Untitled article

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

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 42

SOME time since, Mr. Crafts visited Denver, and delivered several discourses upon the Sunday-law question. In an editorial notice of his work, the News of that city says:—

The difficulty arises when we come to define rest, and to specify what may and what may not be done. It would be interesting to catechize Dr. Crafts on that subject in the presence of one of his large audiences. When he approaches it he has a habit of generalizing, and if he becomes specific he hastens his gait and touches his points lightly. It needs no analysis, however, to see the drift of the legislation he advocates. He would have the civil power enforce a religious conception of Sunday observance, save that he would forego compulsory attendance at church. He would ostracize Sunday amusement, no matter how innocent, and entertainments, no matter how instructive. He would interdict the masses of city population from going to any suburban resort on the only day of the seven when it is in their power to breathe country air. Just where he would draw the line who can tell? Modern rapid transit has wonderfully favored metropolitan resorts, and our cable and electric lines would clearly have to stop on Sunday to meet Mr. Crafts's requirements, or at least shorten their run on that day so that the toiling classes should not be taken beyond the murky atmosphere that characterizes most of our large cities.

The News is in favor of a Sunday law that would close saloons, factories, etc., but it is not prepared to agree to Mr. Crafts's so-called “civil Sunday” scheme. It sees very plainly that what he is really working for, is, as it says, a law that would enforce a religious rest, and it wants nothing of the kind. And this opposition, it appears, is not because of opposition to religion, but simply from opposition to State interference in matters of religion.