Religious Legislation by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, Cal. · Jul 26, 1905

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 31, No. 30.

Religious Legislation.

By Editor

Religious legislation of every sort and kind is fundamentally wrong; by this we mean legislation to promote or support or enforce any religious belief, tenet, command, requirement, or institution. It is contrary to Christianity, contrary to the equal rights of men, contrary to the American charter of freedom, contrary to the Constitution of the United States. Therefore there should be no legislation in behalf of the Sabbath, whether the day of it be the seventh day or the first day; whether it be the day of a majority or a minority. It is wholly a matter of the individual, with himself alone, or between himself and God, or pertaining to himself, the church, and God. With these relations the civil power, of right, can have nothing to do. The basis of the Sabbath is purely personal and religious. On this ground stands the Gospel Christian. It is apostate religion which demands legislation to support its empty forms.

The Secularist, not admitting the religious basis as a ground of legislation, holds the right position in this respect. But he is as truly in danger as is his mistaken brother who is demanding religious legislation. The deities of the Secularist are Science and Progress. These he worships with fulsome adulation. And when Science shall have shown a "scientific basis" for sabbath legislation, then we shall see our Secularist friends joining with the National Reformers in demanding Sunday legislation. That we are not guessing at this, we quote the very language of one among them whom we consider to be among the clearest of liberty exponents:

The proposition is not yet established that "the sabbath has a scientific basis," and that the law of its observance "has its foundation in nature and the constitution of man." If this is so, it will, of course, constitute a basis for civil legislation on the subject, but something more than the claim of the theologians, who find that their theological appeal is no longer effective, will be required before we accept it as a fact that there is such a basis. For the present we are obliged to regard "sabbath observance" as "a requirement of the church or religion," as a theological and not a scientific or even ethical law.

It does not require even a reading between the lines of the above to see that our erstwhile clear-visioned advocate of liberty now stands ready to accept and advocate Sunday legislation, if it is only placed on a "scientific basis." "If this is so" indicates that he feels that it may be so. He will not believe it on the claim of a theologian, but a scientist. The expression, "for the present," clearly shows that he is waiting for the "scientific" demonstration. And, when that is made, then, in his view, "it will, of course, constitute a basis for civil legislation on the subject." And so the National Reformer, going one way around the tree of liberty, and the "scientific" Secularist the other, will complete the circle, and destroy the tree.

It will not be hard for our Secularist friends, who see no moral or ethical principle in the Sabbath question, to see and accept this "scientific" basis. It is natural for the mind of man to want to move in the path of least resistance; and the "scientific"-Sunday-legislation basis will offer an easy switch onto the popular track, with its present shining prospects, but its future clouded in the final destruction of the ages.

We believe that the Sabbath has a scientific basis; that it is founded in the very constitution of man. But in that is no scintilla of reason why it should become a matter of religious legislation. The matter of clothing, of kind, and color, has a scientific basis. The matter of eating,—in frequency, in fasting, in kind of food, in combination of food,—has a scientific basis; but that does not make it a matter of legislation. The matter of sufficient hours of sleep has a scientific basis, but should we control sleep by legislation, and put it under police surveillance? The mere statement of the question answers it.

The Sabbath is a religious question supremely; and it may here be said that the scientist who demonstrates "scientifically" that the Sabbath has a sufficient "scientific" basis for legislation, will make his analysis in an atmosphere clouded by centuries of religious superstition and prejudices, infidel and Secularist tho he may be. In the climax of the great crisis the Gospel Christian will have to stand alone for equal rights and liberties for all.