WHAT THE EXEMPTION IMPLIES.
THE District of Columbia Sunday bill, now before Congress, proposes to exempt those who keep "another day," providing they keep it "uniformly," and do not by their labor "interrupt or disturb" those who observe Sunday. Such an exemption implies that the state has a right to compel all to observe some day; if not one, then another. It implies that the state has a right to say when men may labor, as well as when they must rest. It is, moreover, of the nature of toleration. The state selects, establishes, and requires the observance of, the first day of the week as the day of rest; but, upon certain conditions, it permits men to labor on that day, and to keep another day, the seventh, the one enjoined in the law of God—instead. Think of the state permitting men to obey God! Think of it saying to a certain class: "You may worship God according to the dictates of your conscience!" This is simply toleration; and toleration implies an established religion; and an established religion forebodes persecution. From tolerance to intolerance is but a step. The right to permit implies the right to prohibit. The permission may be withdrawn. In this is seen the inherent evil involved in this proposed legislation. It is religious. It invades the realm of conscience, and treats the right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience as concession or privilege granted as a kindness or mercy. It assumes that the state has a right to dictate to men in matters of religion—to say when and how they shall worship. It is the first step in the making of a religious establishment. If it is right to exempt one class who do not believe in keeping Sunday, why is it not right to exempt all classes who do not respect the day? This, of course, would nullify the law. But why is the exemption introduced? Sixteen years ago the first District Sunday bill was introduced into Congress. This likewise contained an exemption for observers of another day. The reason was clearly stated by a representative of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union—Mrs. Catlin. The observers of the seventh day had opposed, as unconstitutional, unchristian, and contrary to the law of God, the Blair Sunday-Rest bill introduced two years before. That contained no exemption. So when the Breckinridge District Sunday bill was introduced, the lady referred to, said: "We have given them an exemption clause, and that, we think, will take the wind out of their sails." It was hoped by this means to check their opposition to Sunday legislation until Congress was committed to it. Foolish indeed would they or any one else be to be deceived as to the real nature of such legislation by such a clause. The founders of this nation held that "the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, is something which every man may demand as a right, not something for which he must ask as a privilege. To grant to the state the power of toleration is implicitly to grant to it the power of prohibiting;" whereas they denied to it any jurisdiction whatever in the matter of religion. The wording of the exemption would seem to imply that only observers of the first day were entitled, during their devotions, to protection against interference and disturbance. Lastly, the exemption is of little value in itself; for it takes very little to "disturb" some people. A few years ago a woman in New York complained of being disturbed all day one Sunday because her nephew was setting type in a back room up-stairs ten blocks away. From all this it is evident, therefore, that the passage of this bill would be needless and unjust legislation.—Religious Liberty Bureau Leaflet.