WHY SUNDAY LAWS ARE WRONG
By A. G. D.
They Persecute—They Invade Our Rights and Our Consciences—They Are Religious Legislation, and Show Favoritism SUNDAY legislation is wrong. It can only work injustice to the citizens of the state. It is therefore to be condemned. The following are some of the evils of Sunday legislation: 1. It is religious legislation. 2. It favors one class of citizens above another in matters of religion. 3. It invades the sacred precincts of the conscience. 4. It deprives men of their individual rights. 5. It leads to religious persecution. This, we know, is a severe indictment against Sunday legislation; but we believe that each count can be sustained by plain, undeniable facts. 1. Sunday legislation is religious legislation. This is true from the fact that the Sunday institution is a religious institution. And it is on this ground that Sunday laws are made, and enforced on the citizens of the state. Said Joseph Cook, in one of his Boston Monday lectures in 1887, “The experience of centuries shows that you will in vain endeavor to preserve Sunday as a day of rest, unless it is as a day of worship.” Dr. Everts says of Sunday: “This day is set apart for divine worship and preparation for another life. It is the test of all religion.” Of the basis on which Sunday legislation rests, the American Sabbath Union says: “A weekly day of rest has never been permanently secured in any land except on the basis of religious obligations. Take the religion out, and you take the rest out.” Section 1 of the present Sunday law of England and the colonies requires “that all and every person and persons whatsoever shall, on every Lord’s day, apply themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately.” From these quotations, it is plain that Sunday is a religious institution, that Sunday laws are religious laws, and that Sunday legislation is an attempt to enforce religion by the power of civil government. 2. Sunday legislation favors one class of citizens above another in matters of religion. All religious legislation discriminates in favor of a class. In no state are the citizens all agreed in matters of religion. Some are religious, and some are not religious. And those who are religious do not by any means all hold the same views 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 nor observe any day as sacred. Sabbatarians observe the seventh day. Sunday observers regard the first day as sacred. Worldlings or non-professors do not regard either day. It is, then, as plain as facts can demonstrate, that Sunday legislation discriminates in favor of a class, namely, Sunday observers. But all such discrimination is unjust. It is contrary to the principles of good government. Religion is a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God. With this relation, civil government should have nothing whatever to do. AN INVADER OF THE CONSCIENCE
3. Sunday legislation invades the consciences of citizens. This is true of all religious legislation. Religion pertains to the conscience. It is a matter of faith. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” All true religious service must be voluntary. It must spring from the heart, and be performed in love. But men cannot love what they do not believe in, nor what 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 attempt to compel men against their consciences to render such outward observance is to outrage the conscience. It is to rob men of their dearest and most sacred right. There is no more reason nor justice in attempting to enforce Sunday or Sabbath observance than in attempting to enforce any other religious dogma. The Sabbatic institution, like baptism, is purely religious. The only authority for either is the word of God. The moment it is conceded to be the state’s duty to enforce the Sabbatic institution, that moment it must be conceded to be the state’s duty to enforce the institution of baptism. Both institutions were established by Christ, both are enjoined in the Scripture, both are religious, and both are a matter of faith with men. Neither can be truly and acceptably observed without faith. THE POLICEMAN TO ENFORCE BAPTISM
Take, as an illustration, the institution of baptism. Some believe in it; others reject it altogether. Those who believe in it, differ as to what it is. Some hold that it is immersion; others hold that sprinkling answers every purpose. Every one can see that for the legislative branch of civil government to pass a law commanding every one of its citizens to be sprinkled, would be monstrous. What a pitiful spectacle it would be to see the police 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? Both are purely religious, and there is the same difference of opinion among men respecting each. Civil government by right has no more to do with one than with the other. It is no more unjust to compel men to be sprinkled than to compel them to observe Sunday. The great object of civil government is to protect men in the enjoyment of their rights. Freedom of conscience is one of these rights, and it is one of the dearest to the individual. To enforce any feature of religion by civil law upon the conscience, is not the protection but the invasion of rights. This is a perversion of the power committed to civil government. DEPRIVES MEN OF THEIR RIGHTS
4. Sunday legislation deprives men of their individual rights. We have already shown that it invades the conscience, and thus robs men of their most sacred rights. But it goes further, and interferes with other rights. For instance, the fourth commandment of the Decalogue says: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.” Ex. 20: 8-10.555 There are those who conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week according to the reading of this command. Having refrained from labor on the seventh day, they have the right, according to this divine law, to pursue their vocations on the other six days. This is a right given them by the Author of the Sabbatic institution. It is not the design of the Creator that men should spend their time in idleness; hence He commands them to work six days. Now, when the state steps in and prohibits them from doing so, it takes away a right granted by the Lord. Nor is that all. It interferes with their liberty to obtain the necessaries of life. Six days of labor are necessary to most men in order to provide properly for those who are dependent upon them. God has recognized this, and granted men the right to work six days. But Sunday legislation ignores this right, and seeks to prevent a certain class from doing so. This is clearly unjust. BRINGS RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
5. Sunday legislation leads to religious persecution. It is an expression, by one class of citizens, that another class should and must be religious, and that they must be religious according to the ideas of those who secure the legislation. On the results of this theory, John Stuart Mill makes the following truthful remark: “The notion that it is one man’s duty that another should be religious was the foundation of all the religious persecutions ever perpetrated, and if admitted, would fully justify them.”
—Essay on Liberty.
Law means force. The object of Sunday laws is to compel men to keep Sunday. Those who, from conscientious scruples, cannot do so, are treated by their fellows as criminals. They are taken to the courts, prosecuted, and fined. They are deprived of their property or their liberty, simply because they cannot agree with some of their neighbors on matters of religion. This is cruel. It is religious persecution. Thus we find that on every count, Sunday legislation stands condemned. Sunday laws cannot make men love Sunday.