SUNDAY laws do not make even for good Sunday observance. This can be easily demonstrated. It is generally conceded that Sunday is as well observed in Washington, where there is no general compulsory Sunday law, as it is in those cities and States of the Union in which there are the most rigid Sunday laws. The same may also be said of Arizona and California, which have no Sunday law. Europe has been deluged with Sunday laws; but in spite of them all, there has grown up there what in this country is commonly known as the "continental Sunday," a synonym for anything but good Sabbath observance.
Neither do Sunday laws preserve a nation, as some are wont to argue. In the Roman Empire, where Sunday laws originated, there were all the kinds of Sunday laws which men could frame or invent, and yet that empire fell. They do, however, unite Church and State; they do enter the realm of religion and conscience; they do interfere with the inalienable rights of man; they do place a convenient weapon in the hands of the bigot; they do pave the way for religious intolerance and oppression, and for these reasons are inimical to the best interests of both Church and State. It is a notable fact that where there has been the most Sunday legislation, there has been the most religious persecution. The two go hand in hand. Every American colony which had an established religion, and persecuted dissenters, had its Sunday law. Rhode Island for many years had neither, and oppressed no one.
What a National Sunday Law Would Mean
For over one hundred years the National Government of the United States has not only got along without a compulsory Sunday law, but has steadily refused to enact one. The passage of such a law now would mean a reversal of this splendid record, and a repudiation of the great Christian and Protestant principle upon which the Government was founded,—that of religious liberty. This fact is recognized by Roman Catholics themselves. Thus the Rev. Thomas Cashman, a Catholic priest of Chicago, quoted in the Chicago "Evening Journal" of April 8, 1893, says:
The position of coercion taken by so many of the Protestant clergy — the position that altho they are admittedly in a hopeless minority of all the people of these United States, they would compel all the rest of us to accept of their Sunday dogmas by recourse to law and other methods — is a grievous departure from their old battle-cry of civil and religious liberty.
In the Sunday Mail Reports of 1829 and 1830, already alluded to in this series of articles, the Congress of the United States definitely took its stand against such legislation. For it to enact a Sunday law now would be a rejection of the principle then approved, and a reversal of the decision then so carefully arrived at, and which for so many years has stood as the verdict of Congress upon this subject.
State Laws Not a Precedent
The fact that most of the States have Sunday laws is cited by some as evidence that the National Government also should have a Sunday law. Such show either their ignorance or their utter disregard of the Constitution of the United States and one of the great fundamental principles of our National Government. When this Government was founded, nearly all the original States had religious establishments; but this was not regarded by the founders of the Government as a reason why they should disregard the national Constitution and create such an establishment for the nation. The same argument exactly applies to Sunday laws. Because the States have such laws is no reason why Congress should disregard the Constitution and enact such a law. The States are not the guide, the model, or the criterion for the National Government to follow in this matter. The reverse is the case. The NATIONAL CONSTITUTION is, or should be, the guide for NATIONAL LEGISLATION, and this a model for the States to pattern after.
The Question of National Constitutionality
In support of national Sunday legislation, decisions of State courts, and even of the United States Supreme Court, upholding STATE Sunday laws, are likewise sometimes cited. But such citations are irrelevant in determining the constitutionality of NATIONAL Sunday legislation, because STATE decisions on STATE laws, or even UNITED STATES decisions on STATE laws, do not necessarily indicate what should be a UNITED STATES decision on a UNITED STATES law. There must first be a Federal law before there can be a Federal decision upon the constitutionality of a national Sunday law. But up to the present time there has been no such law.
The District Law of Far-Reaching Effect
While in its direct application the enactment of the Johnston Sunday Bill into law would affect only the District of Columbia, yet influentially, and as a precedent, its enactment would be far-reaching. Ever since the first measure for a national Sunday law was introduced in Congress in 1888, the following statement has stood in print as expressing the real reason why such a law was especially desired:
The national law is needed to make the State laws complete and effective.—Christian Statesman, April 11, 1889.
Twenty-one years later, with the Johnston District Sunday Bill pending in Congress, this same authority says again:
Washington and the District of Columbia have no Sunday law. . . . The value of such a law would lie not only in the relief which it would bring to many who are now deprived of their weekly rest, but in the support which it would lend to the cause of our national Christianity.—Christian Statesman, April, 1910.
These statements reveal the real reason why national Sunday legislation is desired. It is to make COMPLETE and EFFECTIVE the STATE Sunday laws, and to give SUPPORT to a NATIONAL RELIGION. This is all any advocate of a religious establishment ever wanted any religious law for — TO SUPPORT HIS RELIGION! But any religion which needs State support is not worth supporting. Benjamin Franklin never spoke more truly nor reasoned more soundly than when he said:
When religion is good it will take care of itself; when it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that the cause is a bad one.
The enactment of such a law will open the way for that religious despotism which has long been watching an opportunity to spring again into active operation, to manifest itself. It will give life to that spiritual tyranny which, tho long repressed and held in check by the victories gained in the great struggles for religious liberty, is ever ready and eager to assert itself and dominate the religious conduct and consciences of men.
In Conflict with the Law of God
Lastly, this measure is in direct conflict with the law of God. If civil government has12no right to enter the religious realm and enjoin a religious observance which is CONFORMABLE to the law of God, it certainly has no right to enter that realm and command that which is CONTRARY to that law. The law of God defines in language too plain to be misunderstood, which day is the Sabbath. It says, "The SEVENTH day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." In direct conflict with this, this bill commands men to observe another day as the Sabbath — the FIRST day of the week. It is therefore doubly wrong and out of place. It not only violates the Constitution of the United States by entering the realm of religion, but it contravenes and sets aside the higher law, the law of God itself, by assuming the right to change that law, and, under pains and penalties, command that men shall observe as the Sabbath a day which that law designates as a day of labor. It is therefore both uncivil and iniquitous, both un-American and unchristian, both unconstitutional and idolatrous.
For these reasons we most earnestly protest against the passage of this or any similar measure by Congress. And we are glad that we are not alone in making this protest; that there are men in Congress, and in the Senate itself, who see the evils involved in such legislation, and have the courage to express in the halls of Congress their views upon this question.
In our next article we shall present the greater part of a speech against the Johnston Bill made recently by a prominent United States senator.
