Sunday Laws and the Workingman.
By B.
There are a good many labor leaders who are not in favor of Sunday laws, preferring to secure what they desire in the way of a weekly rest day through their own organizations rather than appeal to the state. In this they are wise. The Sunday-keeping churches desire Sunday laws in their own interests. These interests demand laws not only prohibiting Sunday work but Sunday play as well. Writing upon this subject in the Michigan Sabbath Watchman for October, 1891, Rev. Francis W. Ware said: “ * Make it impossible to run the theaters, shut up the cigar stands, ice-cream saloons, and soda water fountains, and prevent baseball playing, put an end to railroad and other Sabbath excursions, and the masses will the more easily be turned to the house of God. Break down these sacrilegious but fascinating amusements and the church will have the right of way to our masses.”
This shows very plainly the real motive back of the396demand on the part of the churches for Sunday laws and Sunday enforcement—it is that they may “have the right of way to our masses.” But in the same paper, the same writer showed very plainly that they desire not only “the right of way to our masses,” but “the right of way” to the pocketbooks of “our masses.” He says: “If the churches of this state (Michigan) were to contribute $10,000 this year to assist the American Sabbath Union to push its work, they would in our judgment make for themselves the finest possible investment. The money so invested would soon return to them with fine rates of interest. The money now spent in Sabbath desecration by those who are in large sympathy with the churches, but who are led off to the parks, on excursions, and to other places, where money is spent freely, * would, if our Sunday laws were enforced, return to the churches and contribute to their support.”
This was written nine years ago, but it just as truly reveals the real motive back of the “civil Sabbath” now as it did then. And the workingmen should understand—such of them as do not now understand it—that in joining in the demand for Sunday laws, they are only asking the state to restrict their liberties in the interests of the churches. We believe that every man ought to be interested in religion and assist in supporting the gospel, but this he should do voluntarily, “not by constraint but willingly.” And certainly the church has no right to use the civil power to compel this, even indirectly. It is no part of the duty of the state to foster religion or religious institutions other than by such just laws as will leave every man free to worship or not to worship just as he elects. Historically, religious liberty means not only the right to accept, to profess, and to observe the religion of one’s choice, but also the right to reject, not to profess, and not observe any religion. This right the “civil Sabbath” seeks to abridge by indirection.