Ridiculous and Unreasonable

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 2, 1906

“Ridiculous and Unreasonable”

In a recent issue of the Christian Guardian (Toronto) there appeared an article setting forth the scope and value of the new Canadian Sunday law as they appear to a representative of the Lord’s Day Alliance. From this article we quote the following paragraphs:—

In the first place, it is an immense advantage that we have a Lord’s Day act for the whole Dominion which recognizes the Lord’s day as a national institution; the toiler’s day of rest and liberty; the church’s day of glorious opportunity. This in itself is a gain worth all the effort. . . .

A very persistent effort was made before the select committee of the House of Commons, before the House itself, and before the Senate, to have the Jews and others who observe some other day of the week as a rest day exempted from the provisions of the act, but in both Houses this proposed exemption was voted down by very large majorities. It was felt that no special privileges should be given to any class, and that such an exemption would make evasion of the law easy, would give an unfair advantage to the exempted class in certain trades, such as baking and newspaper publication, and while giving some financial relief to Jewish employees, would, on the other hand, put upon a much larger number of Christian employees in Jewish-owned factories, which under the exemption would be closed on Saturday, an equally serious disability, and our legislators felt that in a Christian land this would be unjustifiable. . . .

The most objectionable amendment of all was put in by the Senate, making prosecution dependent upon the permission of the attorney-general of the province. This was probably intended to make vexatious prosecution with malicious intent impossible. But whatever

the object, it is impossible for any one to justify making it necessary to obtain the consent of the attorney-general before it is possible to take action to close a corner shop that is doing Sunday trading, or to put a stop to a company of Italian navvies doing construction work in the building of a new railway. It is simply ridiculous and unreasonable in the last degree. However, we do not share with some the opinion that the attorney-generals will be unwilling to give their consent. Some critics in Parliament said this meant that the act would be a dead letter. We have a higher opinion of the attorney-generals in the various provinces, and anticipate that since this duty is put upon them, they will accept the responsibility, and provide the most convenient machinery for the carrying out of the object of the law. . . .

All considered, therefore, the new act is an immense gain, and will accomplish much good. Its very existence will have a powerful deterrent effect, and it can be improved as the need is demonstrated. This is doubtless not the last time we shall be applying for legislation at Ottawa. We shall not ask needlessly, nor for anything unreasonable, and the success attending the recent effort shows that anything in reason can be obtained where public opinion demands.

We have quoted thus at length from this article so that our readers may perceive for themselves the spirit which is behind this legislation. The writer of it represents the Lord’s Day Alliance, which really secured the passage of the act, and speaks in its behalf. He is certainly a sturdy and outspoken representative of that class of ecclesiastics who advocate religion by law, and who act upon the theory of Augustine that “it is, indeed, better that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment, or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected.”

Let us note some of the more striking statements in the quotations which we have made from this remarkable article:

1. By this legislation the so-called Lord’s day becomes “a national institution.” In a certain sense this is consistent. Sunday is not a divine institution, and is not enforced by any divine legislation. It rests wholly upon human authority. But how ignorant of the spirit of true Christianity are those who set up “a national institution,” and then attempt to compel, under threat of pains and penalties, conscientious observers of the divinely instituted Sabbath to regard the rival day! In the same paragraph the so-called Lord’s day is defined as “the toiler’s day of rest and liberty; the church’s day of glorious opportunity.” The Lord’s Day Alliance has assumed the prerogative of prescribing, through the machinery of Parliament, just how “the toiler” shall spend his day of “liberty.” The “glorious opportunity” of the church will be greatly improved, it appears, by an act which restrains people from doing almost everything except to go to church. A compulsory church-going clause may be among the improvements to be asked for later.

2. It was decided “by very large majorities” that the observers of another day than Sunday should not be exempt from the provisions of this act, because “it was felt that no special privileges should be given to any class.” And it is further declared that such an exemption would involve “serious financial disability” to “Christian employees,” and that it was felt that “in a Christian land this would be unjustifiable.” It appears from this that “in a Christian land” it is the duty of the lawmakers to look out for the financial interests of professed Christians, even though in doing so they may oppress other equally conscientious persons, and that what are called “rights” in countries where there is no union of church and state are regarded as “special privileges” by the Lord’s Day Alliance. Such Christianity as this flourished during the Dark Ages. The Inquisition flourished at the same time.

3. The “most objectionable” feature of this legislation is the fact that there is a check upon applying it at the pleasure of its promoters. This is regarded as “simply ridiculous and unreasonable in the last degree.” It certainly must be trying to these truly Christian members of the Lord’s Day Alliance to go to all the trouble of installing the machinery of persecution, and then not be permitted to start it at will. Evidently there is need of improvement, but there is comfort in the thought that “it can be improved as the need is demonstrated.” But what a travesty is all this upon the principles advocated by the Founder of Christianity! The lord whose day has become “a national institution” in Canada must be some other than the Lord who said: “If any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not.” He who proclaimed himself as “Lord even of the Sabbath” would certainly repudiate the principles advocated by this Lord’s Day Alliance.

4. This is only the beginning of religious legislation in Canada. Nothing “unreasonable” will be demanded, allowing the Lord’s Day Alliance to be the judge; but what these men regard as reasonable may be fairly inferred from what they have already asked for and obtained. The one thing which has already been decided to be unreasonable in Canada is religious liberty. Hereafter such “special privileges” as Parliament, under the guidance of the Lord’s Day Alliance, may see fit to grant must be thankfully received, but rights may not be expected.

The enactment of this Lord’s Day act in the Canadian Parliament is an indication of the ease with which religious legislation, and consequent persecution, may come in any country. While the act itself and its defense by this writer seem to us “ridiculous and unreasonable,” yet this legislation is commended by some of the religious papers in this country, and there are many who would be glad to see a similar law passed by Congress. This situation is an emphatic call to us to hasten our work. Doors which are open now may soon be closed. Work which is left undone now may be necessarily carried forward a little later under the most unfavorable circumstances. Let every one do his duty now.