SUNDAY LAWS AGAIN by S.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Oct 30, 1901

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 27, No. 44.

SUNDAY LAWS AGAIN.

By S.

A PROMINENT New York clergyman, in a recent Sunday sermon, declared the logic of the Sunday-law question to be that “every law now existing that ‘rests on religious grounds should be abrogated.’”

A writer in Harper’s Weekly, commenting on this statement, says: “that seems to be a sound conclusion. It would leave plenty of Sunday laws based, ‘not on religion, but on reasons of economic expediency and public interest.’”

But all laws which enforce a religious ordinance are based on religion, no matter what the pretended basis may be. We may claim that the law is based “on reasons of economic expediency;” but the claim itself is a mere expedient for keeping alive the pagan and medieval idea that religion and religious ordinances must be upheld and fostered and enforced by civil law. We may make the claim that the Sunday law is based upon reasons of public interest; but the fact remains that it is based simply and solely on such portion of the public interest as is of particular interest to us personally—such portion of the public interest as is surrounded by our own conception of the public interest.

To one man the “public interest” would demand that all men everywhere should attend divine worship whether it was in accordance with their own desire or not; and just such a thing as that has been made compulsory right here in America. In years gone by there were those (and they exist at heart to-day) who considered that the public interest demanded that the general public should not read the Bible nor hold opinions of their own concerning its teachings. The public interest, to their minds, demanded that they who did so should die—and they did die, millions of them. In certain countries of the world the “public interest” is thought to demand that no Bibles shall be sold; and thousands of those that are sold are gathered and burned by the supposed guardians of the “public interest.”

The public interest in various parts of the world has been interpreted to demand the whipping, burning, and hanging of “witches.” In other places it has been interpreted to demand that they who rest on “the Sabbath day according to the commandment,” must also rest on the first day of the week, commandment or no commandment. And for the

“public interest,” Christ’s most loyal and humble followers have been whipped at the cart’s tail from town to town by those who professed to be able to interpret public interest.

What are we taught by these sad and contradictory occurrences?—This: that public interest can be interpreted to demand anything that our individual feelings may urge us personally to demand. Our interpretation of public interest is not an impartial or infallible judge in matters where private prejudice, private interests, or individual feelings and cherished dogmas are concerned. No fallible man has a right to sit in judgment on religious interests of other men, and compel them to live according to the decision which he hands down. But that is exactly what is done when men are compelled by law to observe religious ordinances, even tho they are professedly based on reasons of “public interest” or “economic expediency.”

The public interest does demand certain things. It demands civility on the part of all men everywhere, in order that none may trample upon the rights of others. It does not demand that the rights of any shall be violated in order that any ordinance, religious or otherwise, may be glorified before men and perpetuated in oppression.