Religious Legislation in Disguise
By William Mayhew Healey
Initiated Sunday Law Capable of Much Mischief and Inconvenience — An Eight Hour Measure That Would Enslave Men — Vote "No" on Both Propositions
THERE is an old saying that "it is better to be safe than to be sorry." There are two proposed laws on California's initiative ballot to be voted on November 3, 1914, upon which it is safe to vote "NO." They are entitled "Hours of labor" and "An act to provide for one day in seven as a day of rest," and bear the numbers on the ballot of 3 and 45. COMBINING LABOR AND RELIGION
No. 45 is a double measure combining labor and religion. Section 1, subsections 1 and 2, declares it unlawful "to hire, employ, or require any employee, apprentice, servant, or other person or persons, to work at or engage in any trade, business, profession, or occupation for more than six days in any calendar week of seven days." "To work at or to engage in any said trade, business, profession, or occupation for wages for more than six days in any calendar week of seven days." In subsection 4 is the following exception: "And, provided, that the above subsections 1 and 2 do not apply to any person whose total hours of labor during seven consecutive days do not exceed forty-eight hours." If one man or a number of men have the right to say that another shall not work for wages more than forty-eight hours in seven days, it follows, without argument, that they have a right to say that he shall not work less than a certain number of hours, and all individual liberty would be taken away, and the man would be a slave under the law. Do you enjoy your freedom? Do you wish to preserve it? If you do, vote "NO" to this slavery act. AMUSEMENTS AS A NECESSITY
Subsections 3 and 4 make it unlawful to keep open places of business, or to transact business or perform labor, on Sunday, except "works of necessity." Many of the "works of necessity" are named, among them, "sports, theaters, and amusements." There seems to be nothing in the proposed law to prevent such "works of necessity" running full twenty-four hours a day, and seven days in the week, provided no one person is employed in them to exceed forty-eight hours in the week. Why allow these places of "sport," etc., to sell tickets and take in money in other ways on Sunday, and send a poor woman to jail for opening her store and taking in a nickel for a spool of thread? That is just what the law can do if it is enacted. It is safe to vote "NO." Why any law for rest on Sunday? There is nothing in physical nature that demands rest on that day more than on any other day. Physical nature demands rest when weary, and needs no policeman or jail to enforce it. Physical nature enforces her own law, and collects her own penalties. Sunday is an institution of the church. In nature it does not differ from any other day, but it has been religiously set apart for religious purposes. The ancient sun worshippers dedicated it to their god, the sun, and on it they held their holiday festival and worship. They called it sun's day. It has come down through the ages, and is clinging to the Christian church, with more or less of a religious halo around it. THE PHYSICAL NECESSITY ARGUMENT
This is its only claim for special recognition. Resting upon it is in no way essential to the good of labor. The Japanese and many others have labored for ages without it or any other weekly day of rest; and yet those who have observed a Sunday rest all their lives, as did their parents before them, are forced to admit their inability to compete successfully with the Japanese in physical labor. The bill admits that Sunday rest is not needed for those laborers whose hours of labor for wages do not exceed forty-eight in one week. NEEDED FOR RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY
A weekly Sabbath rest day as a religious institution is for the best good of mankind, for the benefit of his religious and spiritual nature. These blessings are beyond the reach of civil law. To compel rest on Sunday is therefore, to say the least, unprofitable and useless. Obedience to civil law makes good citizens; but he is not a good citizen who only obeys the law because he is in the penitentiary and can not break it. Neither is any one made better by resting on Sunday or any other day merely because the law of the land compels such rest. The character is shown, and the blessing comes, in choosing, and not in being compelled. EXEMPTS THE ONE DOING THE DEED
No. 3, called "Hours of labor," makes it unlawful to hire any person to labor for more than eight hours in one day, or forty-eight hours in one week, "except in case of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood, or danger to life or property." The maximum penalty is $500 fine and ninety days in jail. This proposed law would be a curious, unique, and iniquitous piece of legislation, in that it severely punishes an employer who merely "permits" a thing to be done, but fixes no penalty on the employee who commits the act. If doing a thing is not wrong, then no guilt can by any means attach to one who "permits" it. If the doing of a thing is wrong, then that wrong is in the act, and must attach to the one who performs it. This unjust discrimination puts into the hands of the employee a powerful weapon by which to coerce the employer. CONSTANT MENACE TO EMPLOYERS
A domestic servant or farm hand could easily prolong the labor of a day or week beyond the legal limit, and produce evidence that the employer did "permit" it. A constant menace in a threat of prosecution, could be held over the employer, who would be helpless, having no redress or protection; because the employee would not be amenable to the law, and could not be held for its violation, while the employer could.646 If this religious labor combine, in seeking recognition, asks for such laws as these, what may be expected from it if it should get complete control of civil power? The history of the past shows what always follows when any party or power attempts to enforce, by civil law, any religious creed, dogma, or institution—that it has lent itself to oppression and cruel wrong. The desire to enforce one's religion on others by civil law and penalties is the twin of injustice and the father of persecution. Make no mistake. It is safe to vote "NO" to such propositions.