Religious Liberty Association DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES 1. We believe in God, in the Bible as the word of God, and in the separation of church and state as taught by Jesus Christ. 2. We believe that the ten commandments are the law of God, and that they comprehend man's whole duty to God and man. 3. We believe that the religion of Jesus Christ is founded in the law of love of God, and needs no human power to support or enforce it. Love cannot be forced. 4. We believe in civil government as divinely ordained to protect men in the enjoyment of their natural rights and to rule in civil things, and that in this realm it is entitled to the respectful obedience of all. 5. We believe it is the right, and should be the privilege, of every individual to worship or not to worship, according to the dictates of his own conscience, provided that in the exercise of this right he respects the equal rights of others. 6. We believe that all religious legislation tends to unite church and state, is subversive of human rights, persecuting in character, and opposed to the best interests of both church and state. 7. We believe, therefore, that it is not within the province of civil government to legislate on religious questions. 8. We believe it to be our duty to use every lawful and honorable means to prevent religious legislation, and oppose all movements tending to unite church and state, that all may enjoy the inestimable blessings of civil and religious liberty. 9. We believe in the inalienable and constitutional right of free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and petition. 10. We also believe in temperance, and regard the liquor traffic as a curse to society. For further information regarding the principles of this association, address the Religious Liberty Association, Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. (secretary, C. S. Longacre), or any of the affiliated organizations given below: A MAGAZINE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM Published quarterly by the REVIEW AND HERALD PUBLISHING ASSN., TAKOMA PARK, WASHINGTON, D. C. CHARLES S. LONGACRE, Editor CALVIN P. BOLLMAN, Managing Editor CONTENTS View of United States Capitol from Botanical Garden William Hunter, Burned for Reading the Bible Are We Guilty of Misrepresentation? Sunday Legislation Religious, Not Civil Baptist Ministers Stand for Religious Freedom "We Have a Law, and by Our Law He Ought to Die" Is Commercialization of Amusements on Sunday a Sin, or a Crime? Sunday Baseball from a New Angle WILLIAM HUNTER, BURNED FOR READING THE BIBLE "The price of the book was shillings four: Ere all was over, the price was more To Hunter of London Town." "He lifted his head with a firm content And steadily on to the stake he wentYoung Hunter of London Town." " 'Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." Leviticus 25:10. VOL. XVI THIRD QUARTER, 1921 Are We NO. 3 Guilty of Misrepresentation? Let the Facts Bear Witness By Charles S. Longacre tional Reform Association, the Lord's Day Alliance, and the International Reform Bureau, in an article which appeared in the Signs of the Times Sabbath special of Feb. 1, 1921, when he made the following statement: "Just now Sunday laws of the most drastic nature are proposed by the Lord's Day Alliance, the National Reform Association, and the International Reform Bureau. If these religious organizations could have their own way before Congress, it would not be long until the streams of America would flow crimson with the blood of martyrs, as they did in Europe during the reign of the Inquisition. These organizations are favoring the confiscation of property, and even the extreme penalty prescribed for treason against the government, for all who dare to violate the drastic Sunday laws which they propose Congress shall enact for the whole nation." The Christian Statesman says: "It is not necessary to reply to this supersensational charge in detail. It is enough to say that it is wholly devoid of every semblance of truth. Mr. Longacre either knew the facts in the case, and therefore knew that he was transgressing beyond. the farthest boundaries of fact, or he did not know the facts and drew heavily upon his superheated imagination.” Here the writer is accused not only of being guilty of misrepresentation, but also of possessing a fanciful imagination. The writer has no desire to misrepresent any one. When he made the preceding statement, he had in mind some. utterances published by these reform associations which clearly outlined the aims and purposes of the three organizations named, showing that the real purpose of their movement is to compel every one to observe Sunday in harmony with their Puritanical notions, irrespective of individual belief upon this question. Since the writer's assertion has been challenged and statements to the contrary published, alleging that these organizations do not intend to persecute any one, it is only fair that the facts should be disclosed. Each of these three organizations has gone on record as favoring religious legislation by Congress. Religious legislation knows no mercy. It operates upon the principle that minorities have no rights which majorities must respect. In the published proceedings of the Fifth National Reform Convention, page 71, we find this statement setting forth the platform principles of the National Reform Association: "Constitutional laws punish for false money, weights, and measures, and of course Congress establishes a standard for money, weights, and measures. So Congress must establish a standard of religion, or admit anything called religion." In the proceedings of the (1873) National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment to the Constitution, the following purpose is boldly avowed: "We want state and religion, and we are going to have it." The Rev. M. A. Gault, then a district secretary of the National Reform Association, in a letter dated June 3, 1889, said: "We propose to incorporate in our national Constitution, the moral and religious command, In it [the Sunday] thou shalt do no work,' except the works of necessity, and by external force of sheriffs we propose to arrest and punish all violators of this law." In the proceedings of the National Reform Convention of 1873, page 60, we read that the National Reform Associa tion does not hesitate in the least to invade the rights of conscience by asking the state to intrude into the field of religion by adopting a national religious amendment. Listen to the following upon this point: Now, we are warned that to ingraft this doctrine upon the Constitution will be oppres sive; that it will infringe the rights of conscience; and we are told that there are atheists, deists, Jews, and Seventh Day Baptists who would be sufferers under it." "These are all for the occasion, and so far as our amendment is concerned, one class." "What are the rights of an atheist? I would tolerate him," said Jonathan Edwards, " as I would tolerate a poor lunatic; for in my view his mind is scarcely sound. So long as he does not rave, so long as he is not dangerous, I would tolerate him. I would tolerate him as I would a conspirator. There is nothing out of hell that I would not tolerate as soon! The atheist may live, as I have said; but, God helping us. the taint of his destructive creed shall not defile any of the civil institutions of all this fair land! Let us repeat, athe(Continued on page 91) |