Changes

===Opposition towards Sunday law===

===Opposition towards Sunday law===

Stevens believed in the constitutional (as well as biblical) principle of [[separation of church and state]], and opposed religiously motivated discrimination. In ''Specht v. Commonwealth'' during May 1848, he defended a cooper who was fined for hauling manure on a Sunday in violation of Pennsylvania's blue law,<ref>[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Thaddeus_Stevens/OKq8EaomNzkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=thaddeus+stevens+sunday+law+separation+of+church+and+state&pg=PA258&printsec=frontcover Trefousse], p. 258.</ref> arguing that it infringed upon "the rights of conscience."<ref name=volk>Volk, Kyle G. (2014). [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Moral_Minorities_and_the_Making_of_Ameri/NTGTAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=thaddeus+stevens+sunday+law&pg=PA60&printsec=frontcover Moral Minorities and the Making of American Democracy], pp. 60–63. ''Google Books''. Retrieved January 22, 2023.</ref> Stevens went as far to imply that a nation whose judiciary failed to protect religious minorities from Sunday laws would be shaped by the very attitudes of the mob which crucified Jesus, and cautioned against [[theocracy]]:

Stevens believed in the constitutional (as well as biblical) principle of [[separation of church and state]], and opposed religiously motivated discrimination. In ''Specht v. Commonwealth'' during May 1848, he defended a cooper who was fined for hauling manure on a Sunday in violation of Pennsylvania's blue law,<ref>[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Thaddeus_Stevens/OKq8EaomNzkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=thaddeus+stevens+sunday+law+separation+of+church+and+state&pg=PA258&printsec=frontcover Trefousse], p. 258.</ref> arguing that it infringed upon "the rights of conscience."<ref name=volk>Volk, Kyle G. (2014). [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Moral_Minorities_and_the_Making_of_Ameri/NTGTAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=thaddeus+stevens+sunday+law&pg=PA60&printsec=frontcover Moral Minorities and the Making of American Democracy], pp. 60–63. ''Google Books''. Retrieved January 22, 2023.</ref> Stevens went as far to imply that a nation whose judiciary failed to protect religious minorities from Sunday laws would be shaped by the very attitudes of the mob which crucified Jesus, and cautioned against [[theocracy]]:<ref>1997. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Selected_Papers_of_Thaddeus_Stevens/A0Fs655TKfsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=thaddeus+stevens+sunday+law&pg=PA91&printsec=frontcover The Selected Papers of Thaddeus Stevens: April 1865-August 1868], pp. 92–93. ''Google Books''. Retrieved January 22, 2023.</ref>

{{cquote|The doctrine that the “Christian religion is a part of the common law” is, I suppose, the foundation and justification of this act. That doctrine was promulgated in the worst times, and by the worst men of a government that avowedly united Church and State; in times when men were sent to the block or the stake on any frivolous charge of heresy. To deny transubstantiation or the supremacy of the Pope, was a capital offence under one reign; and to admit them was a capital offence under another. Men were punished as blasphemers for denying the divinity of our Saviour, because the “Christian religion was a part of the common law." Men were executed in great numbers by the civil power for denying the real presence, because that was a part of the Christian religion—and the Christian religion was a part of the municipal law. When the Protestants gained the ascendency to believe in the real presence was contrary to the Christian religion, and therefore a violation of the law, and punished by the secular arm. For it is truly observed: “That no set of men were ever found willing to suffer martyrdom themselves for conscience's sake, who would not inflict it upon others the moment they obtained power.”|||Thaddeus Stevens, May 1848}}

{{cquote|The doctrine that the “Christian religion is a part of the common law” is, I suppose, the foundation and justification of this act. That doctrine was promulgated in the worst times, and by the worst men of a government that avowedly united Church and State; in times when men were sent to the block or the stake on any frivolous charge of heresy. To deny transubstantiation or the supremacy of the Pope, was a capital offence under one reign; and to admit them was a capital offence under another. Men were punished as blasphemers for denying the divinity of our Saviour, because the “Christian religion was a part of the common law." Men were executed in great numbers by the civil power for denying the real presence, because that was a part of the Christian religion—and the Christian religion was a part of the municipal law. When the Protestants gained the ascendency to believe in the real presence was contrary to the Christian religion, and therefore a violation of the law, and punished by the secular arm. For it is truly observed: “That no set of men were ever found willing to suffer martyrdom themselves for conscience's sake, who would not inflict it upon others the moment they obtained power.”|||Thaddeus Stevens, May 1848}}