BEING religious, as shown in our last article, the enactment of this measure into law by Congress would be striking a direct blow against religious liberty. No man, no body of men, can properly DEMAND a religious observance from any one. In the words of Washington, we hold that “every man who conducts himself as a good citizen, is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.” And we agree also with the statement made in the “Sunday Mail Report” adopted by the United States Senate in 1829, that “the proper object of government is to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their religious as well as civil rights, and not to determine for any whether they shall esteem one day above another, or esteem all days alike holy.” It is inconsistent to erect great and costly monuments to the illustrious departed, unless we regard the immortal principles they taught as the basic fundamentals of good government.
Not a Police Regulation
Sunday laws are not, as has been held by some, mere police regulations. This fact has been admitted by a no less distinguished jurist than the late Justice Brewer. In his work “The United States a Christian Nation,” pages 29, 30, he says:
Indeed, the vast volume of official action, legislative and judicial, recognizes Sunday as a day separate and apart from others, a day devoted not to the ordinary pursuits of life. It is true in many of the decisions this separation of the day is said to be authorized by the police power of the State and exercised for the purpose of health. At the same time, through a large majority of them there runs the thought of its being a religious day, consecrated by the commandment, “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, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.”
Sunday Not a Civil Holiday
Nor does this bill, or any Sunday law in existence, treat Sunday as a mere civil holiday, such as the Fourth of July, New Year’s Day, and Washington’s birthday. These are set apart as public holidays, but their observance is not made compulsory. But this bill not only specifies that Sunday shall be observed “as a SABBATH,” but makes its non-observance a penal offense, punishable by fine or imprisonment, or by both fine and imprisonment. It can not therefore be regarded as a mere civil measure.
From a civil basis — the only basis on which Congress has a right to enact law — this bill makes an unwarranted distinction between days, and in doing so erects a false standard for crime. It makes unlawful on Sunday that which is considered perfectly proper and lawful on other days of the week. But crime is not determined by the day of the week when committed. No one would think of enacting a law prohibiting murder, theft, arson, or wife-beating, on Sunday only. Such a law would be a virtual sanctioning of these things upon the other days of the week.
Honest Toil Not a Crime
This bill proceeds upon the assumption that to engage in honest toil or honorable occupation seven days in a week is a crime, and that the observance of a weekly Sabbath is an essential to good citizenship, and thus a proper test of it. But this is false. While unintermittent daily labor may be incompatible with religion, and an effectual barrier to Sabbath observance, it is not a crime; neither is it proper to make religion or any religious observance a test of citizenship. To do so is directly contrary to the very genius and spirit of our whole national system of government.
The fact that a thing may be beneficial to man, or essential to his well-being or to his existence even, is not necessarily a sufficient reason why civil government should make it compulsory. Eating is essential to life; labor, to the procuring of food; nightly rest, to daily toil; marriage, to the perpetuation of the race; but who would argue from this that eating, labor, rest, or marriage should be made compulsory by law? To see that foods prepared for general consumption are kept pure, that those who labor are remunerated, that those who rest are not unnecessarily disturbed, and that those who enter the marriage relation are protected in that relationship, is the duty of the State; but this is the limit of its authority in these matters. So with Sabbath observance. Rightly kept, the Sabbath is a blessing in every way — physically, mentally, and spiritually; but it does not follow that because this is so, the State has a right to enforce its observance. Those who choose to observe it should be protected from unnecessary disturbance; but this is the limit of the State’s authority in this matter. It has no right whatever to compel any one to keep the Sabbath.
It is inconsistent to erect great and costly monuments to the illustrious departed, unless we regard the immortal principles they taught as the basic fundamentals of good government.
The Law Not Needed
The proposed law is not needed in the District as a moral measure, for that which is immoral or uncivil on Sunday is equally immoral and uncivil on every other day of the week, and if properly prohibited by law at all, should be prohibited on all days. A law closing saloons and immoral shows and places of amusement on ALL days would certainly close them on SUNDAY.
Neither is it needed, as has been alleged by some, for the laboring man. No man in the District of Columbia is compelled, in any legal sense of that term, to work on Sunday. In order for one man to rest on a certain day, it is not necessary to have a law compelling every other man to rest on that day. In proof of this, we need but cite the one hundred thousand Christians in this country who observe the seventh day of the week without a law compelling others to rest on that day. There is a vast difference between PROTECTING men in the peaceable enjoyment of a day of rest taken VOLUNTARILY, and COMPELLING them to rest upon a certain day WHETHER THEY WISH TO DO SO OR NOT. One is a DUTY of the State; the other a TYRANNY, and, upon a civil basis only, is on a par with involuntary servitude; when religion is involved, then it becomes a spiritual tyranny.
Violates the Golden Rule
This proposed law is not only unconstitutional, but unchristian. It violates the Golden Rule; for no man would himself wish to be compelled to observe a day regardless of his own views and wishes in the matter. This measure requires the observance of a sabbath regardless of faith — regardless of whether a man BELIEVES in it or not: but “without faith it is impossible to please God,” and “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” It requires men to render to Cæsar (civil government) that which belongs to God — Sabbath observance — which is directly contrary to Christ’s explicit instruction as recorded in Matt. 22:21 and Mark 12:17.
Sabbath Keeping Not Produced by Law
Civil laws can not produce good Sabbath observance, for the simple reason that religion is the only proper or permanent basis for such observance, and this can not be produced by law. The whole history of the world has demonstrated the truthfulness of this, and the fact has been admitted by some of the most prominent Sunday-law advocates in this country. Thus Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts, at the hearing on the Blair National Sunday Rest Bill, December 13, 1888, said:
A weekly day of rest has never been permanently secured in any land except on the basis of religious obligation. Take the religion out and you take the rest out.
And Dr. Joseph Cook, in one of his celebrated Boston Monday lectures, in 1887, likewise said:
The experience of centuries shows that you will in vain endeavor to preserve Sunday as a day of rest, unless you preserve it as a day of worship.
In our next article we shall show the similarity between the Johnston bill and the old Maryland Sunday law of 1723, and examine the exemption in it for observers of another day.
