Hearing on the Religious Amendment to the Constitution
By W. A. Colcord
From Our Own Correspondent
Under National Reformers the great Bartholdi Statue of Liberty would be a gigantic falsehood.
Tuesday afternoon, April 12, a hearing was granted the National Reformers before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee of Congress on the proposed religious amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Three speakers were present: Rev. J. S. Martin, general superintendent of the National Reform Association, of Pittsburg; and William Alexander Brown, an attorney, and Dr. T. P. Stephenson, editor of the “Christian Statesman,” of Philadelphia; who occupied something like an hour and a half in setting forth the views, objects, and desires of the National Reform Association. No others besides National Reformers, it seems, were notified of the hearing.
The arguments adduced at the hearing were the usual ones which the National Reformers have been urging for the past forty-five years or more,—that “this is a Christian nation;” and being Christian, that it ought, in its fundamental law, to acknowledge God “as the source of all authority,” and Jesus Christ “as the ruler of nations,” and to enact such laws as are necessary to “perpetuate our national Christianity,” and “protect us against the repeated and increasing assaults being made upon our Christian usages, customs, laws, and institutions.”
They desire such an amendment to the Constitution, they said, because of “the effect, IN THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW, such an amendment as that proposed would have.” Such an amendment, they said, would be “a KEY to the interpretation of law.”
The Sheppard amendment, upon which the hearing was granted, proposes simply the prefixing of the five words, “In the name of God,” to the preamble of the Constitution. “Excellent as Mr. Sheppard’s amendment is,” they said, “it does not go far enough.” They wish such an amendment as will “fully and unmistakably” indicate that “this is a CHRISTIAN nation.”
When asked by Mr. Sheppard what attitude they thought the Jews would take toward such an amendment as they desire, and which they proposed as a substitute to the one proposed in the Sheppard Joint Resolution (H. J. Res. 17), they replied by saying: “We must all keep in mind that this is not a Jewish nation, and that a nation two thirds of whose citizens are Christians or in sympathy with the Christian religion, could not be expected to be governed by the wishes of the Jews, who were in a great minority, if these wishes are adverse to that which is essential to the nation’s life and welfare.”
Other questions were likewise asked as to the probable attitude of the “Universalists, Unitarians, and Seventh-day Adventists.” The report in the “Christian Statesman” for May says that “answers similar to the above” were given, and that these “seemed to satisfy” the inquirers.
In his address, Mr. Brown, the Philadelphia attorney, said: “In offering this proposed amendment, we have in mind no peculiar or sectarian significance of the words of the amendment, and we do not seek the furtherance of any sectarianism or anything that would violate either the letter or the spirit of that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution which states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’”
Whether there is any “sectarian significance” to this “Christian amendment” proposed by the National Reformers should be sufficiently apparent from the answers given to the questions regarding Jews, Universalists, Unitarians, and Seventh-day Adventists. The views even of Christian sects are not to be considered nor respected if they do not harmonize with those of the majority. And whether the program of the National Reformers is in harmony with either the letter or the spirit of the first amendment to the Constitution may be gathered also from the opening words of the address made by Rev. J. S. Martin. He said: “The National Reform Association which is sponsor for this proposed amendment is an organization of Christian patriots, thousands in number, to maintain and promote in our national life the Bible or Christian principles of civil government, to develop, perfect, and thoroly establish our national Christianity.”
The first amendment forbids anything like an established national religion; but the National Reformers here assert openly, and before a committee in Congress, that they wish Christianity “established” as our NATIONAL religion.
How “patriotic” these National Reformers are may be judged from the fact that they are not only seeking legislation that is in direct violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution, but are endeavoring to overturn one of the fundamental principles upon which the national Government is founded, that of religious freedom, and, so far as the Reformed Presbyterians, who constitute a large and controlling influence in the association, are concerned, have pledged themselves NOT TO VOTE until their designs and purposes have been accomplished.
After defining what they mean by “national Christianity,” including everything from the “religious inscription on our coins and public buildings,” to religious instruction in the public schools, laws against blasphemy, perjury, and “Sabbath desecration,” and “especially the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892, ‘This is a Christian nation,’”—the same speaker said: “It is not the purpose of those favoring this amendment to have the nation impose a creed upon its citizens or to proscribe their conduct in such a way as to interfere with their liberties or infringe upon their rights.”
They wish the nation to declare itself “Christian;” to express belief in God and in Jesus Christ; adopt the Scriptures as the standard of law and morality; and to enact laws against infidelity, blasphemy, and Sunday desecration; but they do not mean that it shall “impose a CREED upon its citizens” or “prescribe their conduct” so as to interfere with their rights and liberties!
Mr. Martin further said: “It is not the purpose of those favoring this amendment to unite church and state. . . . It11is their purpose forever and most effectually to prevent such a union.”
They would simply have the state, he declared, “clearly and explicitly recognize, acknowledge, and practise for itself that religion which is confessedly essential to its welfare.” That is what the bishops of the fourth and fifth centuries wished the Roman state to do. And that made the Papacy. This will make the image to the Papacy.
In his concluding remarks Mr. Brown said: “We appear here as the servants of the National Reform Association under binding instructions to present this proposed ‘Christian amendment,’ and no other.”
The “Statesman” reports the chairman of the committee, Representative Moon, of Philadelphia, as saying that no argument was needed in behalf of the proposed amendment, “as he was sure he voiced the sentiment of the entire committee when he said that he had ofttimes wondered why a Christian nation did not have some acknowledgment in its national Constitution.”
The report further says that “few or no objections were made to the Christian amendment, and that little or no exception was taken to the argument made in defense of it.”
The chairman asked one of the speakers if he did not believe that if such an amendment was submitted to the people “it would provoke wide-spread discussion and possibly opposition.” The speaker thought it unquestionably would.
Further hearings upon this matter will probably be held. We have little doubt that this question, so far-reaching in its consequences, will yet be widely agitated.
