I

The Origin

of

Religious
Liberty

By
Calvin P. Bollman

T has been remarked that
the struggle for religious
liberty was begun when the

apostles, Peter and John, stood
before the Jewish council of
elders and rulers, and declared:

"Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Acts 4: 19.

But nearly six centuries before that time, three young Hebrews, captives in Babylon, had announced the same principle. When commanded by Nebuchadnezzar, the greatest and most powerful king the world had ever produced, to fall down and worship the golden image which he had set up, these young men said to the king,

"O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. . . . Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." Dan. 3: 16-18.

Prof. James H. Fairchild, in his work on "Moral Science," says:

"Conscientious men are not the enemies, but the friends, of any government but a tyranny. They are its strength, and not its weakness. Daniel, in Babylon, praying contrary to the law, was the true friend and supporter of the government; while those who, in their pretended zeal for the law and the constitution, would strike down the good man, were its real enemies. It is only when government transcends its sphere, that it comes in conflict with the consciences of men."

And such has ever been the attitude of the worshiper of the true God. Nor

has it been the attitude of Christians only. The principle has been approved by some of the most outspoken unbelievers that ever lived. Thomas Paine, the great deist, author of "The Age of Reason," said:

"Who art thou, vain dust and ashes! by whatsoever name thou art called, whether a king, a bishop, a church, or a state, a parliament or anything else, that obtrudest thine insignificance between the soul of man and his Maker? Mind thine own concerns! If he believest not as thou believest, it is a proof that thou believest not as he believest, and there is no earthly power that can determine between you."

But beyond and above opinions of men. is the golden rule:

"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matt. 7: 12.

Adherence to this rule would make impossible any compulsion in matters of conscience.

Behold the man!"

of statutes that would result in transforming truthful, law-abiding citizens into criminals, simply because some, they say, transgress this our law," our Sunday law; and by its legal enforcement they propose to make men righteous.

The day of theocracies is past. So abused was the power given ancient Israel that God removed the diadem from David's kingly line, and because of this fact the Jews had not the power to put Jesus to death. That power belonged to the Roman state.

Did the condemnation of Jesus before Pilate as a malefactor make Him one? Did the testimony charging Him with blasphemy because He said He was the Son of God, transform Him into a false Christ, when the prophecies of every book of the Bible had been accurately fulfilled up to that moment, and many more startling prophecies were to be fulfilled that very afternoon, showing Him to be the Son of God?

Can it be supposed that the enactment of religious Sunday laws will make any one more. righteons, or actually make into a criminal before God one who has the day before kept the

Sabbath "according to the commandment"?

The world today brands Pilate as a weakling because he allowed himself to be swayed by a mad religious mob bellowing out their satanic rage in the cry, Crucify Him! crucify Him!" and, Release unto us Barabbas!" thus sending an innocent victim to the cruel cross. The world worships at the foot of that tree made sacred by the death of the sinless Lamb of God, despite all the religious frenzy of a whole nation clamoring for His death.

Likewise will it be impossible today to crucify divine truth. God's truth regarding the Sabbath will still survive and live on. All the combined Sunday laws of the world cannot change that precept of Jehovah which says, "The

seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord. thy God." Majestically the word of God stands unaltered, no matter how many deeds may be adjudged Sabbath desecration by human tribunals under Sunday laws.

The heaven-sent message to Pilate from his wife that crucifixion day, "Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him," is safe counsel for legislators today to follow concerning the clamor for the enactment into law of religious Sunday-keeping measures. Such laws only put into the hands of bigoted religious leaders a weapon our forefathers thought forever to forbid when, in 1787, in Philadelphia, was framed and adopted our national birthright, the Constitution of the United States, that original document embodying the "fundamental rules and principles for the conduct of affairs," the basis for all our governing law.

The government should put into the hand of no one a law whereby it would be possible for religious zealots to rise up

and say, "We have a law, and by our law this man is a criminal." Such incrimination is grossly un-American and wholly un-Christian.

Every such religious law upon our State statute books is a foul blot upon the pure principles of religious freedom that have been the bulwark and the glory of the American Republic from the days

of Washington. Power to enact religious laws has never been delegated to Congress by the people of the United States. On the contrary, the First Amendment expressly prohibits such legislation. And the First Amendment is as binding and powerful as any other part of our national Constitution. Let us, then, respect and obey it.

S

or a Crime?

EVERAL years ago the majority of clergymen were opposed to all kinds of amusements on Sunday, whether they were participated in by their own church members or by nonchurch members, whether they were amateur or professional, or whether they were free or commercialized. But a remarkable change has taken place in the attitude of quite a few clergymen, who now openly favor amateur amusements, such as baseball, tennis, golf, and moving-picture shows, on Sunday afternoons, for both church members and nonchurch members, provided the sports and amusements are not put on a commercial basis. So the principal fight waged by the more liberal-minded clergymen is now against commercialized sports and amusements.

We wish to consider this phase of the question, first, from the viewpoint of religion; and second, from the viewpoint of the state as a secular power. Is it wrong according to the Scriptures to indulge in pleasure on Sunday? Everywhere in the Scriptures Sunday - the first day of the week - is spoken of as a working day. In the beginning God commenced His great work of creation. upon the first day of the week.

"Six

days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in n thou

for in six

shalt not do any work: days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ezekiel speaks of the first six days of the week as "the six working days," but the seventh day of the week he calls "the Sabbath." Sunday, then, is not the Sabbath or Lord's day, but a working day, a day on which no legitimate work or pleasure is forbidden.

In speaking of the seventh day the Lord says: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Isa. 58:13, 14.

This language is addressed to the individual, but not to the government or civil authorities. It is an exhortation, but not a law, to abstain from one's indulgence in selfish pleasures upon the seventh day of the week; but it has no allusion whatever to Sunday or Monday

or any of the other week days. So from the Scriptural viewpoint there is no injunction against participation in work or legitimate pleasure on the first day of the week. Consequently it cannot be a sin on Sunday any more than it would be on Monday, because Sunday and Monday stand on exactly the same basis in the Bible and in the fourth commandment of the decalogue. If the clergy would teach that it is it is wrong to seek one's own pleasure on the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment, which is the seventh day of the week, they would be justified in branding such actions as sinful, and therefore offensive in God's sight, but not as criminal.

But now let us look at this question of commercializing sports on Sunday, from a civil viewpoint. Is it a crime to commercialize anything so far as the state is concerned? Is it not the province of the civil government to encourage business and commercial interests of every legitimate sort? Who ever heard of a

civil government branding legitimate commercialism as a crime? If the commercialization of innocent amusements is not criminal on Monday, on what basis can it be made criminal on Sunday? What is a crime on Monday is also a crime on Sunday, and what is legitimate on Monday is also legitimate on Sunday, so far as civil conduct is concerned. The only reason that can be given for not commercializing amusements on Sunday is a religious reason. But the state cannot place its statutes upon a religious basis. The civil government cannot rightfully accept religious reasons for the prohibition of an act that is perfectly legitimate on a civil basis. In other words, so far as the civil government is concerned, it cannot rightfully interfere with innocent amusement and recreation, whether it be commercialized or not, on any day of the week, so long as the free exercise of such amusements does not disturb the religious exercises of church functions because of too close proximity.