It should be determined, once for all, that Sunday laws in our nation are not religious laws.
The decision of the United States Supreme Court of May 29, 1961, upholding the Sunday laws of Maryland, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania as health and welfare measures has been interpreted as a defeat to religion and the religious implication of these laws.
A weekly newsmagazine recently commented on “the unruffled detachment with which today’s church leaders view the disappearance” of a Lord’s Day consecrated to religion and rest. Referring to one denomination which heard a resolution reading, “The church should not seek, nor even appear to seek, the coercive power of the State in order to facilitate a Christian observance of the Lord’s Day,” it traced some of the indifference to arguments for separation of church and state.
These laws, designed to do good for all of the people, are poorly understood and little appreciated.
No one will deny that in the early years of our history they had a religious motivation, but this is not the basic reason we observe them. Mindful of the laws of God, the leaders of the government wrote into secular jurisprudence rules regarding the first day of the week. The first Sunday law in America, known as the Virginia Law, was passed in 1610, just three years after Virginia was colonized by Captain John Smith. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the uniqueness of Sunday in Article 1 (Section 7, paragraph 2) describing it as a day of rest for the President and, by implication, for the people.
As our country grew, many people were blessed by these Sunday laws. Men and women received protection from employers who might otherwise have required day after day of uninterrupted labor.
As early as 1782, the Massachusetts Sunday Law, which had an unmistakably religious origin, experienced a change in its Preamble with the addition of the words, “Whereas the observance of the Lord’s Day is highly promotive of the welfare of the community, by affording necessary season for relaxation from labor and cares of business, for moral reflections and conversations on the duties and the frequent errors of human conduct.…”
In 1885, the United States Supreme Court concluded that Sunday laws were welfare measures:
Laws setting aside Sunday as a day of rest are not upheld from any right of the government to legislate for the promotion of religious observance, but from its right to protect all persons from the physical and moral debasement which comes from uninterrupted labor. Such laws have always been deemed beneficent and merciful laws, especially to the poor and dependent, to the laborers in our factories and workshops, and in the heated rooms in our cities, and their validity has been sustained by the highest courts of the States.
The Supreme Court’s 1961 judicial determination regarding the Maryland law said:
In the light of the evolution of our Sunday Closing Laws through the centuries, and of their more or less recent emphasis upon secular considerations, it is not difficult to discern that as presently written and administered, most of them, at least, are of a secular rather than a religious character, and that presently they bear no relationship to establishment of religion as those words are used in the Constitution.…
Sunday laws do not violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. It has never been established in any specific case that Sunday laws have curtailed religious freedom. Economic injury has been established. A law that regulates secular activity on Sunday may make the practice of some religions more expensive. Every Roman Catholic understands this since he pays taxes to support public schools as well as the parochial school. Every Protestant who pays taxes to support his state university and who tithes to support his denominational colleges knows that the practice of his religion can be expensive. The cost of the practice of religion is determined by the dedication and conviction of the adherent. But the law does not make the holding of a religious belief a crime, nor does it force one to embrace a religion.
The Christian church does not need laws to support it, to encourage attendance or to grant financial support. Churches have benefited by Sunday laws, but these are not the only laws which they have found beneficial. Are we to oppose all laws that aid the Church? Is there any satisfaction in awakening in a society which has no law? A law that benefits others may benefit the Church as well.
By opposing Sunday laws shall we rob the millions of workingmen in our land of rights for which they have struggled many years? Thousands of these people labor in churches. They sing in the choirs. They teach in the Sunday schools. Thousands of them do not. By what pious logic can we oppose laws which have been a blessing to many?
Certainly the churches do not want to be used to break down the progress which has been made in so many areas of our fair employment practices. To gain an advantage over their competitors, some businessmen clamor for a day other than Sunday as a day of rest. This would leave them free for Sunday operations. But if such a practice should be legalized, those who observe Sunday might employ only first-day observers; those who observe another day might refrain from employing workers who keep Sunday. In dealing with the Pennsylvania Sunday Law even the Supreme Court commented on the suggestion that those observing another day should gain exemption: “This may be the wiser solution to the problem but the concern of the court is not with the wisdom of the legislation but with its constitutional limitation.” The Court then pointed out that enforcement problems would be multiplied. Businesses that open on Sundays would be given a competitive advantage. There would be cause to question the sincerity of a worker’s beliefs and the opportunity for discrimination in hiring, since an exempt employer would, of necessity, hire only those who qualified for the exemption.
To oppose Sunday laws would be to strike at the American home against the value of one day in seven when the family is together. The “new economic pattern” of business every day could undermine the home life of our nation by scattering the “day off” for different working members of the family. In fact, we might question whether the removal of Sunday laws might not seriously tamper with our freedom of religion.
Christians cannot afford to oppose laws which benefit so many if they propose to be concerned for the rights of their people and the total population of America.
Christians can strengthen these laws, however, by showing a respect for the Lord’s Day themselves. By making purchases on days other than Sunday, they can guarantee that their neighbor’s day of rest will not be broken. Merchants have said that if church people would refrain from making Sunday purchases, their places of business could remain closed.
“Never on Sunday!” A radio announcer made this comment after reading the news story of the 1961 Supreme Court decision on Sunday laws. He said it in humor. When Christians apply it to unnecessary business on Sunday, it can mean Christian concern.
And what about those who sincerely observe another day? We would urge them to continue to support the day which we now enjoy and at the same time to work for a recognition of their day as well. Today’s trend is toward a work-week of five days, not six, and certainly not seven. They will find many supporters coming to their assistance.
END
