"GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION."
By W. N. Glenn
THE advocates of the proposed religious amendment to the United States Constitution persistently use the argument that, after God had given victory to the Revolutionary army, it was the height of ingratitude to omit formal mention of his name or recognition of his sovereignty in the Constitution of the government which was brought into existence as a result of the great struggle for liberty. But those who bring forward this argument as persistently ignore the fact that God is more highly honored in the practical recognition of the right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. The adoption of the Saviour's own principle of the separation of church and state, in the organization of the government, was far more in harmony with his own enunciations regarding civil government than would have been the implanting of a nominal honor calculated to form a pretext for legislation that would soon overthrow all the good results of the God-given victory.7As long as the government continued in its legitimate sphere, and no laws were made or court decisions handed down in any way designed to fasten religious tenets upon the people, Christianity flourished in the United States as it never did in any country after the first century. In later years, however, since Congress, Legislatures, and Courts have been taking cognizance of religious matters, the dragon head of religious tyranny is showing itself in every quarter of the Union. Professed Protestantism is following in the wake of Roman Catholic precedent, and professed Christianity is seeking the puny support of the civil government rather than relying upon the strong arm of the Lord. As a further consequence, the nominal church has joined hands with the world. With a great flourish of trumpets she would formally place the name of God in the Constitution, while her heart has turned from the doctrine of Him who said, "My kingdom is not of this world." A precedent is kept conspicuously before the people, namely, the chaplains in Congress, as an argument that while God is daily invoked in the halls of legislation, consistency demands that he be formally recognized in the fundamental law of the land. Referring to the men who formulated our government, the Christian Statesman quotes approvingly from the American Tyler, organ of the Freemasons, the following expression:— While we revere the memory of the men of that hour, we are not blind to the crudities and omissions that marked the foundations they laid when beginning the building up of a nation. The most glaring of these was the total ignoring of the Power that had led them from the nucleus of dependent colonies to finally become one of the greatest nations on earth. It is therefore time that this long-deferred recognition of "Our Father who art in heaven" took place here on earth. Even if it be but a mere form, it is a form bearing the shadow of gratitude from a people exceptionally favored, directed, and honored above all others in the great family of men. Therefore say we, let three more letters in the alphabet be added to the American Constitution, and let these three letters spell GOD!
Inasmuch as a Masonic journal can not recognize Christ, the Statesman must needs help it out with a little National Reform "logic," in order to be itself consistent in the indorsement; for it is Christ whom the Reform combination is trying to "take by force to make him a king" of this worldly government. So it adds the following:— This argument is for the acknowledgment of God, and not for the acknowledgment of Christ and the Bible. And yet the logic of it can not stop short of the Christian's God, in whose name Christian chaplains open Congress with prayer, nor of the Bible, in which we have the revelation of this God and the moral law which he has given for nations. This Masonic journal will either have to advance to the distinctively Christian ground, or else it will be constrained to abandon the positions it has already so strongly taken. We shall look with more than ordinary interest for its further utterances on the subject.
As to the Christianity of the Congressional chaplaincy, or the honor which is likely to come of it to the name of the Lord, we submit a report of the election of the present chaplain of the lower House of Congress at the session of last winter. The report is from the New York World's Washington correspondent, and gives a fair idea of what is to be expected of political religion:— "WASHINGTON, Dec. 1, 1895.—Eight men of God wrestled together Saturday for one of the fleshpots of Egypt, and prolonged the contest far into the Sabbath [Sunday]. The struggle over the chaplaincy of the House between the ministers who hunger for honor and pelf was the only excitement of the Republican caucus. The office is one of great dignity; it is a holy office, but it is also a salaried office at $900 a year. Therefore were dignity and holiness forgot and the scramble made so undignified as to excite the ridicule of the members of the House to whose souls the rival preachers sought to minister. The candidates were Revs. O. A. Brown, W. E. Parsons, W. H. Gottwald, C. B. Ramsdell, W. H. Brooks, and H. D. Smith, of this city; H. D. Fisher, of Kansas, and H. U. Couden, of Michigan. Rev. Fisher and Rev. Couden based their claims on their war records, and one or two of the candidates based theirs on their color and the Republican obligations to the negro race. Parson Couden, who proved successful, had sentiment as an ally, for he is blind, and his eyesight was lost in battle, and moreover he waved the ensign of the G. A. R. Parson Fisher had only one war-cry: 'I am the fighting parson of Kansas, and Jim Lane said in the Senate I saved his brigade by my gallantry.' With these recommendations for the office of intercessor between offended Heaven and a sinning Congress, the battle began. Long before the caucus met last night the parsons were at work in the crowds which filled the house lobby and the committee rooms. They flitted in and out of the rooms, and were here, there, and everywhere, and they buttonholed without mercy. They were the envy of the little politicians who had flocked to the capitol to witness the election of men from whose hands they hope to receive the crumbs of patronage. The most active of all was Fisher. He justified his title of 'the fighting parson of Kansas.' He wore a heavy, soiled, and ancient ulster. The nap of his silk hat bore the marks of battle. His thin, brown face was seamed with age and want, but his eye glowed with the light of warfare from under bushy gray brows. To everybody he was introduced with the old tale about Jim Lane's commendation, and as his gallantry was mentioned he would cast a sidelong glance downward and give a deprecatory assent to the recital. He had the advantage of being on the 'combine' ticket, but as some of the Kansas men did not support the other combine candidates, he knew that the strength of the coalition would not be his. "But we know this," he said, "that we'll either lick or be licked," and then he would make a charge upon another foeman. Another very active parson, who was sleek, white-necktied and clerical, soon found that he was not in the fight. He had scrambled with the best until then. When he realized his fate, he recalled dignity and holiness and said, sadly: "O, if I had only known what a disgraceful scramble it was to be, I should never have become a candidate." In the caucus the friends of the candidates took up the scramble. It required three ballots to nominate. On the first two the "fighting parson" led. The second stood 109 for Fisher, 104 for Couden, and 6 scattering. One more vote would elect Fisher, and Couden's men were frightened. It was then Sunday morning, but that was of no consequence in this strife of parsons. The Couden men got up on desks. They howled and shouted. You could hear them cry, "Mr. Chairman," through the closed doors of the chamber. Through the door windows you could see men waving their hands over their heads to attract attention. The purpose was to force a third roll call before any one could change to Fisher. They succeeded, and Couden was nominated. Some one asked the fighting and licked parson why he wanted to make such a fight for a petty $900 place. "If you had preached all your life out in Kansas for $700 a year, you wouldn't ask," he replied mournfully. Such scenes are only what could be expected to result from even a limited alliance between the state and religion. To add, if it were possible, to the absurdity of the position, it is only necessary to say that the prayers of these legislative chaplains are often mere political utterances favorable to some party policy. For instance the published initial prayer of the successful candidate mentioned in the foregoing report, was simply a tirade of censure against the party opposed to the one to which the chaplain adheres, and his invocation was merely for the continued success of his party's domination. Yet the existence of such a system is continually held up as one of the evidences that this is a "Christian nation," and that the Constitution ought so to declare.