KEEP IT BEFORE THE PEOPLE

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, February 12, 1880

FromThe Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55, No. 7

KEEP IT BEFORE THE PEOPLE.

BELIEVING that one of the great questions of the immediate future is to be a religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which will secure a national Sunday law, in fulfillment of prophecy, our readers will be interested in a full record of all that pertains to that movement, in word or deed, for or against. From the Richland Star of Dec. 4 and Dec. 11, 1879, published in Bellville, O., we take the two following articles in reference to the recent convention of the National Reform Association in Mansfield, O. The first is from one not in sympathy with the movement, and shows how it looks to some, at least, of the outside world. The second is from a friend of the movement and a participant in the meeting, wherein is revealed the influence which the infidel opposition is exerting to help forward the movement. All of these things are to us full of significance and interest. The first writer says:—

RECOGNIZING GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION.

“The National Reform Association met at the Methodist church in Mansfield last Tuesday evening, according to announcement. The object of the Association is to Christianize the Constitution of the United States, and, we may add, to forge religious screws to turn down on heretics and infidels. The following extract from the call for the Convention states the fundamental principles of the organization:

“‘The National Reform Association has been organized to resist the encroachments of political atheism, to maintain our Sabbath laws, the Bible in the public schools, the oath, the Christian law of marriage, and all existing Christian features in our government, and to develop these into harmony and completeness. It seeks such an amendment of the National Constitution as will indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of the government on an undeniable legal basis, in the fundamental law of the land.’

“The men who have met to push the thing along are tony looking fellows, and have handles at both ends of their names, something like this: ‘The Right Reverend (somebody), Doctor of Divinity, President of (something).’ These men ‘seek such an amendment of the National Constitution as will indicate that this is a Christian nation’—to hang on a garb of sheep’s clothing.

“To make a long story short, we call to mind the classes of whom it was said, ‘Ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.’

“‘To amend the Constitution so as to indicate that this is a Christian nation,’ is like unto the maniac that hung a tag to his shirt collar, bearing the flaming inscription, ‘I AM GOD ALMIGHTY.’ In a heathen land, the natives might believe the inscription if they were possessed with means of knowing what it meant, on account of the man’s strange conduct, but no civilized person would. Neither will any sensible man believe this is a Christian nation if the fruits are otherwise, even if the Constitution is rolled up in Christian amendments.”

“The lash and the sword have always proved poor ambassadors of Christ. If we live up to our Constitution as it now is, we shall be good citizens, and have all the room we care to occupy as Christians.”

The next week, in the same paper, W. W. Anderson offered the following reply to the article above given, charging the infidel element with seeking as bad a religious proscription as the said infidels claim will result from the success of the religious amendment movement. Thus it seems very easy for both parties to see the mischief which will result from the success of the other, but neither can see it in his own case. We think we can see it clearly enough in the case of both. We give the headings of the second article in small capitals, and quote, as follows:—

THE REFORM ASSOCIATION. NO UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. INFIDELS FORCING THE ISSUE AND TURNING DOWN THE SCREWS.

“The writer of the article in last week’s issue, headed ‘Recognizing God in the Constitution,’ evidently gives his own impressions of the objects sought by the National Reform Convention which met in Mansfield recently, and not a fair and candid statement of their designs as they were clearly and forcibly presented by many of the able speakers present. If the writer was present at the convention, and we presume he was from his reference to ‘the tony fellows’ who composed it, he must have heard with prejudiced ears. The object of the Association, it was clearly stated in the

resolutions adopted, is so to amend the Constitution of the United States that it will be in harmony with the Colonial Charters, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitutions of a majority of the States, which recognize God as the God of nations, and also to harmonize our National Constitution with various Christian laws and usages of the nation. We desire a legal basis of these laws and usages, which have hitherto been maintained merely by force of the Christian sentiment of the nation, and not from any encouragement given in our Constitution.”

“I have watched this reform movement for eight years, having for several years read its organ, The Christian Statesman, and attended the conventions, including the recent one in our county. Men of the highest ability in our Supreme Courts and Congressional halls, as well as in our universities and pulpits, have been its warm friends and advocates. As the movement widens and deepens, I have noticed the opposition of infidels and liberalists who seek to overthrow what Christian laws and usages we have in operation. The men at the head of this Christian reform have no ‘religious screws to turn down on infidels and heretics.’ It was distinctly said in the late convention, ‘This is no procrustean bed to force men to be religious.’ The ‘screws’ are fast being applied by infidels. At first they began mildly to turn down the screws, but now they do it boldly, and the whole Christian part of this nation is asked to submit to their demands. Read what the Boston Index says, and then decide who is putting down the screws:—

“‘1. We demand that church and other ecclesiastical property shall no longer be exempt from just taxation.

“‘2. We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in State Legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all other institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued.

“‘3. We demand that all public appropriations for educational and charitable institutions of a sectarian character shall cease.

“‘4. We demand that all religious services now sustained by the government shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible in the public schools, whether ostensibly as a text book or avowedly as a book of religious worship, shall be prohibited.

“‘5. We demand that the appointment by the President of the United States or by the Governors of the various States, of all religious festivals and fasts shall wholly cease.

“‘6. We demand that the judicial oath in the courts and in all other departments of the government shall be abolished; and that simple affirmation, under the pains and penalties of perjury, shall be established in its stead.

“‘7. We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.

“‘8. We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of ‘Christian’ morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of natural morality, equal rights, and impartial liberty.

“‘9. We demand that not only in the Constitution of the United States and of the several States, but also in the practical administration of the same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity or any other special religion; that our entire political system shall be founded and administered on a purely secular basis; and that whatever changes shall prove necessary to this end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made.’

“No one would oppose religious proscriptions, or anything looking toward forcing religious opinions upon any one, more than the men of culture that have controlled this reform movement. It was reiterated again and again in the Mansfield Convention that we do not seek a union of church and state. They would deprecate all attempts on the part of the state to dictate to the church. They have distinct spheres, yet bear important relations to each other, inasmuch as God is the author of both, and both have the same ground to occupy. It has simply come to this, and infidels have forced the issue upon us. Either we are a Christian nation or we are not. Either our Sabbath laws, so essential to good order and the welfare of all classes, are to be maintained, or they are to be abrogated. In the latter case, we shall wade through blood, as Paris did when under infidel rule.”

“Either our marriage laws, on which rest the sanctity of home and family relations, are to be upheld, or they are to be trampled in the dust. I am aware that many are opposed to this movement who are not infidels. They try to content themselves with the recognition of God in our various customs and laws, and do not see that it is these Christian usages which infidels are laboring hard to take from us, pleading the Constitution of the nation as on their side. This reform movement is not revolutionary, but simply seeks to express in the great charter of our nation, the fact that God is Supreme, and his law is the standard of right and wrong. We have been trying to do this in various ways as a nation, and now this movement simply asks that as an act of gratitude and duty, we acknowledge that God who gave us our birth, and has led us hitherto, as necessary to the life and permanence of our country. They are the revolutionists who seek to overthrow the past Christian usages and laws of the land.”