Contradictory Arguments for Sunday Laws
Speaking in defense of the Sunday laws, a prominent representative of the W. C. T. U. argues that the prohibition of work one day in the week will pay financially, and in evidence cites the reports of railway corporations that have discontinued Sunday work. These reports allege that employees earn as much in six days as they did previously in seven, and that as much work is done in the six days of labor as was previously done in the whole week. This is a common argument for the enforcement of Sunday rest, as all will recognize who are familiar with the literature published in support of Sunday enforcement. But almost in the next sentence appears another argument for the Sunday laws, which says:
“Overproduction is the bane of many kinds of business. Reduce the output one seventh regularly by shutting off all business on Sabbath and it would prevent accumulation and bring relief.”371 Reading these two contradictory statements, the unbiased searcher after truth is forced to wonder how it can possibly be that if as much work is done when the weekly rest day is observed as when it is not, cessation from work on that day can reduce the output one seventh, and thus be a remedy for overproduction. The only conclusion one can draw from reading such arguments is that the person making them did not aim to be logical, but had in view only the justification of Sunday laws, and seized upon any idea that seemed available for such use. The aim was not to reveal the truth, but to maintain a cause to which a branch of the W. C. T. U. had become committed. Arguments which contradict and devour each other belong not to reason, but to sophistry, and to the cause of error, not that of truth and right.