The National Reform Association Before Congress
By Franklin Bliss
The National Reform Association is not satisfied with the brief religious introduction to the preamble of the Constitution proposed in Representative Sheppard’s joint House resolution, which runs simply, “In the name of God;” and at the recent hearing granted the association, Rev. T. P. Stevenson, their spokesman on the occasion, and editor of the Christian Statesman, gave them to understand as much by his very first utterances. “When the nation undertakes to supply the defect which many statesmen and publicists have deplored ever since the Constitution was framed,” said Dr. Stevenson, “the work should be completely done. Such an amendment ought to express the exact body of ideas which are involved in the relation of our nation and government to religion. . . . The ideas involved in our national character and institutions are not merely theistic but Christian; and only through a distinctly Christian amendment can they find expression in our fundamental law. . . . If it is our duty to acknowledge Almighty God, it is no less our duty to acknowledge his Son, whom he has made the moral governor of the world.” If the “exact body of ideas” of which he speaks were to find “expression” in our Constitution, that instrument would expand to most amazing proportions, and be the oddest thing of its kind ever yet seen. The doctor presented these four propositions in his argument for the amendment: “This amendment is necessary to bring our national Constitution into harmony with other organic acts in the history of the nation; to fulfil a plain duty of the nation to God; required by the actual Christian character of the American nation; in order that the Christian purpose of the nation may be suitably expressed in our fundamental law.” He further declared that “the national Constitution is an anomaly in American history, in that it is almost the only instrument of government framed on our soil which is wholly devoid of any religious acknowledgments.” “The nation itself, as a moral being [*italics ours to emphasize the iteration here of the old fallacy of national moral personality], lies under the obligation” to worship the Author of its being. At one point Chairman Moon, of Pennsylvania, of the committee before which the hearing took place, ventured this remark: “We have no time at this late hour to enter into a discussion of the point; but you will allow me to suggest that you would probably be disappointed in the legal effect of your amendment if you should secure its adoption. Being only in the preamble, it would only be a declaration, not having the force of law.” To this Dr. Stevenson replied: “Even so, it would still be the acknowledgment of the Christian principle that the moral laws of Jesus Christ are of supreme authority in the realm of national life, and that acknowledgment could not but effect powerfully all our legislation. Its educative power . . . would be incalculable.” It is a curious fact that the “defect” which Dr. Stevenson and his colaborers have found in the national Constitution is the very thing that has made this country the attraction it has been to the oppressed people of all lands. But so it is. Without that defect—which insures our religious liberty—this nation would be no more attractive to us than Spain, Portugal, Austria, Russia, or Bolivia, where no such defect exists in their fundamental laws. We prefer to see that defect remain where it is, and continue to insure the liberties of the people in religious things. The Constitution as it is affords a guaranty of liberty; changed as proposed, it would be used as an instrument of oppression. Dr. Stevenson sees more clearly than does Representative Moon the results of the “Christian amendment” which the National Reform Association is seeking. The Constitution now stands impartially meting out justice to all, irrespective of religious affiliations; but when that or a similar amendment is made, the very soul of the document is altered, and laws regulating the religious concerns of the people will then be as constitutional as laws regulating their civil affairs, and there will be nothing to prevent the state going to any lengths in its interference with the religious rights of men, even to the complete subjugation of the civil to the ecclesiastical.