Memorials and Resolutions in Opposition to Sunday Legislation
EARNEST work in opposition to religious legislation is being carried forward in the Pacific Union Conference by Brother J. F. Blunt, the religious liberty secretary, and those associated with him. The following memorials and resolutions have been presented to the legislature of the State of California:— Memorial in Opposition to a Sunday-Closing Law in the State of California
To the Honorable Senators and Assemblymen of the State Legislature of California, convened at the City of Sacramento, Jan. 6, 1913. “GENTLEMEN: Among the propositions defeated at the last regular session of the legislature was a Sunday-closing bill, specially applying to the conduct of barber shops in California. Later, the advocates of Sunday sacredness proposed to invoke the initiative to secure the adoption of a general Sunday-closing law in this State, providing heavy penalties for the non-observance of the day. “You are aware of the fact that this effort to enforce a religious custom by civil law failed completely, only 8,714 signatures having been secured by the original canvass, and only 4,999 more by supplemental petition. As the original and the supplemental petitions all together contained only 13,713 signatures, or less than one half the required eight per cent of the vote for governor, at the last State election, the issue did not come up at the November election for a vote. “When it is considered that a protest against the enactment of a Sunday law, bearing the signatures of 68,559 male voters of this State, was ready for presentation to the legislature two years ago, and that notwithstanding the enfranchisement of women since that time a meager showing of only 13,713 signatures of both men and women voters was made in favor of a Sunday law, in the campaign just ended, it is apparent that the citizens of California are almost unanimously opposed to such discrimination of days. “We desire to suggest in this memorial that the rights of all citizens are involved in this controversy. There are wide differences of religious conviction regarding the sanctity of days. The Jews, with the Seventh-day Adventists, the Seventh-day Baptists, and others, maintain that the Sabbath ordained at the beginning of the world has never been changed by divine authority, and that all are subject to this requirement of God to keep holy the seventh day. While others, without any Scriptural authority, have chosen to ignore the Sabbath of divine appointment, and have united for the exaltation of Sunday as the weekly day of rest, enforced by civil law, there are still others who esteem all days alike common. “These differences of conviction can not be regulated by civil law. The State is equally bound to defend the rights of all citizens, whatever their faith or persuasion, and section 4, article 1, of the State constitution, distinctly declares that ‘the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE, shall forever be guaranteed in this State.’ To arbitrarily require that all should abide by the conclusions of any class of religionists would be despotic. It was never designed by the founders of the government that such a union of church and state should prevail in America. Congress is expressly enjoined, by the First Amendment of the national Constitution, from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and the Fourteenth Amendment unequivocally declares that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States.’” “All these just provisions of the basic laws of State and nation are founded on inalienable rights of the individual, which can not be ignored. They stand as insuperable barriers to the enactment of a Sunday law; for the observance of Sunday is undeniably a religious custom. Such laws are an expression of intolerance, a menace to the religious liberty of dissenters, and a ready excuse for persecution when placed upon the statutes. Despite the pretense that such laws are demanded in the interest of labor, they have their origin in religious superstition and fanaticism. “We trust and believe that you will not fail to support the existing guaranties of absolute freedom in religious things, established by the State for the protection of the entire community. We look to you as the champions and defenders of liberty, and we expect your faithful adherence to the principles which actuated our forefathers in erecting these strong bulwarks against bigotry and persecution, such as characterized the administration of human affairs during the dark ages. As America has stood for freedom in days past, so let California continue to stand in defense of civil and religious liberty and for the equality of all citizens under the law. “S. Hecht, rabbi of Congregation B’nai B’rith, Los Angeles, Cal.; Isidore Myers, rabbi, Los Angeles, Cal.; Seventh-day Baptists of California, by Eli F. Loofboro, pastor Riverside church; Christian Sabbath-keepers’ Union, by Theophilus A. Gill, registrar for California; Victor Harris, editor B’nai B’rith Messenger, secretary Hebrew Benevolent Society, Los Angeles, Cal.; Pacific Religious Liberty Association, by John F. Blunt, secretary; Pacific Union Conference Seventh-day Adventists, by E. E. Andross, president; Western League for the Preservation of Civil Liberty, by H. G. Thurston, president; Dr. R. Furber, Ph. D., rabbi of Congregation Sinai, Los Angeles, Cal.; Geo. W. Hills, pastor Seventh-day Baptist Church, Los Angeles.” To the State Legislature now in session in this city. “GENTLEMEN: We submit herewith a series of resolutions, formally adopted by the Northern California-Nevada Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, at the third annual session of that body, held at Sacramento, June 9 last, which memorial we respectfully present to your honorable body at this time, as it affects a matter that vitally concerns the liberties of all citizens of California, whose freedom you are bound to defend:— “Whereas, God in his wisdom created man a free moral agent, not subject to his fellows in religious things; and,— “Whereas, The denial of inalienable rights in other lands led our forefathers to establish in America a free republic in which the blessings of liberty might be enjoyed; and,— “Whereas, Special safeguards were erected as fundamental principles of the United States Constitution and of the constitution of the State of California, whereby the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, might be forever guaranteed to citizens of this commonwealth; therefore be it— “(a) Resolved, That we, the representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist churches in the Northern California-Nevada Conference now plead for the maintenance of the principles established by Almighty God and recognized by human government, whereby absolute freedom of conscience and entire liberty of religious observance may be enjoyed in this State. “(b) Resolved, That inasmuch as Congress is prohibited from the making or enforcement of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and inasmuch as the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly declares that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, we therefore urge that California refrain from the enactment of any Sunday law, or other statute whereby the compulsory observance of any weekly day of rest might be attempted by the representatives of the State. “(c) Resolved, That as the United States Constitution expressly declares that the judges in every State shall be bound by that instrument, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding, we therefore are constrained to regard as unconstitutional and as subversive of inherent rights all laws in restraint of religious practise, and especially such statutes relating to Sunday observance as exist in other States, or may be proposed in California, by recourse to the initiative or otherwise. “(d) Resolved, That we do hereby express our unalterable conviction that civil and religious liberty ought to be maintained throughout the republic, and that the church and the state ought forever to be kept separate in the discharge of their respective functions and duties. “C. L. TAGGART, President; “VERAH MACPHERSON, Secretary.” Memorial of Protest Against the Enactment of a Sunday Law in the State of California
To the Honorable Senators and Assemblymen of the California Legislature of the year 1913. “GENTLEMEN: Because an effort is being made to secure, through your honorable body, the passage of a Sunday-rest law, we deem it our duty in behalf of liberty and equal rights for all to protest against the enactment of any law which can be used to enforce any religious139doctrine or practise upon the people of this State. “Whatever may be the intent of designating Sunday as a day of rest, to compel its observance by law would be the enforcement of a religious dogma by civil authority, and a practical union of church and state, which in its very nature is essentially destructive of religious liberty. “In behalf of those desiring legal protection for a weekly rest day ample provision is made in Statutes of 1893, page 54, section 1, which reads: ‘Every person employed in any occupation of labor shall be entitled to one day’s rest in seven,’ etc. By this law every person has legal liberty to choose any day of the week for a day of rest, without being compelled to observe any. “The people of this State are unfavorable to a Sunday law, as shown by the fact that less than two per cent of the voters signed the petition to bring the question to a vote, through the initiative, at the last election held. For liberty and equal rights for all we continue to labor and pray. “In behalf of the Southern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. “F. M. BURG, President; “FRANK LANE, Secretary.” Resolutions Adopted by the Churches Composing the Central California Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists for Submission to the State Legislature
“FRESNO, CAL., Jan. 10, 1913. To the State Legislature, in session at Sacramento. “1. In the separation of church and state. “2. That the legislature is prohibited by the constitution from enacting any law enforcing the observance of any religious institution, or looking toward a union of church and state, or of religion and civil government; “3. That any such legislation is opposed to the best interests of both church and state, and— “4. That the first step in this direction is a dangerous step, and should be opposed by every lover of liberty, the several churches composing this Central California Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination have formally adopted the following series of resolutions, for presentation to your honorable body:— “Whereas, Sunday is a religious institution, and all legislation in behalf of its observance is religious legislation; and,— “Whereas, Religious legislation by civil government is contrary to the principles enunciated by Jesus Christ, and is also subversive of the fundamental principles upon which the American government was founded; be it therefore— “Resolved, That we continue to use our influence and our energies to prevent religious legislation, and to perpetuate among all men the blessings of civil and religious liberty. “Resolved, That we hereby express our profound belief in the Christian religion as set forth in the Sacred Scriptures; and that it is the divine mission of the church to proclaim this gospel to all the world. “Resolved, That we recognize civil government to be of divine appointment, ordained of God to rule in all things civil, and that it is the duty of all men to render loyal obedience to civil government in the exercise of its rightful authority. “Resolved, That we hereby affirm our belief that religion and civil government occupy different realms, and that the church and state should be kept forever separate, in accordance with the teaching of the divine author of Christianity in the words: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s;’ and as expressed by the First Amendment 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.’” “In harmony with the resolutions herewith presented to your consideration, we desire further to remind you that our own State constitution expressly declares: ‘The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this State.’” “Moreover, the Constitution of the United States declares: ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ And it is inconceivable that the legislature of any State should be permitted to enact laws in restraint of religious conviction when Congress itself is prohibited from so doing. “We therefore respectfully ask your honorable body to observe these barriers to religious legislation, that the blessings of civil and religious liberty, guaranteed by State and Nation, may continue to be enjoyed by the citizens of California. “Central California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, by “J. H. BEHRENS, President.” “Attest: “G. A. WHEELER, Secretary.” To the State Legislature of California, convened at Sacramento in the Fortieth Session. “ESTEEMED SENATORS AND HONORED GENTLEMEN: We submit, with this memorial, the joint protest of 68,550 male voters of California, whose individual signatures attest their united opposition to the enactment of a Sunday-closing law, or any other form of religious legislation, in the State of California. “While the signatures were appended to the accompanying protest, in the expectation that it would be presented to the legislature of 1911, it was not formally brought to the notice of the legislators at that time. In order to comply with the intention of this great body of your constituents, to make their protest a matter of permanent record in the archives of the State, we now submit to your honorable body the accompanying petition. “That the disposition of the voters of this State has not changed during the last two years, was abundantly manifested by the failure of the proposition to invoke the initiative last fall, by means of which the advocates of Sunday sacredness hoped to secure a law, by direct vote of the people, whereby the State should become obligated to enforce the observance of Sunday as a day of rest notwithstanding differences of moral conviction among citizens as to which day should be observed as the Sabbath, or whether all days should be regarded alike. “Only 8,714 signatures of men and women voters were obtained by the original canvass in favor of a Sunday law, and only 4,999 more were secured by supplemental petition. A meager total of 13,713 male and female voters of the State having thus expressed a desire for civil enforcement of a sectarian practise, undeniably related to religious custom and belief, it would seem that the voters of California are almost unanimously disposed to leave the individual free from interference in religious things. As contrasted with the magnificent protest, herewith presented to your honorable body, such a weak appeal for a union of church and state is unworthy of consideration. “But apart from any question of majorities is that of inalienable right. Our own State constitution declares: ‘The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this State.’ The observance of any day as a period of rest is due wholly to religious conviction, and citizens differ among themselves in practise and belief. The State can not regulate these things. They are essentially matters of religious belief, and must be left to the individual consciences of citizens, whose moral convictions are not subject to human restraint. “We trust that Senate Bill Number 207 and Assembly Bill Number 241, companion measures introduced to-day in the legislature, will be defeated. They are opposed to constitutional guaranties, based on natural rights, which are and should be inalienable. With full confidence in your disposition to maintain these fundamental principles of justice, on which civil and religious liberty depends, we are, “Respectfully, “Pacific Union Conference Seventh-day Adventists, by “E. E. ANDROSS, President.” “Attest: “J. J. IRELAND, Secretary.” With the foregoing, the great protest therein alluded to was presented in both houses of the legislature, where it will stand as an expression of the love of liberty entertained by its signers, and their desire that the legislature shall not depart from the standards of justice heretofore effective in the State of California.