p. 20 | The Inconsistency of Religious Legislation

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jul 14, 1910

The Inconsistency of Religious Legislation

By T. H. Starbuck

THE state has no legitimate right to assume jurisdiction in matters pertaining to obedience to God; and the reason is obvious: it does not lie within the power of any human tribunal to pass judgment in spiritual things; for the Great Teacher has authoritatively said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” For this present life, Jesus sets forth the following: “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” The time of salvation is now; the judgment is to come at the appointed day. Where Christ withholds sentence until the appointed day, why should the civil power essay to inflict penalties prematurely? Self-constituted conservators of “civic righteousness” can attempt to climb into the judgment-seat of God, calling their fellow men in question for violations of civil sabbath laws; but those who make such serious mistakes will have to stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and give an answer to the question, “Who hath required this at your hand?”

To illustrate further the inconsistency of Sunday legislation, let us look at another feature of the case. If legislation upon one Christian duty is a benefit to the people, why not have similar laws relative to other essentials of salvation? Sabbath observance, baptism, faith, prayer, repentance, and confession are all “good for the soul,” as every true Christian can testify. If one is a legitimate subject for legislation, all are equally so. Our friends who are so strenuous for Sunday legislation would doubtless wince a little at similar laws requiring everybody to pray, repent, or be baptized; but if so-called sabbath laws come within the limits of human legislation, so do all the others. Why select just one from the foregoing list, and expend all our legislative force upon that? The reason is obvious: people intuitively discern the fact that only the power of God can lead men to believe, repent, or pray effectually. Why can not men of good reasoning abilities see that the same is true of Sabbath observance? Coerced obedience is a positive detriment to the individual, the community, and the civil power which demands it. The service of God, to be availing, must be free and voluntary; and the golden rule forbids any other kind of service.

But Sunday-law advocates have a habit of contending that such things are not enforced as religious duties, but as civil regulations, in order that people may not be disturbed in their worship on that day. All this, however, is but an evasion of the point at issue. A Sunday law as a mere civil regulation is illogical. In the last analysis it will always appear that there are only about two reasons for such legislation,—the Sunday institution is connected with religion in the human mind, and its friends desire to have things come their way in the community.—T. H. Starbuck.