Reasons Why Civil Government Should Not Legislate on Religious Questions
By Charles P. Whitford
In view of the present agitation of the Sunday question, and the efforts now being made to have Sunday as a day of rest and worship more securely entrenched in the law of the land, it is well to have clear ideas of the relation which such laws sustain to the principles upon which our government is founded. The Declaration of American Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In the preamble of the Constitution of the United States, it is declared that one of its objects is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” These great principles of liberty and equal rights are imbued in the life of the nation in poetry, in speech, and in song. The national anthem, “America,” has as its first and chief glory, liberty:— “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty.” The great and direct end of government is liberty. Liberty is the greatest of all earthly blessings. Give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else. Secure our liberty and privileges, and the end of government is attained. If this is not effectually done, government is a failure. Liberty does not include the right to infringe upon the rights of another, but does include the recognition of that other great American principle, equal rights. Herbert Spencer says: “Every man has the power to do as he will, provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.” Liberty, then, includes freedom of action, with a recognition of the equal rights of others. The majority have no right to make laws granting to themselves privileges that they refuse to the minority, for in so doing, the principle of equality is violated; and unless this principle is recognized, there is no protection from the tyranny of the majority, in case they choose to exercise it. John Stuart Mill in his essay on liberty very truthfully said, “If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” While favoring everything that tends to promote the spiritual and moral welfare of humanity, we can not but deprecate all coercive legislation in the direction of Sunday observance; or any other religious rite or ceremony, as violative of the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States, and of the principles of Christ as well. We freely grant the right of any body of men to seek by all proper means to influence public opinion in favor of a better observance of Sunday; but when they attempt to use the lawmaking power to compel others to act in harmony with their religious views, there are many thousands of voices uttering emphatic protest. Civil government can punish for crime, but can not legitimately punish for sin. A business which is not criminal on other days of the week, is not criminal on Sunday. Hence, if it is to be prohibited on Sunday and not on other days, it must be because of the religious character of the day. Sunday Laws Unconstitutional
Sunday is a religious institution. Sunday laws are therefore religious laws, and religious laws are contrary to every principle of good government. They are contrary to the Constitution of the United States, which declares: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” For the State to enact and enforce Sabbath laws is for the State to enact and enforce religion. But in no State are the citizens all agreed in matters of religion. With reference to a day of rest, there are at least three classes: Sabbatarians, Sunday-observers, and those who do not believe in or hold any day as sacred. Sabbatarians observe the seventh day, Sunday-observers observe the first day, and non-professors do not regard any day. Sunday legislation is therefore class legislation, because it favors a class of citizens in matters of religion and at the expense of another class. But as we have already shown, such discrimination is unjust. Religion a Matter of Faith
Religion has to do with man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God. With this relation civil government can not rightfully have anything to do. The Bible says: “Without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that com-eth to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Heb. 11:6. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Rom. 14:23. From these scriptures and many others that we might cite, it is plainly manifest that all true religious service must be voluntary. It must spring from the heart, and be performed in love. But men can not love that in which they have no faith, or that which they believe to be wrong. To observe outwardly any religious institution in which a man has no faith, or which he believes to be wrong, is hollow mockery. To compel men and women against their convictions of right and duty to render such outward service, is to rob them of their dearest and most sacred rights. It is as plain as facts can demonstrate that religious legislation invades the conscience of the citizen, and therefore can only work injustice to all the citizens of the state. It is therefore to be condemned, and all movements seeking such legislation are likewise to be condemned. There is no more reason or justice in the state’s enacting and enforcing a Sunday law, than there would be in enacting and enforcing a law that all the citizens of the state should be baptized. The only authority for either the Sabbatic institution or baptism, is the Word of God. The moment it is conceded that it is the duty of the state to enforce the Sabbatic institution, that moment it must be conceded that it is the duty of the state to enforce baptism. Both institutions were established by Christ; both are enjoined in the Scriptures; both are religious; and both are a matter of faith with men. Neither institution can be acceptably observed in the sight of God without faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please him.” Every unbiased person can see that it would be wrong for the state to pass a law requiring every one of its citizens to be sprinkled. What a pitiable spectacle it would be, to see the police of our cities dragging unbelievers to the police courts to be prosecuted and fined for refusing to be sprinkled! What a travesty on religion! What an outrage on the conscience! But what is the difference in principle between Sabbath laws and baptismal laws? As we have already stated, both are purely religious, and there is as much difference of opinion among men respecting which day should be observed as the Sabbath as there is as to what mode shall be adopted when being baptized. The state has no more right to enforce the one than to enforce the other. The state has no more right to compel men to rest, and to say just when they shall rest, than it has to compel them to labor, and to say just when they shall labor. To enforce any feature of religion by civil law is not the protection, but the invasion of rights, and is therefore a perversion of the power committed to civil government. Whenever any law enforcing any religious observance is placed upon the statute-books, however good may be the motives of those who make or pass the law, it will be taken advantage of by religious bigots to oppress conscientious people who are not in harmony with it. The religious persecutions of the dark ages began by legislating on religious questions. In taking the position we do, we are advocating the rights of conscience of all the people. We plead that all men be forever free from interference and dictation of the state, in all matters pertaining to religious faith and practise. In the history of the formation of the Constitution, Mr. Bancroft says that the “American Constitution withheld from the federal government the power to invade the home of reason—the citadel of conscience.” When the Congress of this nation shall begin to legislate on religious questions, the doom of religious freedom, the foundation of which is set like a diamond in the Constitution, will have been fixed. The onward march will surely be, step by step, down the road of religious intolerance, to religious tyranny. May voices everywhere be heard saying: Let the American Constitution, wisely framed in the interests of civil and religious liberty, forever remain as our forefathers established it. Let the watchword of every man who loves liberty and his country be, Freedom for all; oppression for none.