Senator Blair. -- In other words, you take the ground that for the good of society, irrespective of the religious aspect of the question, society may not require abstinence from labor on Sabbath, if it disturbs others?
Mr. Jones. -- As to its disturbing others, I have proved that it does not. They body of your question states my position exactly.
Senator Blair. -- You are logical all the way through that there shall be no Sabbath. This question was passed me to ask: "Is the speaker also opposed to all laws against blasphemy?"
Mr. Jones. -- Yes, sir. But not because blasphemy is not wrong, but because civil government cannot define blasphemy, nor punish it. Blasphemy pertains to God, it is an offense against him, it is a sin against him.
Senator Blair. -- Suppose the practice of it in society at large is hurtful to society?
Mr. Jones. -- That will have to be explained. How is it hurtful to society?
Senator Blair. -- Suppose it be hurtful to society in this way: A belief in the existence of God, and reverence for the Creator, and a cultivation of that sentiment in society, is for the good of society; is, in fact, the basis of all law and restraint. If the Almighty, who knows everything, or is supposed to, and has all power, has no right to restrain us, it is difficult to see how we can restrain each other.
Mr. Jones. -- He has the right to restrain us. He does restrain us.
Senator Blair. -- To commonly blaspheme and deride and ridicule the Almighty, would, of course, have a tendency to bring up the children who are soon to be the State, in an absolute disregard of him and his authority. Blasphemy, as I understand it, is that practice which brings the Creator into contempt and ridicule among his creatures.
Mr. Jones. -- What is blasphemy here, would not be blasphemy in China, and many other countries.
Senator Blair. -- We are not dealing with pagan communities. A regulation that may be appropriate in a pagan community, would not answer men in a Christian community. Do you mean that there is no such thing as blasphemy?
Mr. Jones. -- No; I do not mean that.
Senator Blair. -- The Chinaman hardly believes in any god whatever; at least in no such God as we do. Taking our God and these Christian institutions of ours, what do you understand blasphemy to be?
Mr. Jones. -- There are many things that the Scriptures show to be blasphemy.
Senator Blair. -- The power of the law has undertaken in various States to say that certain things are blasphemy.
Mr. Jones. -- Precisely; but if the law proposes to define blasphemy and punish it, why does it not go to the depth of it, and define all and punish all?
Senator Blair. -- Perhaps it may not go as far as it ought. You say you are opposed to all laws against blasphemy, cursing, and swearing?
Mr. Jones. -- In relation to any one of the first four commandments.
Senator Palmer. -- Suppose that what is defined as blasphemy in the statutes of the several States, should detract from the observance of the law and regard for it, would you regard laws against it as being improper?
Mr. Jones. -- Under the principle that the Scripture lays down, no legislation in any way can be proper in regard to the first four commandments. There may be many ways in which it would appear very appropriate for civil government to do this or to do that; but when you have entered upon such legislation, where will you stop?
Senator Palmer. -- Abstaining from blasphemy is a part of the education of the youth of the country.
Mr. Jones. -- That is true. If youth are properly educated, they will never blaspheme.
Senator Palmer. -- We pass laws for the education of the youth. The question is whether abstention from blasphemy could not be included in the scope of education. Take it on that ground.
Mr. Jones. -- Idolatry (and covetousness is idolatry) is no more than a violation of the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me;" and if the State can forbid the violation of the third commandment and the fourth, why may it not forbid the violation of the first and the second, and in that case supplant God at once, and establish an earthly theocracy? That is the only logical outcome.
Senator Blair. -- Covetousness is a state of mind; but when it becomes practice by stealing -- taking from another without consideration -- the law interferes.
Mr. Jones. -- Certainly.
Senator Palmer. -- There is an infection in blasphemy or in covetousness. For instance, if one covetous man in a neighborhood should infuse the whole neighborhood with covetousness to such an extent that all would become thieves, then covetousness would be a proper subject of legislation.
Mr. Jones. -- Never! You forbid the theft, not the covetousness. You cannot invade the condition of mind in which lies the covetousness.
Senator Blair. -- We do not say that we must invade the condition of mind; but society has a right to make regulations, because those regulations are essential to the good of society. Society by a major vote establishes a regulations, and we have to obey what is settled by the majority.
Mr. Jones. -- How shall it be discovered what is blasphemy, as it is only an offense against God? In the Puritan Theocracy of New England, our historian, Bancroft, says that "the highest offense in the catalogue of crimes was blasphemy, or what a jury should call blasphemy."