, 1859-08-04

the observance OF the Lords day buses itself On |
purely religious doEnas needs 10 pfoof, and f.
beliere. not denied: and the theological erut!,-
ton which was exhibited In The. DISCUSSION Vi
this qucstion in your last paper is ueu proof
OF thi1 position. Now, the answer to this ques-
ton brings US straightway to the other one:
"Have We liberty of conscience uudet the Con-
stitutiop: or ore We herr, in the United States Of
America, under the rule Of a certain State se!i-
zion or Theocsacy, like The Mormons or the
anclent Jews: In Frsuce, In Spain. even in
Eavaria the Catholic religion is in fact
t4t religion ths fe'7,ea ,seo,o,aa g. the st,is
rule-a1l others are only tolerated. So in
Munich. or in Spa;u, or in the South Of France,
everybody must take his hat OF whcu priest
passes By with The "holy body or when u
procession moved through the Streets Who
ercr does not submit, does It ut the r7sk OF haT-
ing his lat smashed or being more severely in-
jured-a fact which many Englishmen and
Americans may confirm by their sad experience
in this line. This we may call popular illus
trssion Of the system Of State Religion, but
nevertheless true
Kow, say, the Sunday laEs arc nothing else
than remnant Of Theocratical Government,
relic Of the Patriarchal times, when one small
commonwealth or community Lad an uniform
religious creed. and bad, therefore, right
which no longer exists now-to make such laws.
So we must confess We hare still 4 State ReG-
uion in the United States, notwithstanding the
Bill of Rights and the Declaration Of Independ-
ence, The Sunday laws exist Us positire law =
tier NAV be called obsolete BY some. hut theyt
exist and mnr be executed. The Inv has taken
the part OF those citizens who beliere that Sum
dag ought to be obserEed By al e1fi-<as in the
same way as the FIRST named may see TT, no mat
ter what the rest may think about it-f6ty mvst
tnbmit. not in matter Of civil or criminal law,
where revision is recognised, but IN matter Of
religious opinion, in dogma OF sect. How
far this COMEDIES with the fundamental princi-
pies Of Liberty Of Conscience, Of Personal Lib.
etsv aud Happiness, of Freedom Of Trade, and
Of tie Right Of E!ery Man to his Labor, re-
enough, there is logical contradiction between
Sunday laws and the fundamental principles up
on whcl. this modern structure Of the Republic
rcposes: war between The historical remnants
Of past ages and the principles Of the revolution
which cannot end hut By the dowufal Of one or
the other. D. II.
The Sunday Question---B5 n German.
Editors rrrss aad Tribune:
In reply to your correspondent. E.. in yester-
| dny's issue Of the Pfes, aud Tribune, allow me
/ to state:
That the Constitution Of The United States
| prohibits the establishment OF religion rs a
| governing power. .....
A religious text book can consequently not
| be admitted as authority iu q question, which
concerns the rights Of believers and non-believ-
ers. 1twould therefore be logical first to insert
n clause into the Constitution making the Chris
tim religion tie religion Of tue country before
earring dosmatical disputes from the pulpit
into the political arena. First annnl the tsucrty
| of conscience as Louis XIV did the edict Of
Nantes, and after that dictate.
| The argument Of the Catholic Church in for
mer centnrica that it is n done 10 savc tie poor
hereto, will then fit ron most Conveniently.
Construe it as you may like this Sunday
question. is question Of religious tolesation,
and nothing else, ..