- Weighted Relevancy
- Content Sequence
- Earliest First
- Latest First
February 7, 1890
“Front Page” American Sentinel 5, 6.
Colonel Ingersoll, for the defendent, rose to move to set aside, for for a new trial. Judge Ingraham declined to transact any business on Sunday, beyond the mere receiving and recording of the verdict necessary to relieve the jury, and told the anti-Christian to wait till Monday. If the latter and his abettors (some of them nominal Christians) get their way, there will be no rest-day in this country.AMS February 7, 1890, page 41.2
The SENTINEL is not an admirer of Mr. Ingersoll, nor are we in sympathy with his views upon religious questions, but we fail to see in the facts stated by the Advocate, any justification for the fling made at that gentleman and “his abettors.” We have no idea that Mr. Ingersoll wants any judge to do business on Sunday if he doesn’t want to, nor do we know of anybody who wants the laws of the land so changed that courts shall uniformly do business upon that day. If judges and other court officials want to observe Sunday religiously or otherwise, nobody ought to object, and the SENTINEL does not object; but it does object to laws requiring those to observe Sunday who do not wish to observe it, and that whether they religiously observe another day or not.AMS February 7, 1890, page 41.3
“Sunday Slavery” American Sentinel 5, 6.
The Pearl of Days repeats its dismal wail about “Sunday slavery,” and says that “if it is not abolished, it will soon number more millions than the Africans who were emancipated by the civil war and the Constitution of the United States.” Why don’t the Pearl of Days make a test and carry the case of one of these Sunday slaves to the United States courts under that amendment to the Constitution which abolished slavery in the United States? Or does the Pearl understand that is was only African slavery that was abolished in the United States? If that is the only way the Pearl of Days understands the Thirteenth Amendment, then we would say for its benefit, that neither the word “African” nor any other qualifying phrase is in that amendment. The amendment says that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a penalty for crime, shall exist in the United States.” And that will cover Sunday slavery as well as any other kind. At least the probability that it does, is worth risking a case upon in the United States courts. Let the case be presented.AMS February 7, 1890, page 46.1
“Not a Valid Reason” American Sentinel 5, 6.
The Lever says that “the saloon is to-day a greater hindrance to the cause of Christianity than all others;” and inquires, ‘What will become of the Republican and Democreatic voters for sustaining parties that keep the saloon as a stumblingblock between God and humanity?” We do not know what will become of them. But granting the saloon is the greatest hindrance to the cause of Christianity, it is not the only hindrance; and if the Government is to abolish the saloon in the interests of Christianity, and because it is a hindrance to Christianity, then having done so much, why should it not go on and abolish the next greatest hindrance to Christianity? and the next, and the next, until it has abolished every one that there is in the world? If the Government is to take away one stumblingblock between God and humanity because it is such, then why shall it not continue the work and take away every one? If the Government is to do this, what is the Church for? And if government can do this, what was the Church instituted for? If it can be done by law what is the use of the gospel, and what was the use of instituting the gospel? The truth is that the reason which the Lever and the third party Prohibitionists, as a whole, present for prohibition, are not valid reasons at all. They are not worthy of recognition by government, nor are they worthy of the support of any man. They mean nothing short of an absolute union of Church and State. Of course they deny it, and we grant that many of them do not see it. It is true, however, whether they see it or not. Prohibition upon a proper basis is a proper thing, and a good thing, but prohibition upon the basis advocated by the Lever, the Voice, and such papers, would be an unmitigated evil.AMS February 7, 1890, page 46.2
“A Question” American Sentinel 5, 6.
In Brooklyn, N.Y., four persons were convicted and fined from $100 to $500, for refusing to give to certain children medicine prescribed by physicians, choosing rather to treat the children by other means. They were people who believe in the “faith cure,” and the children died, hence, the prosecution and the punishment. This has caused much discussion in the public press, some taking one side and others the other. All that we shall say just at this time is simply to inquire, How would it do to impose such a fine upon those who do not believe in this method of treatment-the doctors for instance-every time they lose a case?AMS February 7, 1890, page 46.3
“Back Page” American Sentinel 5, 6.
We have received the first number of the Southern Sentinel, published at Dallas, Texas. It is devoted to the same cause as the AMERICAN SENTINEL. We heartily wish it success. May such Sentinels be posted all along the line.AMS February 7, 1890, page 48.1
The “call” for that National Reform convention, lately held in Cincinnati, was signed by eighty-two persons. Seventy-three of these were preachers, the rest were made of eight laymen and one woman. And yet they try to pass that off as a representative “citizens” meeting, simply in the interests of the State!AMS February 7, 1890, page 48.2
SECTION 11, of Article 1, of the Constitution of the new State of Washington, contains this sentence: “No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment.” Yet, as plain as that is, it was attempted when the Legislature met to have a chaplaincy established for the State and the legislative sessions to be opened with prayer. The scheme failed as it was proper that it should. The word “exercise” shut off that relic of the union of Church and State.AMS February 7, 1890, page 48.3
According to the Colorado Graphic of January 18, the people of Denver are losing interest in the Sunday-closing crusade, inaugurated there some months since. At a recent meeting in the interest of the crusade, which the Denver News described as “another of those great meetings,” it is stated that only one hundred and seventy-two persons were present, by actual count, “including forty-one ladies and ten or more children.” This certainly does not look very much like “a great popular uprising,” especially in a city of the size of Denver. One great trouble about this movement is, that while its real object is the exaltation of Sunday, it professes to be primarily a temperance movement. A great many temperance people see this, and hence stand aloof from the movement which would otherwise have their support. That sort of prohibition which proposes to compromise with the saloons, allowing them six-seventh of the time in which to carry on their business, is not worthy of the name of temperance, and not a few are beginning to see it.AMS February 7, 1890, page 48.4
The National League for the Protection of American Institutions, by its Law Committee, has reported the form of an amendment to the national Constitution, which it intends to ask shall be adopted. It reads as follows:-AMS February 7, 1890, page 48.5
No State shall pass any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or use its property, mony or credit, or any power of taxation, or authorize either to be used for the purpose founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or religious society, or any institution, or undertaking under sectarian or ecclesiastical control.AMS February 7, 1890, page 48.6
That might be made a part of the Constitution of the United States, and yet, under the decisions religion could be taught and religious exercises conducted in the public schools in all the States where it is now done. Such, however, is not according to American principles, therefore the League’s proposed amendment ought to be amended at once.AMS February 7, 1890, page 48.7