, 1879-05-19

*1o"S ~ appsa4s 70 LIS u3tne, ara euloICeQ LII
morality OF Christianity bT numerous statutes
IN order clearly to understand this somewhat
confusing question one must carefully distinguish
between religious ordinance and a civl institu
Lon; Inc State, as such, makes no laws OF anY
Kind Tor the enforcement or teaching Of relig
Ion; out many OF Its civil acts assume the exist
ence OF specific religious ideas aud moral priu-
G.ples. lne courts OF the country, while eu-
forcing the Sunday laws, expressly dis
preme Court Of the State OF New York, in
SUSTAINING one OF the Sunday laws, says: HThe
aee complained ct here compels no religious OBJ
se,'ance, ana o1teuses against it are punishable,
not as Sins against God, bat as injurious to and
oaV'nS malignant influence on society. It
rests upon the same foundation as multitude
o. otae1 laws upon our statute-book, as
doSsev Saasa: ga%hns lotteries ksepng
1t is thus seen that Sunday laws, "a such. ara
not religious ordinances, but c.va acts The7
Eere not framed to aid religion, but to serve tue
state: Ihis 5 yoq SEE su%ma1ily disposes Of the
religious grounds, they are unconstitutional il
their partiality for the first dav OF the week In
preference to the seventh or SIXTH" tor Sunday
laws arc not based upon religious grounds, and
no person familiar with the general subject wiI
attempt to defend them on those grounds.
They are simply acts OF civil policy, and there
fore, the allegation OF unconstltutionality Is
utterly set aside.
Sabbath laws are justified in Republic on the
"a
titled BY Divine command, and by the expert
| ence OF mankind. They are justified as the
poor man's day Of rest, which neither wealth
nor wlckedue5s has the: right to take away.
privilege Of rest for each citizen depends upon
the observance OF day Of rest BY ali citizens
! With the subject thus opened before ua, we
again ask, Why disturb the present urder of
things: On what valid grounds is the appeal
based to set aside the usages OF the nation, aud
| enter upon new and dangerous Waysa The ar
! Eument OF uucoustitutionaiity. as We have seen,
| Is set aside by the consideration that Sunday
laws are civil acts. and not religious ordinances.
| It is furthermore seen that, while the State ts
purely civil institution, it is not an irTeliqious
institution; that 1t does not discourage religion,
but encourages it.; That 1t Is not iDfdel, but
Christian; thatits own practices show that there
are definite religious IDEAS permeating its entire
being.
These two objections to the existing order re-
moved, what further have those who demand q
change to say in defense Of their appeal!
+ Pehraps the most forciole argument with tho
masses favorable to repeal Of the existing
Sunday laws, and Of all legislation Involving
the same principle, IS based upon the charge Of
injustice in aiding one citizen rather than
another, and OF needlcssly offending the cun-
sciences Of portion OF the people. The case
may be stated thus: The State, being purely
secular institution, has nothing to do with
religion in any form. It cannot have anything
to do with religion, neither in the puDlic schools
II
one day as specially set apart for religious uses,
nor in exempting church property from tax4tion.
nor should 1t In any way coucern itself with
religion so Us to show preference for ono class Of
opnons over another; but should leave the
religious interests Of society to the Church, the
family, and the individual citizen.
This argument has the headyantageo Of being easily
apprehended, and BY its seeming fairness COM
mends itself to many. 1t has the appearance
Of fair-play, und OF being In the interests oi
ft1af md Rr+f
meut, however conclusive it may seem to be,
will not bear scrutiny, for the truth which Il
contains rests upon TWO erroneous assumptions.
These two erroneous assumptions are: First,
Of right give no Endorsement to any particular
class Of religious ideas or form Of morality.
This has been already shown to be untrue:
The common law Of the land IS religious, and
morality. By d late decision Of the Supreme.
Court, we are justified in opposing polygamJ
under the laws Of this Nation. This makes
monogomy atstInctively Christian institution
the common law this doctrine can be maintained
in the interests OF tue civil lie and social vel
fare OF The people, ! do not see why Sunday laWs
cannot De malntainea on tne same grouna,
without any conflict with justice and fairness to
all.
; But the second error in the argument under
notice IS not only wrong IN principle but mis-
chievous IN practice It assumes that the rights
OF tne lnul41auaa couscieuce Ii LIE nlkaest Ia"'
In the land.
The right OF conscience" says th1ef-Justtca
Shaw, " is not an absolute but common right,
to be enjoyed subject to restrictions and condt.
tions made for the good OF ALL" The safety OF
the people is the supreme law The right Of
the Individual conscience must give way like anT
other right, II 1t lnterferes with the puolic Ecto-
And not only 80, out Whale the State nominalY
makes no discrimination II favor OF any par
tlcular system OF religion, and cnfurces toie1a-
tion by Law, the State Itself will not permit cer-
tain acts under the plea OF worship: All toera-
ton BY the State is with an III" You may
Worship as you choose,-proyided you do not
violate public decency; provided you do nos
outrage public sentiment BY encouraging i'm
morality. II you do this, then the State
Rill not only deprive you Of its protec-
tion, but OF your liberty also. The like is true
II civil liberty. One can do as ne chooses. SO,
ong as he Is disposed to do what Is assumed to
3e Tor the public good. The liberty Of each ono
II us is always enVfroned by an "it." Absolute
personal liberty under State Is impossible.
There is standard OF Judgment expressed by
aw, both written and unwrltten, which decides
what is permissible, Nor is there under State
ny such thing as absolute religious liberty.
'olygamy cannot plead the rights of the Nor
non conscience in any part Of tie Uofon, for the
'tatc will punish It as bigamy. Should some Of
he Pagan customs, we'll known to students OF
luman history, be revived in this country,-iu
mir oil III