunity and power to repeat ihe barbarous scenes which disgraced medieval times iu the sacred name of rehgion. The early Christians were proscribed and persecuted osten sibly for obnoxious political opinions, hut really because their religious views were repugnant to leading zealots and narrow-minded bigots among pagan Komans and semi-civilized Jews. Do the people of this great Hepub!ic desire de-sire to revive the ignorant fanaticism of that dark period of the world's history his-tory in the nineteenth century ? Talkof "twinrelics!" Thisideaisnot a "twin relic," but a full-developed and resurrected mummy of one of the most barbarous periods, that would be thrust upou a great and enlightened people as the offspring of Deity, to be worshipped with reverence ou the strength of its assumed origin. Enlightened En-lightened republicanism repels it, and says that under republican institutions free opinion is the sacred and inalienable inalien-able right of every man. |
