Reasons (?) for the Religious Amendment.
By C. P. BOLLMAN
REV. D. W. WILLIAMS, of Weatherford, Texas, has an article in the Christian Statesman of July 4, in which he answers the question, “What good will the proposed acknowledgment of God in our national Constitution do?” He gives ten reasons (?) why the amendment should be adopted, only a few of which need be noticed, however. His fourth is this:— “It would obviate the difficulty resulting from the first amendment, which restrains Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of any kind of religion, however false and hurtful it may be. Mormonism is a kind of religion; therefore, according to the Constitution, it must not be interfered with. Let Christianity be recognized as the true religion, and the difficulty will be removed.” This idea is not original with Mr. Williams. The same thing, substantially, has been stated and re-stated many times by National Reformers. In the Pittsburg Convention of 1874, Prof. C. A. Blanchard said:— “Constitutional laws punish for false money, weights, and measures, and of course Congress establishes a standard for money, weight, and measure. So Congress must establish a standard of religion, or admit anything called religion.” This simply means that, whereas Congress now has no right to define or to establish a religion, under the amended Constitution it would have that right. It follows that it will also have the right to enforce the established religion and to forbid the exercise of all others. Mr. Williams seeks to convey the idea that under the Constitution as it now stands, Congress has no right to prohibit polygamy, but the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that Congress has that right, and the right has been exercised, so that the existence of polygamy can no longer fairly be made an argument in favor of National Reform. National Reformers have insisted that they do not want a union of Church and State, but according to their own statements, that is certainly just what they do want, because when Congress defines the Christian religion, that statement of what constitutes Christianity becomes the State creed. Whether that creed is held by only one church or by forty, it is none the less a State creed and a State religion, and it follows of necessity that the courts will pass upon all religious questions. Mr. Williams's sixth reason is, that— “It would furnish a constitutional basis for all our Christian laws, usages, and institutions. It is argued that our Sabbath laws, our chaplaincies, our thanksgiving days, etc., are unwarranted by the Constitution. Let that document be thoroughly Christianized and these objectors will be silenced. Moreover, it would be a security against unchristian legislation in the future, as statutory law must conform to constitutional laws.” There is a great deal involved in this. It simply means that, if the law of God were declared to be the fundamental law of the land, all legislation would have to be conformed to it, or rather to some authoritative interpretation of it; we would then see all our courts, from the United States District Court to the Supreme Court, sitting in judgment upon the decalogue and deciding what it requires and what it forbids. This state of affairs would inevitably follow the adoption of the National Reform Constitution. Another reason urged by Mr. Williams why the amendment should be adopted is, that “we need an oath that will bind the consciences by the sense of religious obligation.” It seems hardly probable that the gentleman would wish to be taken just as he says in giving this reason. He would certainly not wish to be understood as saying that the oath as administered in our courts would not bind his conscience. The fact is, if a man has proper regard for the truth, an affirmation is just as sacred as an oath. The writer would not be understood as disparaging the judicial oath. It is right and proper to take such oaths, but it is not clear how an honest, intelligent man can regard one form of oath as any more binding on the conscience than another form. And the “Christian” who would testify falsely unless sworn on the Bible, or unless the name of God was used in the oath, is a Christian only in name. It is stated that a Chinaman does not regard an oath as binding unless he is sworn by the blood of a white chicken, but I have supposed that the standard among Christians was higher than that, and that they told the truth not because of an oath but because of a conscientious regard for truth. Perhaps, however, some of the National Reformers feel that they cannot tell the truth unless they are sworn according to the National Reform order. Is that the way that Mr. Williams wishes to be understood? C. P. BOLLMAN.