G. E. Fifield • April 28, 1892 • American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 17
At the recent hearing before the House Committee on the World's Columbian Exposition, on the question of Sunday closing, one gentleman, Dr. Pitzer, informed the Committee that the question was not in any sense religious. Every other speaker in favor of Sunday closing, made it a religious question. The religious beliefs and prejudices of the Committee were appealed to, and they were exhorted to do their religious duty in the matter in view of both present honors and future rewards.
Who were these gentlemen who spoke in favor of Sunday closing? With one exception they were ministers. Who did they represent in that hearing? They boldly said that they represented the Methodist Episcopal Conference, and certain presbyteries of Pennsylvania, and the American Sabbath Union, which they said represented the combined Christian sentiment of the country. If the question were purely civil, having no religious bearings, why were these gentlemen so intensely interested in it?
Supposing the proposition had been to close the World's Fair on Wednesdays, and open it on Sundays. The civil basis of the question, if it has one, would be unchanged. No one will deny that the seventy thousand employes of the Fair, could rest as well physically on Wednesday, as on Sunday; and the opening of the Fair on Sunday, would accommodate many that the opening of it on Wednesday would not. What would be the difference? Every one of these reverend gentlemen instead of being at Washington in support of the measure, would be there to emphatically oppose it. What magic works this change? Simply this: "They do not believe that Wednesday is a sacred day that should be kept holy. They do believe this of Sunday, and they are working in this to get a national recognition of their religious belief on this point. And yet, these gentlemen say that it is not a religious question, and as Shakespeare says, "Brutus is an honorable man," "these are all honorable men."
The question of the closing or the opening of the World's Fair, on Sunday, when considered by itself, is comparatively a small question. There have been other expositions before this, some of them closed, and some of them open on Sunday, and yet the world revolves, and the planetary systems are not shattered or seriously disarranged. It is only when this question is considered in connection with all the religious politicians intend to accomplish by it, that it is seen to be of colossal importance.
The very Constitutions of the various organizations that these gentlemen represented in that hearing, are pledges of the fact that they intend this national recognition of Sunday sacredness as precedent to national Sunday laws, and that they intend these as a precedent for putting "all religious laws and usages on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land." One of the speakers, Rev. H. H. George, plainly told a few days before in a public speech in Washington, just what they do intend to accomplish. In speaking of the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday, and of other Sunday laws to follow, he said: "We will soon have these laws, and then the people who are now opposing them, and opposing our Sunday, will be invited to leave this country, bag and baggage, and go to a country of a continental Sunday, or of no Sunday at all, and stay there till they die, and be buried there, and then go where they belong!" And yet these gentlemen say this is not a question in any way threatening religious liberty, and "these are all honorable gentlemen."
By the edict of Milan, A. D., 313, for the first time in the history of the world, full and free liberty was given to all religious beliefs. During the next two hundred years, a religious despotism was built up which cursed the world, and held the human mind bound by fetters of fear, for more than a thousand years. How did it all come about? The whole monstrous system was built upon little precedents, not one of which, considered alone, was of more importance than this question of the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday, by Congress.
In fact, the very first step in the direction of this despotism, was the securing and enforcing of Sunday laws. After giving an account of three different Sunday laws, each following the other, and each a little more strict than the preceding one, Neander says, "In this way the Church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends." This is Neander's account of the beginnings in the fourth century of the union of Church and State.
More remarkable still, one of these laws was for the purpose of closing the circus on Sunday. The reasons given were: "Because the people collect more to the circus than to the church," and because the exhibition "proved a great hindrance to the devotion of Christians." They also said, "Nor ought any Christian to be compelled to attend these games on Sunday." Of course no one was compelled to attend the games; this referred entirely to those who of their own free will hired out to work for the managers of the exhibition. It is identical with the argument that seventy thousand employes will be compelled to work on Sunday if the Fair is open.
Soon after this, they got laws enforcing the observance of baptism and of the Lord's Supper, then of all the observances of the church. Nor can these men to-day give any reason why if they enforce one of these religious observances by law, they should not proceed to the enforcement of all others.
The object for which the religious politicians worked in the recent hearing, was to so amend the Appropriation bill, as to have it provide that the "treasurer shall not pay one dollar of the appropriation, till the local commission in Chicago shall stipulate in writing that the Fair shall be closed on Sundays during the six months of the Exhibition." Congress could take no step, it could pass no bill, that would more fully commit this Nation, as a Nation, to the recognition of the religious dogma of Sunday sacredness.
A man may say that he believes that Sunday is a holy day, and that he shall keep it sacredly; but to say that he will have no business relations with any one who does not keep Sunday strictly, is going much farther. It is to this extent, however, that this proposed amendment would carry Congress in the recognition of Sunday sacredness.
The question whether Sunday is or is not a sacred day, is purely a religious question. It is not a question for courts and legislatures, but for each man to decide between his own soul and his Maker. Moreover, there is no religious question more under dispute to-day than this. Some profess to believe that Christ and the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday. All students of history know that the observance of Sunday in the Christian Church did not begin for some centuries after the time of Christ and the apostles. Many Christians do not believe that there is any Sabbath in this dispensation. Many other Christians believe that the seventh day, or Saturday, is the true Sabbath. The Jews believe this also. Still others, who, under the Constitution of the United States are accounted good citizens, with equal rights, believe that Friday is the only religious day in the week. What right has Congress to take up this religious controversy and throw its influence in favor of any party? This is class legislation. When Congress shall throw its influence in favor of any religious party, it will then, as did the State in the fourth century, have lost its power to keep the peace. Then will begin a struggle among the various religious denominations for precedence and State preferment, and it should be remembered that in the fourth century that struggle ended only in the dissolution of the empire and the establishment of a perfect despotism.
The National Religious Liberty Association does not advocate either the opening or the closing of the Fair on Sunday. It simply argues that it is a religious question, and that as such it is not within the purview of civil government. The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In 1796 a treaty was made with Tripoli which said, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, and is therefore, not hostile to the Mussulmans, as such." By the Constitution, this, with all other treaties, is made a part of the fundamental law of the land. It simply means that here, by constitutional right, as well as by inherent right, all religions are equal before the law, and none are either favored or suppressed.
That this equality of all religions before the law extended to the various days of the week that are regarded as sacred by the different religions, was decided by the Senate of the United States in 1829. The Government was petitioned to stop the mail service on Sunday by law. The reply of the Senate Committee was:
It is not the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine what religion is true or what is false, or to determine for any whether they shall esteem one day above another, or esteem all days alike holy. The legislator is chosen to represent the political and not the religious views of the people; to guard the rights of man, not to restrict the rights of conscience.
There is a natural law that will do all that is needed in such cases as this, if it is only left to act. The trouble with all nations is that they have legislated too much, and interfered with the working of this natural law. The law of supply and demand will either open or close those gates on Sunday, according as the public demand; and then there will be no legal action, and no unsafe precedents. The people who go to Chicago in 1893 will be representative citizens. There will be many from other lands it is true, but they will be only of the best classes, and they come by national invitation, and should have equal rights with American citizens while here.
Colonel Shepard said that there were fifty million Christians in this country. He also argued that Christians would not attend the Fair on Sunday, and that they would not patronize the Fair on any day, if it was open on Sunday. Now if this is so, suppose the Fair is opened the first Sunday, all those people will stay away, and the Fair will be so simply patronized that it would never open its gates on Sunday again. Every one knows that as a testimonial to the regard of the people for Sunday, this would be worth a thousand-fold more than the mere closing of the gates by law. It is not to be expected that any one will have so much respect for the "American conscience," if it requires a national law as a sort of moral stimulant.
