OCR Text |
Show RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. (Communicated.) If the press reports of Judge Taylor's opening speech in the Smoot ease are correct, the judge has made one bad '"break." It seems to have passed unnoticed so far, but. if the same line of reasoning be followed Avheii the case is up for final decision, then we imagine Ave will "hear things." This is the proposition to which we allude: "A conscientious, sincere man who says that tho law of God is superior to the law of man is a traitor to his country.'' And then the judge proceeds to run the gamut of oratorical changes. In examining this proposition we ciisclaim emphatically em-phatically any desire to take sides upon the merits of the contest. Whether !Mr. Smoot is a proper person to represent Utah in the senate of the United States i primarily a political question Avhich in due time will be decided by the highest political tribunal of the country. Unfortunately, it has a religious side, and this dictum of Judge Taylor must be opposed by every truly religious man and by every sincere and loyal friend of freedom free-dom of conscience. To accept it as the expression of a truism and to apply it in practice were to arrest the progress of modern civilization, and to carry us back two thousand years back to paganism pagan-ism and to the era of the persecution of the Chris tian church. Christ, the God-Man, had said to his followers: ''Render unto God that which belongs to God, and to Caesar that which is Caesar's." This is the simplest, clearest statement cf man's dual obligation obliga-tion to religion and to the state ever spoken or Avritten. As the truth of God is immutable, does not change, litis precept is as true and as binding-today binding-today as it was then, and it will be through the ages to come. But Xcro, the head of the pagan 1 slate, said: "Nay! The law of the land is supreme su-preme in all things. Our man-made gods you j must adore; you must subscribe to our code of morals'! The edict of the emperor must be obeyed implicitly." The Christians refused to comply. ' History records the sequel. Every form of torture and persecution which human ingenuity could devise de-vise 'Avas used to break down their passive opposition. oppo-sition. But in vain. They did not, however, under the greatest provocation, rise in revolt and offer armed resistance to unjust requirements. They scrupulously obeyed the injunction of the Master; they worshiped God according to the dictates of their conscience, and in civil -matters cave,- true allegiance to the state. In the end paganism broke down under the weight of its own corruption; Christianity, triumphed all along the line and extended ex-tended its sway over the ATorld.' .It -developed a new civilization founded upon these two great precepts: pre-cepts: . . - - - . ... "Love God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind." This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like to am: Ahou shale love thy neighbor as thyself." Proclaiming the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, it endeavored to substitute the law of love and of justice for the law of force. It imposed upon us the obligation of the practice of charity, i. e., the practical love of" God. It substituted sub-stituted Christian jurisprudence for the pagan code. . , , ,1,.,. What is jurisprudence? If a layman were permitted per-mitted to attempt an answer, we would say .that it is a system devised to carry out the law of God and make it the rule of conduct of 'men in their civil relations. For, examine judicial procedures as we may, and from every viewpoint, vve are finally forced to conclude that their foundation is the Decalogue; that their object' is the application of the Decalogue to purely human affairs. The text of excellence of civil law-making is hs it will ever be its conformity with the commandments which Moses received on Mount Sinai.' We can, there- -fore, safely say that the' civil law must never conflict con-flict with the law of God, truly expounded. We do not, on the other hand, assume thai tnV individual may formulate that which he is pleased' to 'call - a religion, and that because. he labels .it' religion or creed that it must he tplwated," even if -it be subversive sub-versive of our accepted tcnetrf of morality vgalitv and political cxisleiie 'o ' iThe .aleSa tlic inherent duty: and the rightful power of self-preservation. self-preservation. But the proclamation by an honest believer that ''if his religious principles conflicted Avith the laws of the stare he would, in order to preserve his faith, leave the state and seek a country coun-try where he could practice his religion legally," is not a treasonable utterance. If such were treason, trea-son, What would Judge Taylcr say of the Pilgrim Fathers t They left England because their native land refused them even the -'privilege" of freedom of worship; they sought a refuge at. first in Holland, Hol-land, and fouud one at last upon the shores of Massachusetts. What of the followers of one of the greatest of tho truly great men of this world and yet how little mention is made of his work who gave to America the original colony of Maryland Mary-land and to the world of that day the first charter of real freedom of worship? What of the followers fol-lowers of Lord Baltimore one of the greatest among the great men (judged by politico-religious results), who helped to settle the New World i They also left their homes because the civil law-was law-was held to he above the law of conscience, and they sought a land where they could practice their religion legally. What of tlicse other peoples who suffered the loss of all that men bold dear rather than sacrifice 'their religious beliefs' Were they traitors in spirit or deed Of course not. On the contrary, they were among the best and most truly loyal of the state. They could not be otherwise other-wise and remain what they professed to be. The very intensity of their religious belief, their great desire to discharge all their duties, would compel ,i x. 4.' i i- -i .li i i them to "render unto Caesar all things which justly just-ly belonged fo Caesar." We are, therefore, forced to stigmatize as false and vicious this proposition of Judge Tayler. P, must be unequivocally condemned. As an argument argu-ment it, was a blunder and pretty nearly a "crime." It Avill compel all true lovers of religious liberty to denounce this portion of his argument, whateve.-may whateve.-may be the light in which they view tho main question. This world is tired of so-called religious warfare. We refuse to go back to the days when opinions were free provided one carefully refrained from expressing them. Silent opinions don't accomplish ac-complish much. Judge, you will have to reverse your dictum. |