New-York tribune., 1901-06-07
Is SUNDAY LEGISLATION RELIGIOUS?

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
c;r. The effort TO prevent men from playing gol1
on Sunday at Yonkers. y y brings tne 49, 49,
tion again before the public mind as TO the basis
~ our Sunday laws Certain friends or sunday
who know that the spirit OF the Gospel ana 'iie
Christian sentiment of these years ioFoio sHC''
legislation on religious grounds, attempt 10 e'au'
The real issue by saying that the law deals WITH
,ha ..c,,1l SABBATH only and not with Sunday as
religious institution Seen in the light OF history
This statement cannot be sustained FOR a momeH''
Every student of the question knows that SuiiH0S
legislation had its beginning in the most intense
form of the pagan state-church system, uhoer
Constantine in 2H A. ID. With slight nnoolicalIoii'
sunday legislation continued as part Of the state
church system when the empire became honiilaily
Christian This tendency increased as the cehtu-
ries went forward, and the largest type OF c4'i
legislation concerning religious matters oD'a4iiSN
throughout the Middle Ages
Christianity among English speaking people was
developed under the same state-church system
THE Puritan supremacy IN England-lsi0-'oe a D.
was marked by an extreme union of church ana
o,e while Puritanisrn did not legislate concern
,ns saints davs II intensified the legislation con-
cerning Sundays and days Of Illumination ana
thanksgiving English legislation with the strong
Puritan coloring. was transferred 10 the Anleri-
csn Colonies and became the source OF all sun
DAY laws in the United States These laws have
gradually fallen into disuse. but they have never
been removed from their original religious basis
some decisions from lower courts have attempted
n eVade the religious feature oi l.e outAoos 4o"N
though the majority OF these decisions MAINTAIN
or admit the religious character Of the laws
If these decisions be grouped they declare thaf
a. IS constitutional 10 prohibit work on sunday
This is denied in decisions, but the weight
NJ authority IS on the other side The following
,,ronosittops are also supported by large ma
ioritv of court decisions. Sunday is a holy Day
Its holiness is TO be recognized by remaining idle
and ii is immoral not to do So 1dleness on SUNDAY
should be enforced religious duty There Is
hal he
day and such idleness IS an essential element OF
Christianity. That divine command is part OF
The constitutional law OF the United states tfor
a detailed and exhaustive summary or court de-
cisious in the United States see Sunday Legal
Aspects" etc. by James t. Ringold, of the Balti-
more bar; published by Frederick d. Linn q Co.
law publishers Jersey City, N JD
II our Sunday laws be analyzeo they snow a
positively religious basis In their structure as
rlainlv as they do their historical genesis sun
dav vould have no feature OF "a Civil Sabbath"
except as the civil law protects 1t as day upon
which IL is wrong 10 DO those Things whlch are
wholly harmless other days. For example.
there is no peril TO interests OF the State local
ar general from the playing OF golf similar rec
reations on other days II is not a breach or good
order IL does not inculcate treason. nor menace
The welfare of communities in any way seen
from the standpoint of good heath and rational
eniovment il is much be desired. The attempt
10 prohibit il on Sunday is based upon the idea
that Sunday is different from other days. and that
labor and sports on that day for the day SAKE sake;
This fact makes IL impossible 10 evace the truth
that religion at the basis OF all legislation con-
cerning Sunday. The term dissertation mas no
meaning if the day is not sacred IN the eye OF the
civil law Certain exemptions based upon heces-
sity and mercy" have no meaning except from the
religious basis This idea Is drawn directly from
the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue.
II is needless continue statements ana sug-
gestons in this direction Golf playing being harm
less and In keeping with the best interests OF So
ciety on ali other days cannot be harmful and op-
posed 10 the Interests of the commonwealth eX-
oept upon the assumption that Sunday is day
upon which worldly business and arnusefnents
are wrong because they are worldly. IN contrast
with spiritual religious duties. -
Until the friends of Sunday legislation are Wiling
10 separate civil law from the religious oay ana
Jet the latter take fits chances alone IL is useless
for them 10 claim they do not seek the sup
port Of Sunday as a religious institution through
civil law This theoretical distinction between the
civil Sabbath and the religious Sabbath dld not ap-
pear in history until the right OF the cvii law 10
Interfere in religious matters was challenged
Since then men have labored TO make this lrnpossi-
bic distinction. ~,
II the Bible be accepted the standard OF rellg-
ious duty the seventh day alone rs the Sapbath-
In any case the whole question or SaoDath oo-
servance IS religious one. and should be left 10
the Individual conscience without any interference
the part of civil law. Such interference os-
stroys conscientiousness and produces the holl-
dayisn over which the friends OF sunday =, are SO
much disturbed. A. IL LEWIS IL ~
4 3.