3. General Principles of the Relations of Church and State. The Parallel of Soul and Body. The Foundation of the American State and its Relationship to the Religious Principle. The Origin of Every Right According to the “Declaration of Independence.” The Connection of the State and Religion. The Relationship of the State to Religious Differences. (Cont.)

Thus, at the most critical moment, amid the very pangs of birth of a new state, the people of the United States solemnly declared that the origin of every right, every law, every political organization, every government, and in particular that which makes the United States a separate political people, must be sought in the eternal law, in the law of God. If the rights of man emanate from God and are His rights over man as His creature, as they undeniably are, then they belong to the realm of the spiritual order, not the material; they are spiritual, not material. The American state, thus recognizing the independence, the supremacy, and the inviolability of the rights of man, recognizes in principle the independence, the supremacy, and the inviolability of the spiritual order, its own subordination to it, and its duty to conform to it. It thus recognizes the church as a divine institution, provided by God with the authority to represent the law of God and apply it to the government of the people as a state no less than to the people as individual persons. This is a necessary consequence. If God made a supernatural revelation, then we are bound by natural law to believe in it; and if He founded the church to represent the spiritual order, or embodied the spiritual order in a visible organism, with authority to proclaim His word to all people and all nations, to declare and apply this law in the governance of human affairs, then we are bound to receive it and obey it. This shows that the true church, if one exists, is sacred and inviolable, and what it declares as God’s law is His law, which is binding on every conscience. Whoever refuses to obey it refuses to obey God, and whoever deprives it of any of its rights deprives God. Inevitable and terrible punishment necessarily follows upon deviation from this obedience, and with respect to the state and society it appears in the form of moral weakness, corruption, decay, and death.

Thus the state finds itself in subordination to the church, and by such a relation to it is bound in its life and activity to conform to its law. But what precisely is that church which can be the true and infallible interpreter of the principles of the spiritual order? If the church is only one, and in the historical life of the people it has been the morally-building principle, the foundation of moral and intellectual development, and has answered the moral needs of the people, then it is indeed the true, in a relative sense, interpreter for the people of the principles of the spiritual order; it is indeed the soul of the national organism, and the state must conform to its law as the voice of the people’s conscience. In such a case the church becomes necessarily a state church, and, as the soul serves the body, it serves the state as the morally-moving, vital principle. Every movement in it receives a corresponding reflex in the state organism, as every mental movement is reflected in the bodily organism. This is soul and body, and their organic unity is the natural and normal relation. But the United States encounters a completely different fact. It has no historical church with which it is bound by organic growth. It has no single, authoritative, integral religious consciousness which, proceeding from one central principle, could serve the state as the whole and unchanging voice of conscience in interpreting the principles of the spiritual order. Here the state encounters the motley diversity of churches which do not agree with one another not only in the particular application of the principles of the spiritual order, but even in the interpretation of the principles themselves. Popular religious consciousness has been fragmented into particular independent centers which do not recognize one another and strive to be independent interpreters of the spiritual order. It is clear that the state, as an external organism, cannot obey the voice of all these separate consciousnesses and submit to them all together, for when these voices contradict and disagree, the very action of the state organism would be paralyzed. From this difficulty the state could escape in two ways: either recognize as the true interpreter of the spiritual order only one of the many churches and conform exclusively to its voice, or conform only to that general voice which inevitably emerges from the diversity as the resultant of all of them. In the first case the difficulty would not be overcome and would entail innumerable new difficulties. Each of the numerous churches and sects considers exclusively only itself as true, rejecting all others as erring, and therefore the state’s recognition of one of them as true would be equivalent to recognizing as the guiding voice of the people’s conscience a voice which by the majority of private consciences is deemed false and rejected as such. Moreover, the state has no right to judge which church is true and which false, just as the body has no right and cannot judge what is true in the soul and what is false. Thus there remains another way out, and it is suggested to the state by the very nature of things. By adopting it is determined the very essence of the relation between the state and the church in the United States.

When several forces acting in different directions collide, by a necessary physical law a single resultant force is developed which prevails over all other forces and gives one common direction to all their actions. In mental life the same process is observed. Different ideas, colliding with one another, produce one common concept which regulates the action of the organism. Such a resultant is also produced in the collision of many moral or religious forces, and in this respect it serves the same general principle which constitutes the moving principle and final aim of all of them. The state, as an organism upon which the action of all these particular forces is directed, naturally had to submit only to this resultant, and it alone could have guiding significance in directing its actions. And so indeed it turns out in reality. The resultant of various moral and religious forces can only be the common moral or religious principle, and it serves as the guiding principle of civic life in the United States. The state recognizes a certain common moral code to which it itself submits in its activity and to bring those disagreeing with it into submission it uses coercive force. All churches, sects, or societies which contain this common moral code or this common state religion enjoy complete equality and complete freedom before the civil law. But if any of them, under the pretext of its teaching, its church law, freedom of conscience, or even divine revelation, openly violates the moral code of obligation adopted by the state, it will come into collision with the state, and the latter will resort to external force to compel submission to this code. The resultant always assumes more or less the direction which belongs to the predominating majority of the particular ones. In the United States, if not all, then the overwhelming majority of churches and sects, despite their particular differences, agree on one common principle and have one common foundation in the Christian religion; therefore the resultant of their forces could only be the common Christian principle, and it indeed serves as the moral code adopted by the state. Insofar as it concerns this common Christian moral principle adopted by the state as the foundation of its activity, all churches and sects recognizing it are in vital union with the state, are state churches and sects. Even the Jews, recognizing with Christians the Decalogue as the common moral code, and societies founded on purely natural religion recognizing the natural law of conscience, are in this relation in the same vital union with the state. But were there to arise such a religious sect which held it a duty of conscience to offer human sacrifice, or were a community of Hindus to settle in the state who regarded it as a sacred duty for every wife to bury herself alive with her dead husband and began actually to carry out their religious teaching in practice, then the state would not only refuse to recognize for these sects a right of conscience equal to all others, but would hasten to forbid them the fulfillment in this respect of the dictates of conscience, for they contradict the religiously-moral code adopted by the state. By force of this same code the state cannot tolerate, for example, such a sect as practices polygamy, as violating the moral Christian principle of family life and defiling the purity of marriage. Proof of this is the long and stubborn struggle of the United States government against polygamy recognized and practiced by the sect of Mormons[1]. The connection between the state and the church in the sphere of the common Christian principle is not limited on the part of the former to prohibitive measures to suppress actions contradicting that principle, but is expressed also in positive facts through which the state renders positive assistance to the church for the realization of its moral teaching. Recognizing religion as the soul of public and civic life, the source of moral strength of the national organism, the state, to give it the best possible facilities for carrying out its mission, grants it privileges and advantages which are not extended to other organs of intellectual and literary life. For this purpose the state exempts from all taxation all places of worship and prayer meetings, a privilege not granted to any other places of assembly[2]. Religion preaches love and mercy to all the suffering and carries on extensive charitable activity. The state not only does not forbid this activity, does not merely ignore it, but facilitates it in every way and assists it, making enormous appropriations from the state treasury to support various church charitable institutions. Religion further preaches the sanctity of the Lord’s Day, and the state comes to its aid and legally forbids all actions which in any way tend toward the desecration of the sanctity of the Lord’s Day. For this purpose all commercial, drinking, and amusement establishments are closed under penalty of liability before the court for violation of the ordinance[3]. The state recognizes religion as the highest moral principle of national life when it requires of its officials and of witnesses in court an oath in the name of Almighty God as the Supreme Judge, whereby judicial testimony and the exercise of public office receives religious sanction. Finally, the state recognizes its inner connection with religion in solemn facts, as when it establishes by law solemn national celebrations, such as the so-called “Thanksgiving Day”[4].

Footnotes

[1] To suppress polygamy a series of laws has been enacted, which, however, so far have been successfully circumvented by the “saints of the last days.” In his last official message to Congress of December 6, 1880, President Hayes expresses the necessity of new measures to enforce these laws. “The recognized duty and purpose of the people of the United States,” says he, “is the suppression of polygamy, where it exists, in our territories, and the prevention of its spread. The authorities of the United States in Utah have made zealous and laudable efforts to enforce the laws against it. Experience has shown that legislation on this subject, to be effective, requires considerable modification and correction. The longer enforcement is delayed, the more difficult will be the achievement of the desired goal. Swift and decisive measures are necessary. The Mormon sectarian organization, which upholds polygamy, holds in its hands all the executive and legislative authority of the local assembly in the territory. By its control of the great and small jury courts, it exercises an enormous influence on the administration of justice. Having in their hands the local political power of the territory, the leaders of this sect have the ability to assert their hostility to Congress’s law on polygamy and indeed prevent its application. Polygamy will not be destroyed if enforcement of the law against it depends on those who practice and support this crime. It can be destroyed only by taking away political power from the sect that promotes and upholds it. Congress’s power to enforce laws to protect the territory is evident. There is no place for half-measures. The political power of the Mormon sect is growing; it now controls one of our richest and most populous territories. It constantly spreads to other territories. Wherever it appears, it everywhere establishes polygamy and sectarian political power. The sanctity of marriage and family relations constitute the cornerstone of our American society and civilization. Religious freedom and the separation of church and state are elementary ideas of free institutions. To restore the interests and principles violated by polygamy and Mormonism, and to fully open to intelligent and virtuous immigrants of all faiths that part of our possessions which was largely closed to public settlement by intolerant and immoral institutions, a reorganization of the government of Utah Territory is recommended.” Hayes’ Message, published in N.Y. Times of December 7, 1880.

[4] “Thanksgiving Day” is a national, religious-political holiday in America, celebrated annually on the last Thursday of November. The day of its celebration is annually designated by the President of the United States by a special proclamation, officially issued with the appending of the state seal. The character of these proclamations can be judged from the following proclamation of President Hayes, issued in 1880: In no period of its history, since independence, has the people of the United States had so many and such general grounds for joy and thanksgiving for the mercy of Almighty God, or been so deeply obligated to thank Him for His loving kindness, and humbly to pray for the continuance of His care and protection. Health, wealth and prosperity throughout our territory; peace, honor and friendship with all the world; the strong and faithful attachment of your people to the great principles of liberty and justice which created our national greatness, to the wise institutions and strong organization of government and society which perpetuate it – for all this let the thanksgiving of a happy and united people, as with one voice, rise in reverent flight to the Giver of all blessings. Therefore I recommend that on Thursday the 25th day of this month of November the people assemble at their respective places of worship for the expression of their gratitude to Almighty God for His bounties and benefactions and for the offering to Him of petition for the continuance of them. In witness thereof I have hereunto set my hand and ordered the affixing of the seal of the United States. “Given in the city of Washington, the first of this November, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and eighty and of the independence of the United States the one hundred and fifth.” (Seal) “President R.B. Hayes” “Secretary of State William M. Evarts.” From The New-York Times, of November 1, 1880, transmitted by telegraph. Such proclamations are also issued by the governors of individual states. In the latter, and besides “Thanksgiving Day,” there are occasions when governors issue solemn appeals to the people to perform unusual religious acts. In Vermont, for example, Governor Farnham issued a proclamation this spring, designating Friday, April 8 as a day of universal fasting and prayer – to seek Divine mercy for the growth of the seeds sown. See Christian statesman, of April 14, 1881. Congress, as the supreme representation of the people, also issued proclamations calling the people to prayer regarding particular historical circumstances. A similar proclamation, issued during the War of 1812, see in Inquiry into Moral and Religious Character of American Government p. 116.