Evening star., 1947-10-10
.Christian' Amendment Objected le


To the Editor Of The Star:
so-calIed "Christian Amendment 70 ule
Constitution is before Congress in House JONI
Resolution 239 and Senate Joint Resolution
,5o but. whatever else 1t may be, 1t IS not
Christian.
It's purpose is ito bring the United States
to an official acknowledgment OF the Loro
.Ies,s" To do this, 1t proposes that the con-
stitution be amended by inserting in 1t, a1ter
the words 1--WE, the people OF the onltea
States" the phrase "devoutly recognizing the
authority and law of Jesus Christ, the saviour
and King of nations
This is the latest of many efforts to put
God in the Constitution" Senator Frye OF
Maine, and Representative Morse OF Massa-
chusetts first tried it in 1894 and again IN
1895. Congress, sensibly. would have none OF
IT, Subsequent attempts were made by Rep-
resentative Burton of Delaware In l9O0; Sena-
tor Richardson of Delaware in 1909; Repre-
sentative Sheppard of Texas in 1909, ana
Senator Richardson of Delaware again IN 1910.
This so-called christian" amendment is
un-Christian because 1t is diametrlcally op-
posed to Christ and His basic teachings. he
declared MY Kingdom is not OF this world
He admonished: Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesars, and unto God tne
things that are Gods" State and church
completely separate-that is the Christian
idea of civil government. -
Christianity teaches the equality of man.
This christian amendment would deny 1t.
It arrogates to so-called Christians superiority
to others.
Christianity declares there is no respect OF
persons with God" This christian" amend
ment seeks to make this Christian nation
thus drive a wedge of separation between
religionists
Christianity teaches the right and privilege
OF every man to worship God, or not to
worship how or when he will. This is religious
liberty. It was born In Christianity. The
christian" amendment would destroy this
truly Christian principle.
When an attempt once is started to make
the government "Christian," you cannot stop
with merely amending the preamble Of the
Constitution. You would have to see to it
that no one not Christian takes office. And
that, of course, would require the setting up
of standards as to what Christianity really is.
Atheists, of course, could not serve Moham-
medans, Buddhists, Jews would be ruled out.
Then a decision would be necessary as to
whether genuine Christianity was represented
by Professionalism or Catholicism. If Protest
antism then which sect? Would Mormons
or Jehovah's Witnesses be considered eligible
for Office?
Not according to an earlier sponsor of the
"Christian" amendment, Rev. M. A. Gault,
who wrote in the Christian Statesman: zone
remedy for all these malefc influences Is to
have the Government simply set up the moral
law, and recognize Gods authority behind it,
and lay its hand on any religion that does
not conform to it."
Consequently Congress would have to estab-
Jish standard of true religion just as it now
fixes standards of weights and measures.
What these misguided christians" really
have in mind by their christian" amend
ment is candidly stated in the words of one
of its sponsors in earlier days: "The classes
who would object to the amendmenD are
-" Jews, infidels, atheists and others. These
classes are perfectly satisfied with the Con-
stitution as it is. How would they stand to-
ward it If it recognized the authority of our
Lord Jesus Christ? To be perfectly plain,
believe that the existence of Christian Con-
stitution would dsfranchise every logically
consistent 1nfdel."
May the God of genuine Christianity pre-
serve us from the domination of these Chris
tians' who so completely mistake what real
Christianity is! CARLYLE B. HAYNES.