# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_November 1908_S517
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Kirchlich⸗Zeitgeschichtliches. 517

behauptet: unser Staat sei ein christlicher und habe die Pflicht, das Christen⸗
tum zur Geltung zu bringen. Die Generalsynode hätte darum, um ihre
Prinzipien in die Praxis umzusetzen, wie die Prediger in der Homiletie
Fepied, vor der Wahl des Unitariers warnen sollen. Davon haben wir
aber in den Blättern der Generalsynode nichts gelesen. — Gewiß, eaeteris
paribus ist jedesmal der Christ ein besserer Bürger als der Nichtchrist. Und
caeteris paribus wird jedesmal auch der Christ einen besseren Beamten
abgeben als der Nichtchrist. Und in der Wahl wird darum auch ein Christ,
caeteris paribus, einem Christen den Vorzug geben vor dem Nichtchristen.
Gottes Wort aber fordert nicht, daß wir, wie bei den Amtern in der Kirche,
so auch im Staat nur für Christen, oder gar nur für rechtgläubige Christen
stimmen dürften. Warum? Weil der Staat ein weltliches Reich ist und
nicht, wie die Kirche, den Auftrag und Zweck hat, das Reich Gottes auf
Erden zu bauen, und weil Staat und Kirche, Geistliches und Weltliches, in
keiner Weise verquickt werden dürfen. F. B.
Religion und Politik. Hierüber hat sich Präsident Roosevelt geäußert
in einem offenen Brief vom 6. November an solche, die der Ansicht waren,
gegen Taft stimmen zu müssen, weil er ein Unitarier und ein Freund der
Katholiken sei. Roosevelt schreibt unter anderm: I réeceived many such
letters as yours during the eampaign, expressing dissatisfaction with
Mr. Taft on religious grounds, some of them on the ground that he was
a Unitarian, and others on the ground that he was suspected to be in
sympathy with Catholics. Ia did not answer any of these letters during
the campaign, because I regarded it as an outrage even to agitate such
a question as a man's religious convictions, with the purpose of influeneing
à political election. But now that the campaign is over, there is oppor-
tunity for men ealmly to consider whither such propositions as those
vou make in your letter would lead. Vou ask that Mr. Taft shall Aet
the world know what his religious belief is.“ This is purely his own pri-
vate concern, and it is a matter between him and his Maker, a matter
for his own conscience; and to require it to be made publie under penalty
of politieal discrimination is to negative the first principles of our govern-
ment, which guarantee complete religious liberty, and the right to each
man to aet in religious affairs as his oπn cçonscience dictates. The
demand for a statement of a candidate's religious belief can have no
meaning except that there may be diserimination for or against him be⸗
cause of that belief. Diserimination against the holder of one faith means
retaliatory diserimination against men of other faiths. The inevitable
result of entering upon such a practice would be an abandonment of our
real fréeedom of conscience and a reéversion to the dreadful conditions of
religious dissension, Which in so many lands have proved fatal to true
liberty, to true religion, and to all adyanee in civilization. J0 discrimi-
nate against a thoroughly uprighit citizen because he belongs to some
particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed
his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of con-
science which is one of the foundations of American liberty. Lou are
entitled to know whether à man seéeking your suffrages is a man of clean
and upright life, honorable in all his dealings with his fellows, and tüt
by qualification and purpose to do well in the great office for which he is
a candidate; but you are not entitled to kRnow matters which lie purely