p. 342 | IS OUR TIME OUR OWN? by G. D. Ballou

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Jun 9, 1914

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 41, No. 22.

IS OUR TIME OUR OWN?

By G. D. Ballou

Can the State of Right Tell Us When to Work and When to Rest?

Sunday Laws Come from Usurped Authority

G. D. BALLOU

LAST week Mr. Ballou showed that each individual has a right to his life, which embraces his time, and a right to his property, and also to the protection of his character. He showed that the liquor business and the drink evil invade these rights. The men who sell liquors spread crime, insanity, and misery, and millions of innocent people are made to suffer. It is right to suppress the liquor business and thereby abate this invasion of natural rights. Building upon the foundation of last week, he shows, in this issue, that Sunday laws, as well as the drink curse, are an invasion of our natural rights.

THERE is a class of excellent religious people who favor the making of laws to enforce certain religious observances, particularly the keeping of Sunday as a sabbath. Most of the states in our Union have such laws now on their statute-books. There is no just foundation, in human rights, for such laws; and true religion, as well as judicial sentiment, forbids the making and enforcing of such laws.

When we send men to the legislature to make laws for us, we delegate to them all the authority of the personal rights we possess, and no other authority. There are many relationships of life which are essential to human happiness, that are matters for advice and persuasion, and not for command.

To illustrate: It is the duty of every head of a family to provide good clothing and proper food, but I may not dictate to him what his choice shall be. He has a wide range of choice open before him, and it is none of my business what he chooses, only as I may, by his invitation, advise and persuade. He must run so far aside in his duties as positively to endanger the life and health of his dependents, before any outside authority can justly interfere.

Every man has more or less of property and money, which it is his privilege to use as seems best to himself, so long as his use of it does not interfere with the rights of others. Again we may advise and persuade, but most of us are wise enough not to attempt to command. He may buy stocks, or bonds, or lands, or cattle and horses, or automobiles, whether he needs them or not. What matters it all to us, unless a friendly word of counsel might stay a course of unwise purchasing?

HIS TIME HIS OWN

It is the bounden duty of every man, before God, to take proper rest at night. But I may not command him to spend eight hours in bed out of every twenty-four. His time does not belong to me, nor did I give it to him. So I can not help to pass laws concerning personal hygiene, except in those cases where human neglect endangers others.

We hear much, in our times, of enforcing the observance of Sunday by statute. Of late it has taken the form of securing to the laboring man one day of rest by hindering the employer from compelling the man to work seven days in the week in order to hold his job.

EVERY MAN'S PRIVILEGE

It is the privilege of every man to have one day or more to himself out of every week, and no man may rightly compel him to use any portion of his time in a manner different from his own choice; for all his time is his own, and he is not responsible to any human authority, but to God only, who gives him time and life. If he chooses to sell his time six days in the week to another, and keep one day for himself, that is his right and privilege, and no man has a right to compel him to sell all his time.

Nor may any human power rightly compel a man to rest one day in seven. None of us has the personal right to command a neighbor to desist from labor on the Sabbath or any other day. We did not make the Sabbath, nor give our fellow man his time, and hence it is not for us to say how he shall use it. Since we have no personal rights to command, we have no authority to delegate to the legislators to make Sunday laws or laws to enforce any day of rest. We may proclaim holidays, but man remains free to use them as best pleases him.

WHY UNDERTAKE WHAT GOD LEAVES ALONE?

To God alone is man responsible for Sabbath observance; and if the Creator does not see fit to enforce idleness on the day we call the Sabbath, why should we poor mortals undertake to do what God Himself refrains from doing? From the common citizen to the legislator and the judge on the bench or the juryman, all have the right to defense of property, chastity, and reputation, as was shown last week; but not one has a right to dictate how his fellow shall spend his time, much less how he shall worship God, on the Sabbath or any other day.

Not one of us would be justified, personally, in using force to make our neighbor desist from work on the day we regard as the Sabbath. What reason, then, have we for asking the sheriff or the constable to use the same kind of force? He can only exercise the authority people have delegated to him.

THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE

But in this matter, the people having no authority to delegate, he is powerless to interfere rightfully in the matter of Sabbath-breaking. The legislators, when importuned to make Sunday laws, can only reply, We have not the personal right to do it, and no such authority can be properly delegated to us by our constituents, so we can not pass such laws without exceeding the bounds set by the Creator for us.

To illustrate more fully: If any person should shoot a man down who persisted in applying the torch to his neighbor's house, when that person was brought up before the judge for examination, the verdict would be, "Justifiable homicide."

But if some religious zealot should shoot down his neighbor because that neighbor did not heed the personal command to cease laboring on Sunday, when this one was brought to trial, the verdict would be, Murder in the first degree, unless he was cleared on the plea of insanity. This ought to make plain the proposition that the civil command to cease laboring on Sunday or any other day is not founded in personal rights, and hence can have no just place in civil law.

You may ask, How about the Sunday laws now on the statute-books? Well, they were placed there by usurpation of authority. The priests and the religious zealots of a darker age clamored for these laws until kings enacted them; and then because of precedent, they were brought into the statute-books of modern representative governments. But it is plain, from the considerations before us, that they are not founded on personal rights, and hence will not stand the test of constitutional authority.

WOULD HAVE SAVED WAR AND BLOOD

If these facts had dawned on human minds a few centuries ago, an untold amount of religious war and bloodshed would have been avoided. It does not appear possible that a follower of the meek and lowly Man of Nazareth would ever clamor for power to compel his fellow men to observe any religious ceremonies, or set apart any time for worship, which they did not voluntarily see fit to choose for themselves.

While we labor, within our personal rights, to free the community from the blighting curse of intoxicants and narcotics, and thus protect helpless humanity from harm, let us not step without the bounds of our personal rights, and undertake to compel our fellows to a course of conduct of our choosing, when we ourselves would strongly resent their compelling us to follow a course of their choosing.