VIOLATION OF FREEDOM
In a speech entitled "The Vatican's Role in World Affairs: The Diplomacy of Pope John Paul II," Michael Miller, CSB, President of the University of St. Thomas and former member of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See from 1992 to1997, states that the goals of the Pope "are, admittedly, a mixture of the religious and the more narrowly political. John Paul, however, is not constrained by American ideas of the separation of Church and State, but pursues what he regards as the common good of all humanity."4 With candid frankness Miller acknowledges that "John Paul is not constrained by American ideas of the separation of Church and State." Instead, his concern is to "pursue what he regards as the common good of all humanity." The problem with the Pope's policy is his mistaken identification of the "common good of all humanity," with what is good of the Catholic Church. But, what is good for the Catholic church, is not necessarily good for society as a whole. For the Pope or any church leader to impose their own church Holy Days as legal holiday for the rest of society, means to violate the freedom of those who do not accept such Holy Days. History teaches us that such policy has been fraught with frightful consequences. Countless "heretics" have been tortured and executed for refusing to accept the peculiar beliefs promoted by the dominant church for "the good of all mankind."

PROMOTION OF SUNDAY LAWS ON THE BASIS OF SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND FAMILY VALUES
To prevent a repetition of the past religious intolerance, it is imperative to ensure that no one church succeeds in imposing her religious agenda on the rest of society. This is not an easy task, because often religious agendas are concealed and promoted as a social and secular programs for the good of humanity. The "Secular" Benefits of Sunday Laws. A case in point is the promotion of Sunday Laws on the basis of social, cultural, and family values. This strategy is evident even in the Pastoral Letter Dies Domini where the Pope downplays the religious aspects of Sunday Laws, highlighting instead the social, cultural, and family values. For examples, John Paul says: ""Through Sunday rest, daily concerns and tasks can find their proper perspectives: the material things about which we worry give way to spiritual values; in a moment of encounter and less pressured exchange, we see the face of the people with whom we live. Even the beauties of nature-too often marred by the desire to exploit, which turns against man himself-can be rediscovered and enjoyed to the full."5 By emphasizing the human and "secular" benefits and values of Sunday Laws, John Paul knows that he can gain greater international acceptance for such legislation. It is worth noting in this regard the U. S. Supreme Court decision in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420 (1961) that upheld Maryland's Sunday Closing Laws as not violative of the Federal Constitution. The reason the Court justified the state's interest in protecting a common day of Sunday rest is that Sunday has become secularized in the American society. The Court said: "We believe that the air of the day is one of relaxation rather than religion."6 This reality is recognized not only by the Pope but also by Protestant churches. For examples, the Lord's Day Alliance of the USA, an ecumenical organization supported by over twenty Protestant denominations, frequently publishes articles in her Sunday magazine, emphasizing the secular and social benefits of Sunday Laws. A good example is the article by Attorney Michael Woodruff, entitled "The Constitutionality of Sunday Laws, published in Sunday. Woodruff writes: "If we must justify the retention of the Lord's Day as a secular day of rest, we must find compelling secular grounds to make it so. . . . If Courts view Sunday laws as having the direct effect of 'advancing religion,' then under current First Amendment doctrine, such laws must be unconstitutional. However, if the laws are generally applicable and have a religion-neutral purpose, then the effect is likely to be seen incidental. To this end, the distinction between religious practice and the form of laws is important."7 The Pope is well aware of the need to maintain this distinction. Thus in his Pastoral Letter, he appeals to the social and human values that Sunday Laws guarantee and promote. He writes: " In our historical context there remains the obligation [of the state] to ensure that everyone can enjoy the freedom, rest and relaxation which human dignity requires, together with the associated religious, family, cultural and interpersonal needs which are difficult to meet if there is no guarantee of at least one day a week on which people can both rest and celebrate."8

ADVANCING CATHOLIC INTEREST
The problem with the above reasoning is the definition of "one day a week" as meaning exclusively "Sunday." Both the Catholic Church and the Lord's Day Alliance are committed to ensure that Sunday is the weekly day of rest protected by law. This policy ignores that we live today in a pluralistic society where there are Christian and Jews who observe Saturday as their day of rest, and Muslim who may wish to observe their Friday. To be fair to all the religious and nonreligious groups holding different days of rest and/or worship, the State would have to pass legislation guaranteeing different legal holidays to different people. The implementation of such legislation is inconceivable, because it would disrupt our socioeconomic system. The issue at stake is not the right of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, or other religious groups, to protect their weekly and annual Holy Days, but rather their right to seek State recognition for their own Holy Days as legal holidays. The latter is an attempt to advance the interest of one's own religion by infringing on the freedom of others.