Danger Ahead! by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Sep 25, 1889

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 4, No. 35.

Danger Ahead!

By Editor

THERE are always two sides to every question, yet “the other side” of many of the most important questions usually has but few champions in press, pulpit, or public, because although possessing even more intrinsic merit than the opposite side, it is unpopular, or perhaps, more properly speaking, unfashionable with “sawsiety.” Such is the case with a number of questions which have been submitted to the consideration of the Constitutional Convention at Olympia, most prominent of which are: God in the Constitution, “Sunday rest,” and exemption of church property from taxation. Unfortunately there seem to be few of the members, who have given “the other” side any study and who understand the true intent of the measures.

. . . . .

WHILE an apparently harmless sentiment in itself, the recognition of that force which rules the universe—possesses deeper meaning in the preamble than many people imagine. What is the true meaning? Circumstances indicate this to be the entering wedge, the preliminary step, towards the union of Church and State, and the restriction and eventual suppression of religious liberty. The future is best judged by the past and present; the true meaning of this union is written in blood upon the pages of history.

THAT some kinds of laws seem to be necessary to preserve order and protect society there can be no doubt; but no special Sunday laws are required, because that day is no better than any other day; what is proper to be done on any day is proper to be done on Sunday, and what should not be done on a week day should not be done at all. The advocates of this measure, however, seek to establish a false standard of right and wrong,—that an act done on Sunday is wrong, while the same act performed on any other day would be meritorious. It is not the day when an act is done that makes it either right or wrong, but it is the intrinsic features of that act. Can you truthfully deny this, my Christian friend?

WHILE one class of Christians recognize Sunday as a day of worship and rest, there are others who devote Saturday to the same purpose; the Mohammedan recognizes Friday as his Sabbath; while other classes recognize all days as alike holy. Those who keep Sunday and want legislation for that day ask that other people shall be forbidden to pursue their usual avocations on that day, because it disturbs their rest and worship, and they claim their rights are not properly protected; yet they seem to ignore this principle by refusing to abstain from work on Saturday, when they may possibly disturb the Sabbath rest and worship of the Jew and Adventist.

ARE not the rights of the Jew and Adventist (who with the Liberal, Spiritualist and Agnostic oppose Sunday legislation) entitled to as much respect and protection as those of the Methodist or Presbyterian? The liberty of the latter class to worship who, when, where, and in what manner they please is not denied, and present laws afford ample protection from disturbance. We contend that if we wish to make our “day of rest” a holiday, to engage in such recreations and

amusements as shall be consistent with the rights of others, or if we wish to pursue our regular business we have that right and should be protected in it. Sunday is an excellent social arrangement, provided it is not managed entirely by priests, preachers, and church members; in that case it is a mere adjunct to superstition and bigotry.

THE agitators for Sunday laws seem to lose sight of the fact that minorities have rights as well as majorities, and that there is no safety in society at any time or place, under any system of religious or civil law, when the rights of each individual, no matter how humble nor how much he may dissent from the common public opinion, shall be held less sacred than the rights of the majority. The question of religious belief and observance is a question between a man’s own conscience and his God, if he has any; and it is a matter the State has no right to interfere with, directly or indirectly.

THIS measure of the Sabbath Union, like its progenitor the Blair bill, is a blow at the liberty and rights guaranteed every citizen of this free republic; it is a public acknowledgement that their religious system is a failure and cannot keep up with the procession in the march of progress which has marked the latter part of the enlightened nineteenth century; that it cannot stand upon its own merits, but seeks the State’s aid to save its cherished myths, superstitions and errors, from decay; it shows the spirit of intolerance and bigotry that for centuries has animated and still animates the church. The world has had enough of religious persecution and intolerance. An inquisition such as the leaders of these measures contemplate would be no less arbitrary and ferocious through Protestants than were the leaders of the Romish Inquisition; the system is the same. In the fourth century the same movement of designing priests and politicians to unite Church and State by Sunday and similar laws, developed a theocracy, a religious despotism which left a trail of blood down through the Dark Ages. That the church of to-day can no more safely be trusted with political power than it could in the fourth century is best illustrated by recent utterances of some of its leading representatives in this Sunday-law movement.

IT is understood that this question of enforcing an observance of the sectarian Sabbath will be submitted for the people’s adoption or rejection as a separate article of the Constitution. Thus far the press has been eloquently silent in discussing the merits or demerits of this measure, probably for fear of offending the “very elect.” The Eye, however, believes in a free and fair discussion. Under its present management its columns have been and will continue to be open to those who may hold different opinions from its editor. “Hear all sides; hold fast to that which is good. The truth will make you free.”—The Eye, Snohomish, Washington.