In the United States, “Sunday observance” has been made into a Supreme Court dispute. A Christian worker wanted to keep his “Day of the Lord”. The court now gave a far-reaching verdict in his favour.
Inhalt / Content
- 1 A precedent for “Sunday protection”
- 2 A truly far-reaching paradigm
- 3 Desire instead of compulsion
- 4 Proven practice also for other measures
- 5 The truth is neither recognized nor accepted
A precedent for “Sunday protection”
The practice of Sunday observance, which is extremely widespread in Christianity but nevertheless erroneous, has now received backing from the highest court in the USA. Not only the court judgment in favor of an employee is of great importance, but also the great support of the general public. A groundbreaking fact for future legislation and political decisions.
Workers may sanctify Sunday
According to the ideas of his employer, a Protestant worker employed at the post office should work on Sundays. As a rule, work on Sundays is stopped, but after the post office reached an agreement with the mail order company Amazon to also guarantee deliveries on Sundays, this day should also become a working day. However, the employee did not accept this regulation because he wanted to celebrate the “Lord’s Day” or his “Sabbath” on Sunday. Therefore he wished to stop work on Sunday, as USA TODAY reported. However, the post office refused.
Supreme Court protects Sunday observance
The Supreme Court has now ruled in favor of the employee and this is being treated in the US media as a decision with far-reaching implications. In this case, which is also considered a precedent in the American or Anglo-Saxon legal system, the employer is obliged to justify a justified refusal with unreasonably high costs if the employee’s application is rejected. In addition, there is already an older precedent that requires workers to make accommodations for religious workers. This still applies today and was not overridden by the current decision of the Supreme Court.
Much applause for Sunday protection
This judgment could now also affect other areas in which religion and workplace rules are at odds. This would also be the case when wearing certain clothes.
Kelly Shackelford, president of the First Liberty Institute (LBI), said the ruling was a “groundbreaking victory, not just for Gerald, but for every American.” Because “no American should be forced to choose between his faith and his job”. LBI’s attorney expressed his gratitude for the verdict and hopes “this decision will allow others to stand by their beliefs without fear of losing their jobs because of their beliefs.”
The voices of the opposition
But there are also dissenting voices, such as Rachel Laser, President of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. She complained, “We face an aggressive movement that wants to weaponize religious freedom, but religious freedom must never be a license to harm others, and that includes in the workplace.”
A truly far-reaching paradigm
The specific case, the process and the background are indeed a precedent for the political and legal decisions that are yet to come. This starts with putting Sunday as “Sabbath” in the completely wrong context and continues with a conflict between two parties, who nevertheless have this one weekday Sunday at the center together. Saturday as the true biblical Sabbath is not an issue at all here and is completely out of focus.
Desire instead of compulsion
In advance, one simply puts Sunday, which was defined as “the Lord’s Day” by the Roman Catholic Church as early as the 4th century and has been maintained as a tradition ever since, in the position of an endangered institution. With the emerging “Christian Right” in the USA, this Sunday is simply disputed as a day of rest, and already the people who feel cheated are committed to defending this day. Legislation to “protect Sunday” is therefore not against the will of the people, but because of their desire. The result of the “Hegelian dialectic“.
This also illustrates the opposition’s claim that belief should never be a license to harm another. She is right about that, but it clearly points out that in the implementation of this thesis, belief may only be carried out “freely” within a narrowly set framework. This puts it in line with the “administration” of the Roman Catholic Church.
Proven practice also for other measures
The same principle is already evidently being used so that, according to Revelation 17, the 10 kings will surrender their power to the beast. Not out of harassment and coercion, but because they will demand the transfer of power. This “only” requires governments that push their policies so far that people turn away from them in disgust and would like to banish them to the desert. Such a thing can already be observed in the Protestant churches. And the loud ranting against fascism, which has been placed in a completely wrong context, works in the same way in order to secretly introduce it itself. A “public-private partnership” also sounds acceptable and advantageous.
The truth is neither recognized nor accepted
The truth of the gospel no longer plays any role at all in the public dispute over Sunday rest. Only a tiny minority still takes the Bible in hand to do research in it and also to find out the truth about the Sabbath.
If Sunday has now been established as “their Sabbath” to the delight of the people and then the “one morally reasonable government” also waves the scepter in their hands, then the small group of people who live on the biblical Sabbath (7. day of the week, Saturday), especially difficult. And that is exactly the “target group”.