Unwarranted Restrictions of Religious Liberty
By J. F. Blunt
The Founders of the Government Sought to Establish Religious Freedom—But They Provided Whippings, the Stocks, and Even Death, for Dissenters—The Real Basis of All Sunday Legislation
WHILE express guaranties of civil and religious liberty stand at the threshold of state and nation, mistaken advocates of state-enforced religion have secured legislation in nearly all the states, entirely opposed to these constitutional pledges. This is seen in the existence of Sunday laws, in all but the three states of California, Oregon, and Arizona, whereby the freedom of dissenters is constrained and citizens are coerced in respect to Sunday observance. Despite the fact that America was settled by a people whose object it was to found here in the wilderness a government under whose protection they could worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, the early lawmakers of this country were not slow in demonstrating that they were opposed to the exercise of equal freedom by those of contrary opinions who thought to find an asylum with them in the newly discovered continent. And the Quakers were hanged, and the Baptists were persecuted, together with the victims of the witchcraft superstition, while the resolute colonists set themselves about the enactment of laws in restraint of their fellows who might not voluntarily embrace their views of theology. A system of fines and imprisonment was inaugurated, whereby the recalcitrants might be brought into line with local customs; and in several colonies death was the legal penalty for persistent refusal to observe Sunday as a day of rest, if previous whippings and exposure in the stocks should fail to insure compliance with the popular error. Thus a premium was placed upon hypocrisy, by a civil code demanding the compulsory observance of this religious custom in respect to days, and severe punishment was meted out to those who were not regular in church attendance. The later enactment of constitutional pledges of liberty in religious profession and worship did not deter the zealous disciples of the hour from ignoring these express guaranties, and laws of varying degree of severity were adopted by the legislatures of the various states, wholly opposed to the principle of religious liberty. This accounts for the presence of these despotic enactments on the statutes, where in recent years they have been permitted to lie, with only occasional demands for their enforcement. So imbued were some of our early legislators with the idea that it was a duty of the state to inculcate their own peculiar dogmas of religion, and to compel, by the power of the constabulary, the acceptance of these by the entire community, that on every hand the same oppressive disposition that had been manifested in the colonies, cropped out in the later state enactments relating to religious custom and ceremonial. What wonder, then, that people reared in an environment where a practical union of church and state prevailed, and accustomed from childhood to submission to these purely sectarian restrictions, should have become tinctured themselves with erroneous theories of government and saturated with false doctrine! Nor need we feel any degree of surprise that their descendants should be affected, at least in some degree, by their early teachings, and that Sunday, contrary to all Scripture, should have seemed to possess, in their convictions, an odor of sanctity wholly undeserved. These considerations will suggest a reason for the wholly unwarranted but persistent demand for the exaltation of this heathen festival. WHY CLOSE SALOONS JUST ONE DAY?
For these reasons, even now, among believers in Sunday sacredness, it is not strange56to hear lamentations over the non-observance of the day. Public abuses have crept into society which have been conspicuously exhibited on that day, owing to the prevailing idleness, and frivolities that ought not to be indulged at any time are pointed out as affording an excuse for further restrictions. Forgetting that it is the thing itself, and not merely the day it is tolerated, which determines whether it is culpable or otherwise, the advocates of Sunday keeping have been led into the unreasonable and illogical demand for the closing of saloons on Sunday, as if their operation on other days were not equally reprehensible. Particularly is such a basis for their crusade to be deplored, inasmuch as many who are genuinely opposed to the maintenance of the whisky traffic are equally opposed to the ulterior objects of the champions of temperance, whose campaigns are frequently undertaken primarily with a view of forcing Sunday observance. What is called for is the abatement of the evil of intemperance, and not merely the suspension of the liquor traffic for a single day, while the churches are holding weekly services. But it is difficult to persuade these modern crusaders that their methods are not such as to commend them fully to the minds of more logical champions, who gladly would break a lance in the engagement, if only the unmixed question were presented of absolute prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicants, without the covert introduction of the Sunday issue. SOME WOULD LEAVE SUNDAY TO THE CONSCIENCE
But so far has this defective idea of reform been carried, that a great association of devoted women has been misled into the endorsement, by their national organization, of the plans for compulsory Sunday observance. To the credit and lasting praise of individual members, and to some extent of local associations, be it said, the falsity of the position assumed by the national representatives has been discerned, and a protest against interference with the weekly rest-day has been voiced by those of clearer vision within the union. These dissenters declare that while distinct and conscientious differences of conviction exist as to which day ought to be observed as the Sabbath, this great body of Christian women might well leave to the individual citizen the determination of the question, in harmony with his God-given right and constitutional privilege. So the anomalous situation is presented, at the present time, of some of the members of this worthy organization being engaged in the circulation of petitions for a drastic Sunday-closing law, proposed on the initiative, while others in the same society are diligently opposing all such invidious distinctions. While this campaign is in progress, the federated churches have seized upon the interest manifested in the prohibition of prize-fighting in California, and must needs entangle their petitioners for the submission of the issue to a vote of the people, in the question of Sunday sacredness. While it is proposed to end for all time the holding of real prize-fights, it is the policy to tolerate, at least for the present, the presentation of "sparring exhibitions," provided none are offered on Sunday. Thus the opportunities of the prize-ring for bringing into prominence the spurious sabbath have not escaped the notice of these would-be reformers. LABOR WANTS A DAY OF REST
But while the ulterior designs of the purely religious organizations are readily discerned in all these methods, another element is entering into the proposition of civil enforcement of Sunday keeping. The labor-unions, having in mind the relief of the various gilds from continuous labor, have thought to profit from the superstitious regard bestowed upon the first day of the week, and thus to secure from the church-members the help needed in their demand for one day in seven for recreation. If all engaged in these lines of business were agreed, they could readily adjust the matter among themselves, without legislation. But a goodly number so engaged are opposed to any distinction in respect to days; and to coerce this considerable minority, it is proposed to invoke the aid of state or municipality, to compel all to close their doors on Sunday. The state law of California already provides that for an employer of labor to deny his operatives one day of rest after six consecutive days of labor shall be a misdemeanor; but it is sought to constrain the owners of private establishments from operating at all on the day of general preference, lest any, by remaining in business when others had suspended, should secure unequal benefits from public patronage. Particularly have some of the barbers' fraternity sought to compel the simultaneous closing of barber shops on Sunday; and in their desire to accomplish their object, they have urged that all constitutional guaranties be ignored, and that all shops be closed on the first day of the week, on divers pains and penalties. THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF SUCH LAWS
In some quarters, the more radical members of the clergy have been making common cause with these factions of the labor elements, hoping to gain by cooperation their own ends in the exaltation of Sunday, though their solicitude is distinctly religious, while customarily attributed to their interest in labor. In this attempted union of wholly dissimilar organizations, the fundamental object of the churchmen is well expressed in the words of the Rev. W. F. Crafts, in a speech at Wichita, Kansas, wherein it is declared: "We are laboring with all our might to carry the religious sabbath with our right arm, and the civil sabbath with our left. Hundreds of thousands will receive it as a religious institution, and all the rest will receive it as a civil institution, and thus we will sweep in the whole nation." DESIRE NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO CHOOSE SUNDAY
So the underlying object of the clergy is plainly revealed as sectarian, while it may be said, to the honor of certain of the clear-headed leaders of the labor elements, that they are looking about them in the hope of securing a trade agreement whereby all operatives may be sure of a respite of one day in seven, without compelling the choice of Sunday. In harmony with this idea, the American Association for Labor Legislation, which had drafted a bill to be presented in the legislature of every state in the Union, providing for the enforced observance of Sunday as a day when it would be unlawful to carry on legitimate business, is said to have amended that instrument, so as to require from employers of labor the uniform concession of one day's rest after six consecutive days of labor, leaving to agreement with their individual operatives the question as to the day severally to be allotted to them. Under existing constitutional guaranties, of course private industries could not legally be coerced, and the ultimate determination as to the days of labor would necessarily depend upon the proprietor. He could not be compelled to grant concessions entirely involuntary on his part, without the abandonment of the American principle of liberty. A closer espionage of his business, or any arbitrary requirement, on the part of the civil power, for the suspension of labor on Sunday that would be allowed on other days of the week, would be in violation of his civil rights, inherent and self-evident, for the maintenance of which the whole government is pledged by the most ample guaranties. It only remains for the lovers of liberty to see that these basic principles are observed in the administration of government, for their abandonment would mean anarchy, even if brought about with the most hopeful purpose of benefiting humanity.