Untitled article | AdventAI

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · December 8, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 48

Unconstitutionality of Sunday Laws.

IN a late number of the Mail and Express Secretary Knowles, of the American Sabbath Union, answers objections to Sunday legislation. Among those noticed is the following:—

It is unconstitutional for Congress to pass any law relating to Sunday.

Answer. Laws on this subject—State and Federal, constitutional and statutory—have existed from the beginning of our history and are vindicated by decisions of the Supreme courts of twenty-five States and by recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in 1885 and 1892, which interpret and outrank the Tripoli treaty and the action of Congress on Sunday mails in 1829, both of which are sometimes illogically quoted against such legislation.

The decisions of the various courts in the various States present a medley of contradictions. Some defend legislation in favor of Sunday—on extreme theocratic grounds—falsely assuming that the Mosaic legislation concerning the Sabbath is now applicable to Sunday, and that the United States should follow in the footsteps of Moses, and enforce Sunday observance as Moses did Sabbath observance. These decisions are the strongest supporters of Mr. Knowles's position, although he would undoubtedly interpret them more liberally than the judges did who have made them. But the question is not one of personal opinion, or even of judicial interpretation. The underlying principle involved is larger and more vital than any of the opinions—conservative or liberal. The popular cry in favor of congressional interference is:—

This is a Christian Nation; the Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is the distinctive exponent of our national Christianity; it ought to be put on exhibition at Chicago as the best product of our Christian civilization; therefore, the national Government should interfere, and protect and exalt Sunday.

Let this be granted for the moment, that the reader may see what follows. If Congress ought to enforce the observance of Sunday because this is a “Christian Nation,” and Sunday is the “Christian Sabbath,” it ought also to enforce regard for every practice that is “Christian.” And since creeds and practices are closely united, as cause and result, Congress ought to enforce the acceptances of creeds that are “Christian,” and thus establish in toto the pagan doctrine of State religion. Indeed, Congress has already assumed to decide the national creed in the matter of Sunday, by declaring that Sunday shall be observed under the national law. This decision is extra and antibiblical—as much is which has been decreed by State religious legislation; so that the law has in effect superseded the law of God and the teaching of the Bible. Baptism is an essentially “Christian practice;” if a “Christian Nation” should enforce regard

for the “Christian” Sunday, rather than the “Jewish” Sabbath, it ought to enforce regard for “Christian baptism,” and so on to the end of the chapter.

The plea that the law does not “compel men to be religious,” is a subterfuge. As we have shown from the official records of Congress the Sunday closing of the Exposition was urged on religious grounds, and out of deference to the religious sentiment of the Christian churches. There is no ground for ceasing work on Sunday rather than any other day, except on religious grounds. To compel cessation from labor on any day, in deference to religious sentiment, is to enforce a religious observance of that day. All Sunday laws which forbid doing on Sunday what may rightfully be done on other days is religious legislation. Saloon-closing does not come under this head, for the saloons are an injury and a menace to the Commonwealth on all days. And the folly which licenses and protects them on all days except Sunday makes it impossible to close them on that day of leisure.

The friends of Sunday are leaning on a broken reed in their eager appeal to Congress. When there is so little conscience that even Christians will do much which the civil law prohibits, there can be no permanent or essential good in adding law to law. But the worst feature of the case is the false security which Christians will feel in the “protection” of the civil law, and the lessening of regard for the divine law, as a consequence. This turning away from the law of God, and “going down to Egypt” for fruitless help is an open confession that Sunday observance can not be sustained on biblical and historic grounds. In a word, if the legislation of Congress compelling the cessation of business on Sunday, because this is a Christian Nation, be correct, the whole doctrine of State religion is affirmed and sustained. Is the “Pearl of Days” ready for this? We know Secretary Knowles too well to think that he believes in such a doctrine; but his defense of Sunday legislation carries to this inevitable result. No one step could now be taken more potent in exalting the influence and the fundamental doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States than the legislation which the “Pearl of Days” defends. Undesignedly, but not less surely, the friends of Sunday are opening a wide door toward Catholic supremacy. The Roman Catholic power can well afford to be quiet while Protestants forge their own chains.—Sabbath Outlook.