A Proposed Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
By W. A. C.
ON Feb. 4, 1909, Senator Richardson, of Delaware, introduced in the Senate of the United States, by request, the following joint resolution proposing a religious amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was twice read and referred to the Committee on Judiciary:— “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution acknowledging the Deity in this foundation document of the government. “Whereas said acknowledging of the Deity is reasonably desired by many citizens of this country, and is in the interests of the highest vital truth, morality, and fitness; therefore be it,— “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following prefix be proposed to the legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as part of the Constitution; namely,— “The preamble to the Constitution shall begin with the words and sentence:— The proposed amendment consists simply of the last five words, “In the name of God.” And although apparently so trifling and insignificant, and though put in a phrase so familiar and friendly to the ear, in this proposed amendment contained in these five short, monosyllabic words, is couched all the evils of National Reformism,—the making of the image of the beast, the worship of the beast, and the enforcement of the mark of the beast. Add these words to the Constitution, and the whole document will be leavened with National Reformism. Add these, and National Reformers all over the land would hold mass-meetings and shout, “Glory halleluiah!” Did we not know the deep-seated and evil design behind this, the proposition to add so few, so simple, and otherwise such harmless words to the great charter of the land, would seem almost ludicrous. It would remind us of the man in Texas, who, being himself unable to write, asked an amanuensis to write a letter for him to his lady friend. He said he did not know just what to say, but there was one word he desired in the letter, and he was not particular, he said, where it was inserted, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the close of the letter; and that was the word “nevertheless.” That, he said, was such a beautiful word he wished it in the letter. So the National Reformers think of this phrase, “In the name of God.” It is such a beautiful phrase they want it in the Constitution, and they are not very particular where it goes in, at the beginning, the middle, or at the close, just so it goes in. And their request might be granted without protest were it not for the evil that would go along with it. But once let them succeed in this, and everything would be made of it, and a new impetus would be given to the movement to establish religion and enforce religious observances, particularly Sunday observance, by law in this country. For this reason we are opposed to the proposed amendment.