WHICH HORN OF THE DILEMMA?
By Editor
What a Secular Paper Has to Say About Sunday Laws.
The Rev. Clarence True Wilson, of Grace church, Portland, Ore., started what he calls a "Twilight Service," from 7:00 to 8:00 P.M., some time ago, and among other things he took up what he considered modern substitutes for Christ, Christian Science, Spiritualism, Theosophy, etc., etc., and among them Seventh-day Adventism. On this question he says that Seventh-day Adventists were opposed to Sunday laws, which Mr. Wilson thinks are necessary. A reply to this phase of the subject was given by Elder G. A. Snyder, printed in part in the Portland Oregonian of August 20: "We believe in religious liberty, and are opposed to religious legislation of all kinds, including Sunday laws, which our critics think are so necessary to the welfare of our country. The Constitution of the United States declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' As far back as 1829 a proposed Sunday law was turned down by Congress because our law makers considered Sunday legislation unconstitutional. "Proposed Sunday laws have been defeated in the twentieth century for the same reason. In opposing Sunday legislation we are simply defending the Constitution from being overridden by those whose zeal for Sunday is greater than their regard for the Golden Rule. "Our laws already give every man a right to rest and worship on Sunday or any other day if he chooses to do so. Seventh-day Adventists have no trouble in keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. They have all the protection from civil laws that they need. They do not ask for a law to compel others to observe the day which they regard as the Sabbath. If they did they would thus advertise to the world that they had more bigotry than liberty. The poet has well said: "That they are slaves most base
Whose love for right is for themselves,
And not for all the race." "Our opponents must admit one of two things: Either that Sunday is a religious day, and therefore not a proper subject for legislation under the Constitution, or else that it is not a religious day at all; only a political institution. We do not care which horn of the dilemma they choose on which to impale themselves. If they choose to go ahead and compel us by law to rest on Sunday, simply because they have the power, we can lay aside our regular work on that day and spend it in preaching the Gospel of liberty on the streets. "Then I suppose the next thing in order would be a law to abolish free speech, and the freedom of the press." In the same issue the editor refers to the sermon preached by Elder Snyder as follows: "The advocates of Sabbath legislation will have to wriggle rather smartly to elude the dilemma in which Elder Snyder has entrapped them. If such legislation is enacted on religious grounds, the elder argues, it is unconstitutional, for Congress is expressly forbidden to make any laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Since there are many people in the country who keep the seventh day instead of the first, and many more who keep no day at all, Congress would invidiously discriminate in favor of certain religious views were it to enact a law for the observance of Sunday. Such discrimination among sects and opinions is contrary to the very genius of American institutions. Our government, as a government, knows nothing of religious opinions or warring sects. Such matters, we have found, are best left to the individual to settle for himself, and so long as he violates no moral precept and disturbs no other worshipers, the law will not interfere with his preference, whatever it may be. He may keep the first day or the seventh, every day or no day, as he may choose. Concerning such matters the law should be a very Galileo; it should care nothing about them. "Elder Snyder pertinently remarks that the Adventists, who keep the Scriptural Sabbath, or the seventh day, need no law to help them obey their consciences. Why can not other sects get along as well as they do? Why must they continually appeal to the state or the nation to assist them in doing what they think is right? The fact of the matter seems to be that they are more eager to compel others to conform to what they think is right than to walk in the straight and narrow way themselves. If every person were content to satisfy his own conscience about the Sabbath and leave the same liberty to others, we should hear very little about Sunday laws; but religious freedom is the last privilege which most men are willing to concede to their neighbors. Most of us are determined that our friends shall go to heaven in our way or not go at all. "But the elder's dilemma has another horn. The Sabbath is either a religious institution or it is not. If religious, Congress has no right to meddle with it under the Constitution. If not a religious institution, why make such a fuss over it? Really, the elder's argument is rather neat. Of course the advocates of Sunday laws can answer him, but just at this moment it is not entirely evident what they can say." We believe the above is certainly worthy of consideration. We hope our readers will note the argument made by the secular journal. We have printed it entire, just as it appears in the paper. As to the last sentence, we will say this, that the answer will be the urging of stronger repressive measures. It has ever been true that when unscriptural theological dogmas to which people will adhere can not be maintained by Scripture, the resort has always been made to the civil law. Really, above all others, the Christian ought to believe this simple proposition. If there is not enough inherent force and life in any religious institution, or in any religion whatsoever, let it die, the sooner the better, both for its adherents and for the world.