I find myself in the very unusual position of being the only pastor in Hyattsville who is on the repeal side of the Sunday law question. At the same time I am the pastor of the only church in this community whose membership as a body do not believe in attending movies on any day of the week. It is therefore evident at the outset that no desire for amusements and no possible connection with commercial interests can be attributed to me as a Seventh-day Adventist minister in opposing Sunday laws. The petitions on the other side of the question which have been read to the council concern themselves simply with the "liberalizing" of the Sunday law as regards movies. I am not interested in liberalizing the law. Believing that Sunday laws are wrong in principle, the only consistent position I can take is to petition for their repeal.
I believe they are wrong because they violate the great principle enunciated both by Bible writers and by the founding fathers of this country—the principle of the separation of church and state. In the centuries before the United States Government was established, church and state were to a greater or less degree united in every land. And all the hardships and persecutions to which religious minorities have been subjected through the centuries have resulted from such a union of church and state. When the religious majority in a state are able to register their beliefs on the statute books and can employ the arm of the law in support of their views, persecution to a greater or less degree inevitably follows. This is not a theory regarding government; it is a sad fact of history, written in tears and blood in the annals of all religious minorities. Some of the very denominations whose opposing petitions you have heard tonight, were, in centuries past—among the religious minorities who thus suffered.
It was a new thing for the world to hear the founders of a nation declaring that the state has no right to legislate upon matters of religion and conscience. But just such declarations were vehemently made by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others.
But while our Federal Government was so clearly established on this principle of the separation of church and state, the matter was somewhat different with the original colonies. Many of them had their beginnings about 150 years earlier, and had brought over with them from the old country the view of the union of church and state. Singularly enough, numbers of the early settlers had fled from Europe because they could not worship God as their conscience dictated. Yet they did not see that the only lasting guaranty of religious freedom was to dissolve the church-and-state union.
Sunday laws are a choice illustration of the religious legislation that formerly covered a wide field of conduct. In fact, in this country they are about the only definitely religious statutes that have come down to us. The early Sunday laws made no attempt to conceal their obviously religious character. The first Sunday law in Maryland opens thus: "Forasmuch as the sanctification and keeping holy the Lord's day commonly called Sunday, hath been and is esteemed by the present and all the primitive Christians and people, to be a principal part of the worship of Almighty God, and the honor due to His holy name; Be it enacted," etc. The Sunday laws of the other early colonies were equally plain as to their religious nature. In fact, if a colonial had been asked whether a Sunday law was a religious law, he would have looked at you in amazement, wondering why you asked such an obvious question.
As the principles of the separation of church and state have to an increasing degree permeated society through the years, the confessedly religious reason for the enactment of a Sunday law has been dropped out of the revised codes; but they are religious laws just the same. No one with any knowledge of the history of Sunday legislation would attempt to argue that Sunday statutes, even in their more restrained language today, are not religious laws. And it is because they are religious that I protest against them. The state ought not to be in the business of regulating religious conduct; the church ought not to ask for such aid. Both the church and the state suffer when any such partnership is effected. The church ought to rely, not on the arm of the law, but on the arm of the Lord for aid in advancing its cause.
It is true that the spirit of the times holds back to a great degree the evil effects that would logically come from a consistent enforcement of Sunday laws. But as long as such laws exist they are a potential source of danger, and always provide a weapon for some intolerant individual. It is only a short time ago that a member of my denomination was arrested for doing a little repair work in his house, painting some windows, on Sunday. He had kept "the seventh day" as God requires in the Sabbath command, and with clear conscience went to work on Sunday. But someone who believed differently took advantage of this Maryland Sunday law and had the man arrested. He spent five days in jail. His only crime was that he had violated a religious law.
I do not believe that such a law ought to be on the statute books. It can serve only as religious laws have ever served in the past, to provide a weapon for intolerance.
Washington, D. C.
* This statement recently made before the town council of Hyattsville, Maryland, in connection with the presentation of a petition against the State Sunday law, is here made available in the hope that it may aid other workers confronted with a similarly delicate situation. In this instance an attempt was being made by the commercialized amusement interests to bring about a liberalizing of the State Sunday law. The motive was wholly mercenary, and the other churches were all opposed to it. But Elder Nichol, because of his religious liberty lectures, had been asked by the theater owners to support their endeavor. He told them that he could in no way join in their plea. but would doubtless have something to say on the larger principle of Sunday laws. His careful presentation needs no comment. In situations of this character we need to use great care lest we become allied, in the mind of the public, with commercialized amusement interests.—Editors
