THAT "CHRISTIAN NATION" CLAIM.
By W. N. G.
THE Christian Statesman of November 3 publishes extracts from an address of Dr. Edward Thomson, of the Sunday Reform League, in which he reiterates the absurd claim that "this is a Christian nation." In support of this theory he says:— Our fathers framed a Constitution and they gave to the nation its first laws. They intended to and did establish a Christian organization, and they intended that the Christian Sabbath should be regarded as one of the institutions of the nation.
He then refers specially to the Declaration of Independence and to the Constitution of the United States as a proof of his concluding assertion. A merely casual reference to these documents is sufficient to satisfy any candid mind that "our fathers" had not the most remote idea of establishing "a Christian organization." The Declaration of Independence gives reasons at length for establishing an independent nation, and lays down this fundamental principle:— We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, etc.
There is no intimation here that the founders of the nation desired to establish a religious government of any kind. They simply aimed to secure their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," each one for himself, in his own way—with a proper regard for the rights and privileges of others. Without this last proviso understood, the principle declared would be nullified. If the government assumes to be Christian, it must, to be consistent, restrict itself in the pursuit of happiness just as the self-denying Christian does. But when the government restricts and denies certain privileges, or desires, in the natural pursuit of happiness, whom does it restrict? It can only restrict the people, for they constitute the government. But the evident design of the Declaration is the fullest possible liberty of action, for it declares that "all men are created equal." If all are to be restricted in the pursuit of happiness to the way marked out by the consistent Christian, then there is not equality in such pursuit. The man who does not believe in Christianity—who has no faith in Christ—would find no happiness. The Scripture says, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." So then the citizen compelled by the law to make a show of Christianity only for the present life, without any hope in Christ for the future life, is compelled by a Christian government to be "most miserable." This would be the opposite of the design in establishing the independent government. Even from a Christian standpoint, no one has a right to make another miserable. Anyone who desires to win men to Christ in truth will avoid such a contradictory course. The Declaration of Independence goes on to specify twenty-six reasons for cutting loose from King George's dominion, but not one of them is a religious reason. Every plea is a secular one. Although there was religious tyranny and oppression in the land, that is not set forth by the revolutionists as a reason for their revolt. Turning to the Constitution, which was framed and adopted after the colonies had gained their independence by force of arms, we find again a statement of the reasons for the establishment of an independent government. The preamble to the Constitution reads as follows:— We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Not a word here to indicate that a Christian nation, or a religious government sustaining any particular faith, was designed. And since the adoption of the Constitution there have been added fifteen amendments. Not one of these lays any religious obligation upon the people; on the contrary, the very First Amendment is designed to emphasize the fact that the government is not a religious compact, by providing an additional safeguard against the possibility of its becoming such. That amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." None of the other amendments make any reference to Christianity or any other religion, but treat wholly of secular matters. As we have seen, the Constitution of the nation, which is supposed to be the exponent of its principles, puts all religions on an equal footing. That has ever been our national boast. How does that accord with an intent to establish the Christian religion, or that the Christian sabbath should be a national institution? Let us apply the principle to an individual. Deacon So-and-so is a Christian; but in his confession of faith he also admits to his heart, on equal terms, the principles of every other religion, barring only the practice of uncivil rites. His Christianity is entirely formal, and only predominates because his family, his agents, and the circumstances of his surroundings, make that feature of his motley profession somewhat more conspicuous than the others; but he does not, in his creed or practice, "prohibit the free exercise" of any other religion (excepting the uncivil practices). If you can possibly imagine such a "Christian," then you can form some idea of the curious picture held up before the people of this country and called "a Christian nation." What is a Christian?—A follower of Christ. His motto was, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." And, "I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Could this nation ever have had an existence if the colonist had continually manifested this Spirit of Christ? Was it not the resistance of evil that secured independence? Did they not smite back, and smite hard, too? And in the subsequent war with the mother country in 1812, what would have become of the nation if it had not resisted? When this nation defeated Mexico in the war of 1845-46, and took away a large portion of her territory, did it manifest the Christian spirit as expressed by our Lord or his apostles? That action was just the opposite of the course indicated for Christians by the word of God. But it was in perfect accord with the spirit of our national principles as enunciated by its Constitution. It was in harmony, too, with the principles and practice of every nation on earth, limited only by their material strength. When nations contend on the field of battle, do the armies act as they would like to have their foes act? In striving to defeat an enemy does the nation wish the enemy to defeat it? If not, then it is not doing to others as it would have others do to it. Therefore it cannot be a Christian nation. In all diplomacy, in all commercial treaties, in all offensive and defensive alliances, does not each nation necessarily seek its own advantage?—Certainly it does; were it not so, such arrangements would have no purpose. Charity (or love) is a peculiar feature of Christianity, and the Scripture says charity "seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, . . . endureth all things." How does this principle compare with our principles as a nation? Every principle advocated by the administrators of our government, from whatever party they may rise, is a measure for seeking our own, and as much more as possible. Jesus expressly said: "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." But he would not fight, nor allow his servants to fight, even in self-defense. Then any nation whose servants fight is of this world; and any nation that is of this world is not a Christian nation.