An Interference With Religion.
By S.
With reference to the prosecution of a seventh day keeper in Greensboro, N. C., to which we refer elsewhere, the editor of the Greensboro Telegram says the following in defense of the action taken: “Were the keeping of one day in seven a matter of religion solely, grounded upon the sole fact that it is a Biblical command, then men would have a right to keep whatsoever day they chose, and the state would have no right whatever, upon the principle on which our system is founded, to take any notice of the fact at all. The state would have no right to say what day should be observed, any more than it would have the right to say whether baptism should be administered by immersion or by pouring. Were the Sabbath only a religious institution, by taking note of it and regulating it by law, the state would be abridging religious liberty, because some citizens hold that the first day of the week is the proper day, while a very large class hold that Saturday is the day, and yet others believe in Friday. By forcing a believer in Saturday to worship on Sunday, that man’s religious freedom would be destroyed. From that standpoint, Mr. Johnson would undoubtedly be right. “But Sunday is not merely a religious institution, it is more. As a mere religious institution it could not be reconciled to the principles of our government, as Mr. Johnson suggests. It is an institution founded upon facts of physical experience which happen to coincide with Biblical commands. The experience of mankind has taught the physical truth that more can be accomplished in a given length of time by working six days and resting one, than by working seven and resting none. Thus it is best for society that this principle391be recognized by law. The law does not compel a man to worship on Sunday, it merely compels him to desist from all labors because his labor disturbs the rest which society has imposed upon itself. If this principle be allowed, then it follows that the state has a right to say that a specific day shall be observed, because of the impossibility of accomplishing the desired end in any other way. If it were left to each individual to observe whatever day he chose, then there would be no rest for society, and both society and individuals who desired to rest would be denied the privilege.” It is admitted in this argument that if the Sabbath were merely a religious institution, then “by taking note of it and regulating it by law the state would be abridging religious liberty.” This is true, and the admission is fatal to the conclusion reached, that it is right for the state to take note of the Sabbath and regulate its observance by law. For if such interference with the Sabbath would be wrong by virtue of its being a religious institution, such interference must be wrong in any case, so long as the Sabbath remains a religious institution. If such action by the state would interfere with conscience and with religious belief and practice simply because the Sabbath is a religious institution, then plainly, so long as the Sabbath remains a religious institution, such action must still be an interference with religion. The same thing which would be an interference with religion in the one case, simply because the Sabbath institution is religious (the only reason that could be assigned for it), cannot cease to be an interference with religion in case it were true, as claimed, that the Sabbath is more than a religious institution, because the religious character of the institution would still affect the action of the state in the same way. There would still be the same existing cause, producing the same result. And whatever the Sabbath may be to others, to Christians it is purely a religious institution, and any regulation of its observance by the state must be to them purely an interference with religion. Such it is in the case of the seventh-day Christian prosecuted in Greensboro, and such it has been in all the numerous similar cases that have arisen in the last few years. If it were not an interference with conscience, these people would not have suffered the penalties of the law as they have done, rather than obey it.