TaN: First, some fundamental or foundational questions:
(1) What is the generally accepted (and practiced) first day of the week?
(2) What is YOUR first day of the week?
(3) Are you are a (practicing) Christian?
(4) Do you celebrate or at least observe the Roman Catholic feast days — i.e., Christmas, Easter, et al?
(5) If you are a Christian, which of the commandments specified in the Holy Scriptures do you obey or practice?
Is it not amazing that even non-Roman Catholics are “obeying” the rituals and practices of Roman Catholics, even those who claimed to be vehement non-Christians. But then again, it has been prophesied and what has been foretold will always come to pass, especially if it is God who foretold of such events.
In answer to the first question, it was out of “convenience” as well as a means to avoid continued and persistent persecution by the ruling Roman Empire that the day of worship and of rest of early Christians was observed on the first day (i.e., Sunday) rather than on Saturday (the last day of the week, ergo the Sabbath, as mandated in the Holy Scriptures and teachings of Jesus) as the Romans were sun worshippers. It was later “formalized” and the Roman Catholic Church appears to claim the credit — my reference is “How The Sabbath Was Changed Sabbath Truth“, URL: http://www.catholic.com/qa/did-the-early-church-move-the-sabbath-from-saturday-to-sunday. Another reference I came across is “Who Changed Sabbath to Sunday” by the Church of God International, URL: http://cgi.org/who-changed-the-sabbath-to-sunday/.
For the second question, you will have to answer it yourself but my guess would be Sunday.
For the third question, you will likewise have to answer alone. However, to help you, what I mean by Christian — or practicing Christian, because many are Christians only on paper (i.e., they observe no or very little of the virtues and teachings of Jesus Christ as according to the Holy Scriptures) — is whether one believes in Jesus Christ (or not) and by “believe” I mean whether one behaves and lives the lifestyle as described and prescribed and does all the teachings and lessons and admonitions (specified in the Holy Scriptures) that Jesus taught. A true Christian is serious about being a Christian and not merely going through the procedures and motions. A true Christian is not ritualistic. A true Christian is mindfully aware at all times of his being a Christian.
For the fourth question, since it has (already) been revealed and established in the previous question that the sanctity of the Sabbath has been violated, an affirmative answer (here) will contradict an affirmative answer to the third question. One cannot be a true Christian if one observes Sunday as the rest day. Moreover, many rituals of Catholicism originated from paganism — such as Easter eggs, Easter bunnies, Christmas Day on the 25th of December, and the gesture of the sign of the cross.
In fact, one of the most inane of Catholic feast days is the Feast of the Epiphany (or the Magi or the Three Kings) which became a movable feast whereas Christmas remains fixed. Since Epiphany is supposed to be the time when the wise men from the East came to visit the newborn Christ babe and offered gifts (and, therefore, is integrally linked to Christmas Day), it does not make any sense that the time it takes the wise men to arrive at the stable in Bethlehem varies from year to year (some years longer or shorter than others). How can that be? It would mean that some years the trip took longer while other years too shorter periods. But how can it be when the trip was made only once?
Given these arguments, does it not seem strange and suspicious that these flaws in logic and revelations of historical facts that contradict various doctrines and practices are evident and so irrefutable?
And for the final and fifth question, this will likewise have to be answered by oneself. However, one thing is certain, if the answer is anything but all of the commandments, then one is guilty of cherry-picking for convenience. Nevertheless, obeying or practicing all commandments does not literally mean all the commandments for there are instances when practice or obedience must be applied figuratively rather than literally because the letter of or terminology used in the commandment was gender-specific but it was used to refer to both genders — like the use of “man” when it meant all persons or a human being, regardless of gender.
In conclusion, the whole exercise of this TaN is to make one examine closely and determine exactly where one stands in one’s religion. It does not apply only to Christians because the question regarding observing the Sabbath on Sunday affects every person on this planet whether s/he be Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other religion or philosophy — as Buddhism is more of a philosophy of and in life rather than a religion.
TaN: As a rejoinder to an earlier TaN regarding private property, there are (at least) 2 significant concept arguments that bear discussing:  that man can only claim ownership — i.e., private property — on things that he has created (not re-arranged, improved, or otherwise merely altered or modified) and  from the late Macli’ing Dulag, “Such arrogance to say that you own the land, when you are owned by it! How can you own that which outlives you? Only the people own the land because only the people live forever. To claim a place is the birthright of everyone. Even the lowly animals have their own place…how much more when we talk of human beings?” — from http://www.bantayog.org/?p=1026 (downloaded on 5/6/17).
(1) It is but common sense that one cannot claim ownership to something that one did not make. A chair is said to be mine if I myself made it. If the chair is made by another, then it does not belong to me…rather to the person who made it. By extension, man (in general) can only own and exchange things that man has made. [I cannot use “create” for the term implies producing something from nothing, which only God can do. We merely make alterations on pre-existing things. The only things that we create are ideas that never existed before, assuming of course that God did not “thought” of them before we did.]
It is for this reason that man cannot claim ownership of nature, such as waters, air, the sun and the stars, the planets, et al — for they were never made by man and, in fact, had been existing since even before any life appeared in this world. However, strangely, we are “able” to claim ownership of land. How odd and absurd and arrogant of us. It runs counter to the principle of owning only those that come from us. Even our children, who can be said to, in a way, come from us are not owned by us. So, how can land be owned by us?
(2) In the argument of Macli’ing Dulag, it is logically and arguably sound to say that one can only own something if that something will not outlive us. A chair, a table, a garment and the rest of man-made items do not last longer than the maker although it can be argued that many an ancestral house outlives the builder. However, the ancestral house does not really belong to the builder as it is passed on to the next generation or to others. In this sense, just as Dulag argues, it is (only) the people who eventually (and can) claim ownership for the dead owns nothing. It will be the clan of the builder who collectively owns the house, therefore the house is not (really) own by just the builder.
Now, there are those who will counter (the first concept) that, in practice, we do not really own the land since we pay an annual real estate (property) tax, which implies that the land is and still belongs to the state and what we own is simply the right to the land. However, it can likewise be argued that the annual real estate tax is actually a service fee charged by the state for its guaranteed protection and services that the land owner becomes entitled to — like protection against seizure by others, protection against damage (such as fire, flood, quakes, and other natural as well as man-made disasters), and keeping record the deed or land ownership registration, among other services.
But if this were so, then why is it the same cannot or is not extended to water and air and the sun. Well, for one thing, the land is steady (i.e., stationary) whereas the water and the air is constantly moving (and changing). But the counter argument to this is that the land, likewise, is moving and changing, except that the rate of movement and change is not as obvious or easily noticed as water and air.
However, if the argument there is that one cannot own the water and the air because the minute parts cannot be identified or distinguished, but so are the particles of land — because one can simply scoop up some dirt and transfer it somewhere else. So, do we really own the land. Which part of the land? The individual particles of dirt and soil?
Moreover, in the second concept, there is a teeny tiny flaw in Mr Dulag’s argument because we now know many things that should not but do outlive the individual although it should not, by all accounts of science and common sense. Take the case of the hamburger in the hamburger museum that supposedly and allegedly remain “preserved” for over two decades now. But these are exceptions rather than the rule. In fact, when taken cared of properly, there are man-made things that should not outlive the builder or maker but do, especially if extraordinary care is lavished on them, like vintage cars, rare books and manuscripts, and well-preserved art objects and paintings. And then there are the aged wines. But, again, these are exceptions because they do not go through the normal wear and tear of routine use.
Finally, private property goes against the very essence and concept of the public utility of things. If one really and honestly think about it, (almost) all things that are considered private in ownership are actually public in utility. The only exception would be personal ownership due to hygiene and health issues. One cannot (and hopefully, does not) share such things as one’s dental care items as well as medications and undergarments. Such are unthinkable. Everything else can and usually are used by others and not just the “owners”.
TaN: Red tape in government bureaucracy is principally caused by one of two possibilies: (1) that there are certain people in government who do not know how to formulate efficient procedures and who are incompetent, unscrupulous, and who encourage fixers and “facilitators” because they benefit from the corruption and (2) that government mistrusts the public (or other agencies of government) and puts up so much redundant and/or unnecessary requirements and protocols that it frustrates the public (which they are supposed to serve, being public servants) and make them go through all the steps and processes which, in the end, actually amounts to nothing.
A case in point would be the securing of clearances where (in the Philippines) the NBI or National Bureau Investigation is or should be tasked to be the receptacle of any and all cases filed — like in court, the prosecutor’s office, the police, even in the smallest political unit of which, in this case, is the barangay. In this light, it does not make sense to require people to secure clearances from the courts and the rest when just a clearance from the NBI will suffice.
Now, if the argument is that there may be cases filed — say, in court — that a copy was not forwarded to the NBI, then the court should be faulted for the incompetence and the burden should not be shifted to the public. It is no fault of the clearance applicant that a copy of a particular case was not sent to the NBI, so why should the applicant be the one to bear the burden?
It is a terrible injustice — not to mention waste of valuable time, effort (when one has to make the trip), and resources (because money will be spent to travel to obtain the needed documents and papers). No wonder the public has such a bad impression when it comes to dealing with government. Why is it that whenever something is required, that it is the little man down the line who ends up taking all the misfortune.