W

SUNDAY REST BILL

VILL the present Congress ignore the wise precedents of the past, and enter upon the disastrous path of religious legislation? or will it refuse to enact Sunday laws for the territory over which it has jurisdiction, as its predecessors have done? This is an important question which Congress will be called upon to answer during the second session of the Sixty-fifth Congress.

This is not a new matter before our national representatives. Strong religious organizations have besieged Congress ever since the founding of the American Republic, to get the lawmaking body to submit for ratification a Constitutional amendment which would make an explicit acknowledgment of God, of Christ and the Christian religion. One attempt after another has been made by religious organizations representing certain Christian sects, to obtain from Congress a legal recognition of their peculiar religious dogmas and institutions.

More than one hundred fifty compulsory Sunday bills have been introduced. in Congress during the past four decades; but Congress has been true to the American principles of civil government, and thus far has steadfastly and consistently refused to enact this kind of legislation. Today there is not a single Federal Sunday law upon the statute books for any of the territory over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction. The First Amendment to the Constitution expressly denies to Congress the power to enact any religious law, or to interfere

Sunday Legislation

By the Editor

with the free exercise of religious rigi

Notwithstanding the fact that Co gress is Constitutionally prohibited fro enacting religious legislation, and fro the beginning to the present day has pe sistently refused to enact Sunday las for its territorial domain, yet a numbe of the religious societies of certan churches in America, who had their or gin in Europe, where they have a unit of church and state, have just as per sistently endeavored to get Congress com mitted to the subject of such compu sory legislation. Religious organization whose creeds were formulated in Europe have been the instigators of practical every Sunday measure that has been in troduced in Congress. They even bolds declare, through their official organs, the they are the motive power back of the measures; and they openly lay claim: these bills as their own.

At the instigation of a purely religion organization, a Sunday bill (S. 2260 quoted as follows, was introduced in the United States Senate about the middle 1917, and is now pending:

"A BILL

"To protect the Lord's day, common called Sunday, from desecration and to secur its observance as a day of rest in the District of Columbia.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House Representatives of the United States of Ame ica in Congress assembled, That from ai after the passage of this Act it shall be lawful in the District of Columbia for ar person to labor or employ any person to lab or to pursue any trade or secular business c

Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, rks of necessity and charity always exted.

'Section 2. That from and after the pasge of this Act it shall be unlawful in the strict of Columbia to keep open or use for cular purposes any dancing saloon, theater, wling alley, place of public assembly or usement for secular purposes, to engage unlawful sports on the Lord's day, comnly called Sunday.

Sec. 3. That from and after the passage this Act it shall be unlawful in the District Columbia for any person, firm, corporation, municipality, or any of their agents, direcrs, or officers, to require or permit any emyees engaged in works of necessity or char- excepting in household service, to work

the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, less within the next succeeding six days ring a period of twenty-four consecutive urs he or it shall neither require nor permit ch employee to work in his or its employ.

Sec. 4. That any person who shall violate y of the provisions of this Act shall, on nviction thereof, be punished by a fine of t less than $5 nor more than $50 for the st offense, and for each subsequent offense

a fine of not less than $25 nor more than o, or by both fine and imprisonment in the il of the District

Columbia for a riod of not less an one month nor ore than six months, the discretion of e court.

"Sec. 5. That all osecutions for viotion of this Act all be in the police urt of the District Columbia."

It may be ought by some hat this measure so drastic in its rohibitions and so istinctly religious 1 its preamble,

at it will have lite chance of favor

was required to observe Sunday according to the belief of the strictest sect of the seventeenth-century Pharisees; and men were penalized for nonattendance at church on Sunday; for refusing to give one seventh of their time and one tenth of their income to the church; for walking or driving on Sunday other than to the church or to the cemetery; for laughing or whistling on Sunday; for gathering sticks and kindling fires on Sunday, even under dire necessity; for kissing their wives on Sunday; and for a hundred and one other things. Recently the Connecticut legislature abolished one hundred and thirty-six detailed specifications of what was forbidden on Sunday, but unfortunately it still retains a score of them on its statute books.

God gave but one commandment for his people concerning the observance of the Sabbath day, but the scribes and Pharisees added two hundred fifty of their own commandments to the one commandment which God had given, and

ole action on the part of Congress; but e are living in times when the unexected is most likely to happen. History aches us the never-failing maxim, Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.' This measure harks back to the times hen Puritanism held sway in colonial. ew England. At that time everybody

thereby made Sabbath obligations so oppressive that even the Son of man did not escape their condemnation. The glory of a formal religion is its multiplicity of ceremonies and governmental sanctions.

No one can fail to see that the Sunday bill now before the Senate is a purely religious measure, introduced for distinctively sectarian purposes. It is marked by religious phrases and titles in its preamble. The protection of "the Lord's day from desecration" and legislation compelling "its observance as a day of rest," refer clearly to religious obligations imposed upon citizens under civil penalties. No exemption is provided for those who

duced in the United States Senate, do not intend that religious liberty and freedom of conscience shall be guaranteed to those who conscientiously differ from them on this controverted religious question. They want Congress to give legal sanction to this church dogma, and then penalize every nonconformist, as the Puritans used to penalize men under the colonial rule of combined church and state.

Whose Image and Superscription?

Christ drew a distinct line between the church and the state. He separated civil and religious obligations when he answered the question, "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar?" He said, "Show me the tribute money." Holding it up so that the scribes and Pharisees could clearly see what was stamped and printed on it, he asked, "Whose is this image "Whose is this image and superscription?" They answered, They answered, "Cæsar's." Christ then made his wonderful pronouncement which separated forever the state and the church in the Christian economy: "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Whose image and superscription does the Sabbath institution bear, Cæsar's or

has his superscription.

and

Christians only are amenable to religious requirements, and they must render them not to Cæsar but to God. The Lord's

day evidently belongs to the Lord, for it It does not be long to Cæsar, or it would have Cæsar's superscription; therefore the observance of the Sabbath as the Lord's day is a religious duty which Christians should render to the Lord direct, instead of to Cæsar, or through Cæsar-the civil gov

ernment.

A distinct line of demarcation exists between civil and religious obligations and between the citizens of the world and the children of God. There is no bond of union between the world and Christ A failure to recognize the distinction be tween civil and religious requirements has been the primary cause of all the re ligious persecutions of the past. Cæsar's laws are purely civil statutes, while those of the Lord are religious and spiritual Cæsar's laws rest altogether on force while the Lord's statutes are based on the drawing power of love. God accepts only free-will service, the liberty of choice, motivated by a pure conscience a perfect heart, and an unwavering faith. No service is acceptable to God if it is forced; " for whatsoever," says Paul, "is not of faith is sin."

There is also a matter of religious controversy as to which day of the week is "the Lord's day." A large class of con

entious Christians of several sects ld that the seventh day of the week is he Lord's day," and that they have refutable Biblical and historical evince to sustain their contention. It is fact acknowledged by nearly all wellformed men that there is not a single xt in the entire Bible that calls Sunday, e first day of the week, "the Lord's y.” No reputable church historian es an authentic instance for nearly ree centuries after Christ, in which the rm "Lord's day" was applied to the st day of the week.

These facts raise a serious question as the standing of Sunday as a holy day. ut even were there no such question as the claims of the first day, it would rtainly be unwise and contrary to the onstitution of the nited States for ongress to preme to settle a regious controversy favor of any eligious sect, no atter how popur or numerous

the least, such a law would lack the essential quality of justice.

This measure aims to prohibit and penalize all "secular business on the Lord's day." Purely "secular business " can be distinguished only as it is contrasted with purely "religious concerns." This Act, then, must have but one aim, and that is to enforce purely “religious " duties on Sunday. Consequently, it is strictly religious and not civil or secular legislation. The state legitimately can enforce only "secular duties.”

Secular

business" that is in itself honorable and legitimate on the other six days of the week, cannot be forbidden or penalized on the Lord's day, except on distinctly religious grounds. That which is civilly criminal on one day of the week is a

99

This Act, if it were passed, would ompel those who bserve Saturday as the Sabbath to keep unday also, and thus they would be pealized for holding a faith divergent from e legally established religion. To say

are sins against God, and not crimes. against the state. We are answerable to God alone for religious offenses, and will have to appear before God's judgmen'

seat at the last great day instead of before Cæsar's judgment bar now.

This Act, if it becomes a law, will prohibit and penalize all "works of necessity or charity, excepting in household service, . . . on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday." Such a requirement, if enforced, would make the observance of the Lord's day a matter of sheer idleness. This was never the intent of the divine command concerning the observance of the Sabbath. Works of necessity and charity are always in order in the divine economy. Christ said, "It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Idleness is a curse on any day. It was one of the prevailing sins of Sodom, according to Holy Writ.

The Pharisees believed that ideal Sabbath observance was abstinence from physical effort, and consequently they stood all day long on street corners saying lengthy prayers. Likewise the "dyed-in-the-wool" Puritan thought that physical rest constituted true Sabbath ob

servance, and so when not attending church services he idly sat all day in a cushioned chair, without even daring twiddle his thumbs, for that might be construed to be "unnecessary work." Christ did more charitable acts on the Sabbath day than on any other day of the week. He boldly denounced the Pharisees' outward show of piety on the Sabbath day as the embodiment of the hypocrites' religion, and as having no value in the estimation of heaven.

The question is, Will Congress yield demands for Sunday legislation by the popular religious organizations of mod ern times? We sincerely hope and prav that the Sixty-fifth Congress will stand firmly by the fundamental principle of civil and religious liberty so wisely estab lished by the founders of the American Republic and so consistently maintained by the American Congress in the past. Let every lover of liberty urge his Reresentatives in Congress to steer afar from this kind of legislation.