Talk:National Sunday law

	This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Topic

I'm taking a shot at documenting the history of this thing. Some refs probably better belong in the blue-law article itself. Memesis (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't instead have BOTH' Saturday and Sunday as legal days of rest. Sure, there will be the need to increase the work hours to 10, but both Adventists and other denominations will be happy, plus they'll have a secondary day of rest. -OpinionatedDragon (Jan. 03. 13)

I find it amusing because, while not legally enforced (anymore), many businesses already close or have limited hours during the entire weekend. Businesses that don't often have to hire part-timers to work weekend hours, because full-time/weekday workers view them as their days off. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fringe or mainstream?

I'm not sure the article should really say that fears about a national Sunday law are on the fringes of SDA thinking, when a Church co-founder's writings call it out. On the other hand, it's not a big dominant factor in the thinking of any Adventist I've personally talked to. I'll try to find some better wording here. Memesis (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a livelong Adventist, and I've lived in several areas: Southern US, Northeastern US, the west coast, and Europe; and I have Adventist friends from South America, Africa, Australia, Europe and all over the US. I would definitely say it is *not* a "fringe" belief. It's not something that we actively fear (at least as long as Catholics aren't involved), but it gets talked about enough that I know how all these people feel about it. I would say that we are generally not worried about it per se, but it definitely colors our perception of politics and particularly of the goings on in America and its relation to the Catholic church. Most that I know seem to have a "well, it's gonna happen eventually" attitude towards it. It is probably also the case that the older generation is more "worried" whereas the younger may just see it as an eventual inevitability that we don't pay much mind to. Maybe that helps with your assessment of the proper way to describe it. Actually, a friend sent me this link and his and my initial reactions were, "yeah, I wouldn't say fringe, but it's nice that they're actually trying to be nice to us." -- 165.91.10.154 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have any references that document these opinions, please include them in the article - or just link them here, and I'll try to work them in. Thanks. Memesis (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is the belief in itself is part of mainstream SDA but not emphasized, while the belief as something actively feared and as a conspiracy theory is fringe. I don't have any SDA background and the issue only landed on my radar screen because someone once left stacks of the Jan Marcussen booklet in the phone booths outside my workplace. Some one with an SDA background is probably more qualified to comment on whether "fringe" was the correct word to use. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not about whatever any denomination may be 'happy with'.......it is what God has decreed in the Bible that is followed. The seventh day Sabbath is not just the 'day to go to church', it is a memorial to our Creator, God....in that is our identity as He made us in His image.....it is recognising that He is our Redeemer and Saviour. He set the seventh day aside, sanctified and hallowed it.....blessed it and made it holy. Why would we not want to worship not just every day, but particularly on the day that God, Himself, set aside. He also says, 'if you love Me, keep My commandments........Revelation 14:7 calls us to worship Him who made the heavens and the earth.......

8 years on from the original post, and how is the world in August 2020? Are national Sunday laws closer? Yes.^{— Unsigned, by: Jillc7 / talk / contribs}

From article

They won't let me edit this so they apparently have an agenda here. I suggest you google Amazing Facts and see what they really believe instead of reading what some body with a grudge has to say. ^{— Unsigned, by: Almetcalf / talk / contribs 2013-02-14T22:59:35}

There is no grudge. You may not like the tone of the article, but that's because much of the belief (as presented in the official materials) is pretty ridiculous. If you feel a specific aspect of their belief is being incorrectly represented, then please let us know. If howerver what you really want is for us to say "Oh wow, this all make perfect sense", then that probably won't happen. VOX^HUMANA 23:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Almetcalf, I was raised by two members of the SDA church. I still consider myself a Christian, though some of my beliefs have changed. If you look at the article, you'll see a lot of footnotes, generally citations to existing SDA sources. I am the guy who added most of those. Here's my "agenda": to document what's actually being said and actually happening. I think that a site called "Rationalwiki" ought to be open to evidence-based discussion. There's a lot of places on the Web where you can learn what different people think prophecy says. Around here, it's about what the rest of the world says (or doesn't say). Memesis (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Memesis has a good point. It's all well and good to ridicule a point, but one should also track a moving target and also provide RATIONALE facts, not only emulate those who you despise. That part actually put me off for quite a bit, though I found the reading both entertaining, irritating and missing current information. I suggest a near Wikipedia level citation level, but also with the humor and current theme of content, as long as the factual source meets the article content at some level. But then, I'm one who likes accuracy along with satire, each complementing the entirety.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Question form an IP

Question for Adventists in Europe: how do the warnings sound when the local word for Saturday is derived from "sabbath," and Sunday is "lord's day?" Does it make sense in Spanish or Greek or whatever to say "sabbath is the real sabbath?" ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.252.144.124 / talk / contribs 2013-08-25T03:09:47‎}

Protestant Menace To Our Government by L. K. Washburn

I just thought is would be worth mentioning this commentary on Henry Blair's Sunday Bill http://infidels.org/library/historical/lemuel_washburn/protestant_menace.html

I don't know where it would fit in the article, but I guess it can remain in this talk section. ^{— Unsigned, by: 98.235.47.22 / talk}

When I have some time to read that thing more thoroughly, I'll take a stab at it. Unless Stabby beats me to it. Memesis (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

European Sunday Alliance

I hear some SDAs talk about the European Sunday Alliance pushing for work-free Sundays. As far as I'm concerned, it seems like a bunch of noise and talk, but nothing that big of a deal and it's not in the U.S. The closest thing the U.S. has is National Back to Church Sunday, but seems to be more social-oriented and has nothing to do with legislating anything. There's also "The Lord's Day Alliance", but it's not a big deal. They used to call themselves the American Sabbath Union which had supported the Blair Bill, but now that group has no interest in legislating anything (Oh, and sorry for the multiple edits, I know that can be annoying). ^{— Unsigned, by: 98.235.47.22 / talk / contribs}

A Conspiracy Theory?

A Conspiracy Theory by its very nature is "a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group." (Unabridged Random House Dictionary, 2015). Your own article states that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been preaching the concept of a National Sunday Law from 1844 to date. That is hardly a conspiracy when for over 170 years and currently over 11 million members of the Seventh-day Adventist Chruch know it is going to happen. In addition the concept of a National Sunday Law has been made available to every minister of every denomination in the world by means of the book the Great Controversy and to every politician in America and Europe by means of Liberty magazine. So there is nothing secret or covert about the coming of a National Sunday Law.

Secondly every Seventh-day Adventist evangelist around the world presents the concepts of a National Sunday Law to all the individuals that attend his meetings. On top of that there are half a dozen web sites that make the information pertaining to a National Sunday Law available to every person on the planet who wants to take the time to learn about the coming National Sunday Law. A covert group trying to explain an event? I think you have miss applied the term "Conspiracy Theory." If you want to say that the concept of a National and International Sunday Law are part of the End Time Theology of the Seventh-day Adventist Church then you are 100% correct, but a plot by a covert group, not hardly.

In addition you quote Mrs White were she wrote: "...legislators, in order to secure public favor, will yield to the popular demand for a law enforcing Sunday observance." Are you implying that the American people are in some way the covert group that asks the legislators to pass a National Sunday Law? Do you have any idea how large a group of people that would have to be to get Washington to pass such a law in violation of the US Constitution and the uproar that would ensue? Of course I did notice that you left out the reason why the people were pressing Congress to pass a National Sunday Law; maybe that is the Conspiracy, the holding back of necessary information as to why the people pressure Congress for Sunday observance? Richard Lamb ^{— Unsigned, by: Garflick / talk / contribs} 21:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is used correctly, as in "a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups" (Merriam-Webster). The conspiracy theory in question here is "the passage of an American law for the explicit purpose of discriminating against a religious group will be a prelude to widespread persecution".

The details of a conspiracy theory can be very well known. Look up "Barack Obama birther" on Google if you want an example. The part that is secret is the actual mechanism whereby the conspiracy was executed. Similarly, the 9/11 attack itself was a fact; the assertion that it was done by the government, or by the Jews or the gays or whatever subgroup the poster dislikes, is a conspiracy theory, because it posits a secret group doing it.

I am not at all implying that the American people are a covert group. However, to successfully get such a law past the Establishment Clause would require some kind of agreement between legislators (to pass the thing), the Supreme Court justices and lower courts (to not strike it down through judicial review), and other figures such as the media (to not cover it), just as you say. That is the definition of conspiracy - "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." The fact that the outcome becomes public once the conspirators' plan is completed doesn't stop it from meeting the definition. The Gunpowder Plot is a classic example of a plan that would have become very public very fast but still qualifies as conspiracy.

You bring up one interesting point: that there would have to be a tremendous number of people working together to pass this un-Constitutional and irrational law, plus face down the backlash from many quarters, survive judicial review, and so forth. If the National Sunday Law would be so difficult to achieve - in other words, if it's so unlikely to survive the process, much less be enforced - then why is "every Seventh-day Adventist evangelist around the world present[ing] the concepts of a National Sunday Law to all the individuals that attend his meetings"? Why teach a thing you don't think can happen? -- Memesis (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits ... undone

I've undone a series of three edits because they: a) changed an already accurate quote; and b) seemed to make the article into an anti-pope article. MarmotHead (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Whereas right now it's an article documenting an anti-pope belief system. I'm sure there's some variant of Lewis' Law in play here, but I can't formulate it in a sufficiently pithy way. Memesis (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it a largely anti-catholic belief system? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know enough about it. The revisions seemed excessively tone-changing to me. I saw the quote was changed and verified that the original was correct. Then I assumed the rest was flawed, too. So, I'm right about reverting the quote edit, but won't defend the other parts of the revert. MarmotHead (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Same here as this is so nutty I don't really see it. I think your revert does it more justice than keeping the changes in. Especially the quote if it's changes it from correct to wrong. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Legislation

Would this be worth mentioning? (Note that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are specifically mentioned, so the law does apply to them.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Laughable opinion piece

It is a disgrace to reason to pass this as anything but an editorial,and a poor one at that. The section, "Also Consider" is purely speculative, without sources and references. The responses in Talk are dismissive, not substantive, and is not worth it for me to begin enumerating logical fallacies in the article, probably a futile exercise that would consume hours. I suggest rational people to look elsewhere for rational argument, none here! If I am right even this talk comment will be soon gone!^{— Unsigned, by: 71.221.167.115 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 02:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)