Changes

{{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}}

Despite Stevens's powerful speech, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously upheld the "constitutionality" of the state's Sunday law, siding with his Democratic opponent James Nill's "majority rule" argument that dismissed violations of freedom on the basis of alleged collective benefits reaped from enforced Sunday observance.<ref name=volk/>

Despite Stevens's powerful speech, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the state's Sunday law, siding with his Democratic opponent James Nill's "majority rule" argument that dismissed violations of freedom on the basis of alleged collective benefits reaped from enforced Sunday observance.<ref name=volk/>

===Radical Republicanism===

===Radical Republicanism===