In May of the Year of our Lord, 1888 A.D., Senator Henry Blair proposed legislation to limit activities on the days commonly known as Sunday, within the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government.  The reason for the legislation was to promote Sunday for that of a religious nature only.  Senator Blair made it very clear that the aim of his bill was to preserve Sunday as a day of rest and religious observance.  The bill was referred to the “Senate Committee on Education & Labor,” were Blair happened to be the Chairman.

 

Among those who raised objections to the proposed legislation, was Alonzo T. Jones.  He began his address to the committee as though he were addressing only Senator Blair, starting off with this statement:  “Sir, you may speak of the power and the majority in social and civil matters.  But there is no majority however large that can invade the territory of a man’s religion.  Not in this land; not under our Constitution.”

 

Senator Blair immediately interrupted Alonzo T. Jones with this rebuttal:  “Mister Jones, you fail to recognize the right, or more importantly the duty of the State, to protect the rights and welfare of the people as a whole.”

 

Mr. Jones responded:  “Senator, it seems that you fail to recognize the clear distinction between man’s responsibility to the State and His duty toward God.  The First, he must render under the force of law.  The Second, duty to God, must be carried out under the force of Love; and that freely, voluntarily.  No law can command Love.”  [Note:  Only show Love].

 

Senator Blair retorted:  “But the law of the state must protect the people to carry out their duty to God.  Our Sunday Law is written to insure the preservation of the Lord’s Day for the benefit of the people.”

 

Mr. Jones countered:  “An admiral goal Senator Blair, but completely unnecessary.  Our Constitution already recognizes the rights of the people with respect to their religion.  Your Sunday Law would add nothing to our fundamental freedoms.  It would rather, add restrictions.”

 

Senator Blair snapped:  “I’m afraid sir that you are blind to the realities of our age.  If men know their duty to God and are not willing to perform it, they become a corrupting influence in society.”

 

Mr. Jones responded:  “This proposed Sunday Law would have a corrupting influence by introducing force and coercion into its observance.”

 

Senator Blair replied angrily:  “On the contrary, the intent and effect is to enhance the Sabbath.  If men do not consent to honor the Lord’s Day, if their actions on that day are unrestrained by civil law, then they trample on the very rights upon those who would honor and observe the day as holy unto the Lord.”

 

Mr. Jones answered:  “With all due respect Senator, can you not see that your Sunday Bill proposes to trample upon the rights of the religious minorities?  Do you really want to revert to those dark ages where Church and State united to force men to violate their conscience and conform to an officially established religion?”

 

Senator Blair reacted:  “Now that is an unworthy comparison sir.  Our Sunday Law is for the ultimate benefit of the whole society.  Is it not a legitimate function of the State to legislate on behalf of the common good?”

 

Mr. Jones countered:  “The ‘common good’ of which you value so highly, is not served by restricting the rights of one mans conscience in order to enlarge the rights of another.  It is best served by the freedoms upon which this Republic was established.  State sponsored religious coercion defies the clear intent of the founding fathers.”

 

Senator Blair offset with:  “But this law provides an exemption for those who wish to worship upon another day.  Jews, Seventh-day Baptists, your Seventh-day Adventists for example, who observe Saturday as the Sabbath.  So where’s the problem?”

 

Mr. Jones responded:  “The problem is,”

 

Senator Blair interrupted:  “Why just this morning a Mrs. Batom of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union addresses this committee in support of such an exemption.  She has conferred with nine different groups who observe a different day such as Saturday rather then Sunday and you know how many of those approved the exemption?  All of them, every single one.”

 

Mr. Jones refuted:  “Senator, I have great respect for the temperance principles promoted by the temperance group of Mrs. Batom.  But she does not speak for my denomination on the question of exemptions.”

 

Senator Blair frustrated stated:  “Come now professor Jones, are you about to object to exemptions that would benefit your group and several others?”

 

Mr. Jones responded:  “Yes sir, as a matter of fact we do object.  An exemption clause would not change the proposed law so as to modify our opposition.  Here is the principle Senator:  If the law were just and perfect, an exemption would not be necessary.  Another thing:  an exemption clause is nothing other than a toleration clause in disguise.  Toleration is not liberty, it is merely a form of condescension; the majority putting up with the opinions and convictions of the minority.  Our Constitution guaranties not tolerance but rights.  And we claim those rights as American citizens.”

 

Senator Blair counteracted with:  “Mr. Jones, without yielding the point, let me move to another question.  How would you react if we were to rewrite this bill as a “Saturday Law,” with Saturday as the Sabbath and not Sunday at all?  I suppose you would take a very different position?”

 

Mr. Jones elatedly responded:  “To the contrary Senator.  All laws that attempt to force the conscience are manifestly un-Christian and un-Constitutional by their very nature.  Therefore Senator, we are against every Sunday Law that has ever been made, from the first one enacted by Constantine to the one you are proposing now.  And if you changed it from a Sunday Law to a Saturday Law we would oppose it just as firmly.”

 

After this discourse, Senator Blair’s Bill NEVER made it out of committee.  But there were already many other Sunday Law’s on the books, which are commonly called “Blue Laws.”  In fact, in America today, 49 of the 50 States have laws protecting the sanctity of Sunday.  Alaska is the only exception.  And because these laws exist, it means the issue is not settled.