Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/412

 The Green Bag

388

in the majority, presumed to act as arbiters of one of the greatest social problems that has ever confronted

matters within the range of human experience because of the probability

the race. What they did not know about the divorce question is very clearly shown by the recommendations

and the dogmatizer. Our present day methods of intercommunication are materially increasing such risks, too. People are just beginning to learn that divorces, in some form or other, have been co-existent with marriage;

and

the

address

accompanying

the

same. I suppose I am one of the “very few radical individuals" referred to by Mr. Smith, for I do not admit that divorce is of itself an evil. While I care nothing about the name, I maintain

of the loss of respect for both the dogma

that they existed long before Christian ity or Christian dogma, and that they

will probably continue to be an element in the social organization a long time

that a man may be just as radical in

after Christianity has ceased to dog

insisting that divorce is an evil as in holding the opposite opinion, and that he may be no more “sane, conservative and moderate" in urging an uniform divorce law as a means of suppressing the evils incident to divorce than in

matize. We are also learning that a man's religion, regardless of any claims he may make for it, is never any better than he makes it or any worse than he permits it to become; so, if his religious dogma does not conform to well attested social requirements, it is very good evidence that his religion needs reform ing rather than society. In making this statement I trust I am not insensible

opposing such means.

Especially is

this true when he admits in the same article in which he is urging the adop tion of his cherished plan of uniformity, that it will not “stop divorce or mate rially reduce the number of decrees.” At any rate, I never could see why it is always necessary to inject so much of the teachings of Christianity or of any

other religion into a discussion of the divorce question. volved

are

not

The phenomena in religious,

theological

or ecclesiastical, and the legal problems seldom arise except as to methods of

procedure.

While it is true that the

Church has attempted to assume control of the matter and settle all problems incident to marriage and divorce, yet it is also true that these problems have

very stubbornly refused to be thus settled. The loosening of the ties of dogmatic faith is only a necessary result of in creasing civilization, and the fault is with the dogma. It may be safe enough to dogmatize as to the unknowable, but it is mighty risky to dogmatize on

to the great service Christianity has rendered

to

civilization,

but

I

also

recognize that civilization has rendered a great service to Christianity. Happily

the work of neither is yet ended. I deny, however, that the separation of marriage and divorce from religion— or, more strictly speaking, from ecclesi asticism-has robbed the former of any of its intrinsic sacredness. A marriage is, and always has been, sacred just to the extent that the man and woman who jointly assume the obliga tion make it so, and there is no power

yet known which can alter this. Neither is there any power which can give sacredness to a marriage independent of the parties thereto. When it does not exist, both public and private morality demand

that

the marriage

contract—for, under the conditions, that is about all there is left of it-—be dis solved.