p. 331 | Untitled article by W. A. Colcord

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · October 23, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 42

He Tries to Fix It Up.

By W. A. Colcord

In a four-page leaflet entitled “Sunday Opening of the World’s Fair,” which Mr. Crafts has recently gotten out, he attempts to extract himself from the dilemma in which his Sunday-law theory involves him. When advocates of Sunday laws are informed that men are free to observe Sunday without Sunday laws, and hence, to enact such laws, for the purpose of giving men the privilege of keeping that day, is unnecessary, they feel that a damaging argument has been made against their Sunday-law-for-the-poor-laboring-man theory, and that it must in some way be fixed up. Mr. Crafts, it seems, has met with this argument, and hence, in his leaflet, he says:—

If it be said that every man is at liberty not to work on Sunday, the answer is that the liberty is rather the liberty to give up his “job” when jobs are few and hard to get. He ought to give up his job rather than his conscience, but he ought not to be placed where he has to give up either.

In reply to this it is necessary only to quote and carefully note Mr. Crafts’s own words in his work, “Sabbath for Man,” page 258. He here says:—

It is not sufficiently emphasized that the Jew is left absolutely free to observe the seventh day. He can close his shop, he can refuse to work.

Now, as every one knows, there is no seventh-day, or Saturday, law in this country; and yet Mr. Crafts says—and is correct in saying it—the Jew is left absolutely free to observe that day. All that is necessary for him to enjoy this freedom is that he have the privilege of closing his shop and refusing to work. Now, we ask, Cannot the Christian do the same, and be just as free to observe the day of his choice? Certainly. “He can close his shop, he can refuse to work.” This in the case of the Jew, according to Mr. Crafts, is absolute freedom. Are not the same privileges in the case of the Christian absolute freedom as well? And if so, is he not absolutely free to observe Sunday or any other day he may choose, and, consequently, in no more need of a Sunday law than the Jew is of a Saturday law?

By refusing to work, the Jew may, of course, lose his “job;” yet he is “absolutely free to observe the seventh day.” Under such circumstances he will be obliged to decide between giving up his job or his conscience; still he is “absolutely free to observe the seventh day.” Now, who is not as free to observe the first day, or any other day, as the Jew is the seventh? He is absolutely free. What more than absolute freedom can any one ask?

Says Mr. Crafts, “But he [every man] ought not to be placed where he must give up either” his job or his conscience. Will Mr. Crafts tell us, then, how he expects to fix things up so that the Jew will not be placed in just that position? The fact is, by this statement Mr. Crafts evidently means that the Sunday keeper ought not to be placed where he must give up either. But why discriminate thus, and legislate simply in favor of the Sunday keeper? Are the Sunday keepers the only ones entitled to the attention and protection of the Government? While protection of person and property is declared to be the paramount duty of government, it is a principle of this Government, and all good governments, that this shall be “impartial and complete;” that all laws of a general nature shall have “a uniform operation” they “shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens;” that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (See Constitutions of Georgia, Iowa, and the United States.) Are jobs any fewer or harder to get with the observer of Sunday than with the observer of the seventh day? Or is the conscience of one more sacred than that of the other?

Manifestly, the making of such laws as Mr. Crafts would have enacted would be nothing more nor less than class legislation. The trouble with his whole argument and plea for a Sunday law for the working man is, it will not hold. Sunday laws are not made in the interest of the laboring man, neither are they wanted for the laboring man; they are religious laws, made in the interests of the Church.

It is not the business of the Government to make laws to prevent a man, in living up to his convictions of religious duty, from being brought into a place where he must decide between giving up his job or

his conscience. Such laws, if made to apply equally to all, would require every man to shape his business affairs to suit the religious convictions of every other man, which would be an impossibility. If limited to a certain class they would be unjust, and would result in religious intolerance and oppression.

Why should not the observer of Sunday be allowed to exercise his conscience as well as other men? What is his conscience for? Why should the Government see that he is shielded from pecuniary loss in following out his religious convictions, and not other citizens who may observe some other day in compliance with their religious views? If the Government undertakes to protect one class in this way upon this ground, it is bound, in dealing equally with all, to protect every other class in the same way upon the same ground. This, however, would be an undertaking implying, as we have seen, an utter impossibility in its adjustments. And such an undertaking is not contemplated by Mr. Crafts and his coadjutors. It is simply the observer of Sunday they propose now to relieve from making a choice between violating conscience and losing cash. We wonder if they never read the passage which speaks “of the trial of your faith being much more precious than of gold”? It would seem that they did not wish any one’s faith in Sunday keeping tried. They would want the Sunday keeper “carried to the skies on flowery beds of ease,” and let others get along as best they can. Our opinion of any Sunday keeping that comes from such inducements as this, is, that it will not count for much at the great tribunal above. If this be true, Sunday laws are not only superfluous in this world, but will insure no one a passport to the world to come, in which case Mr. Crafts might as well go home and hang up his “Damascus saw.”

The proper solution of this question is, to let every man observe whatever day his religious convictions dictate, and whatever inconvenience or pecuniary loss this may cause him is a sacrifice he makes to his religion, and one which he should make and not another. For any one to seek to evade this is for him to ask that another bear the crosses of his religion, a thing which no true Christian will do. If a man wishes to observe Sunday, he must not engage in business or hire himself out to an employer requiring Sunday work. And every man is free not to do this. If the Government provides that one man must not be refused work or be discharged because he keeps Sunday, then, upon the ground of equality, it must likewise provide that no other man shall be refused work or discharged who keeps any other day. But how many Sunday-keeping merchants, bankers, and business men, would submit to a law compelling them to retain any employes who might turn Mohammedan and keep Friday, or seventh-day observer and keep Saturday? This shows the injustice of such a demand. The man who wishes to keep Friday must not engage in business requiring Friday work; the man who chooses to keep Saturday must not engage in business requiring Saturday work; and, likewise, the man who desires to keep Sunday must not engage in business requiring Sunday work. If he does, he alone is responsible for the use he makes of the day. Let this rule be carried out, and there will be no difficulty, no class legislation, no injustice, and no one’s rights infringed, in the matter. Religious profession and practice will be free, and capital and labor will stand upon an equal footing.

W. A. Colcord.