* An unfinished reply to Bishop J. L. Spalding's article
"God in the Constitution," which appeared in the Arena.
Boston, Mass., April, 1890.
BISHOP SPALDING admits that "The introduction of the question of
religion would not only have brought discord into the Constitutional
convention, but would have also engendered strife throughout the land."
Undoubtedly this is true. I am compelled to admit this, for the reason
that in all times and in all lands the introduction of the question of
religion has brought discord and has engendered strife.
He also says: "In the presence of such danger, like wise men and
patriots, they avoided irritating subjects"--the irritating subject
being the question of religion. I admit that it always has been, and
promises always to be, an "irritating subject," because it is not a
subject decided by reason, but by ignorance, prejudice, arrogance
and superstition. Consequently he says: "It was prudence, then, not
skepticism, which induced them to leave the question of religion to the
several States." The Bishop admits that it was prudent for the founders
of this Government to leave the question of religion entirely to
the States. It was prudent because the question of religion is
irritating--because religious questions engender strife and hatred. Now,
if it was prudent for the framers of the Constitution to leave religion
out of the Constitution, and allow that question to be settled by the
several States themselves under that clause preventing the establishment
of religion or the free exercise thereof, why is it not wise still--why
is it not prudent now?
My article was written against the introduction of religion into the
Constitution of the United States. I am opposed to a recognition of God
and of Jesus Christ in that instrument; and the reason I am opposed to
it is, that: "The introduction of the question of religion would not
only bring discord, but would engender strife throughout the land." I am
opposed to it for the reason that religion is an "irritating subject,"
and also because if it was prudent when the Constitution was made, to
leave God out, it is prudent now to keep him out.
The Bishop is mistaken--as bishops usually are--when he says: "Had our
fathers been skeptics, or anti-theists, they would not have required
the President and Vice-President, the Senators and Representatives in
Congress, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States,
to call God to witness that they intended to perform their duties under
the Constitution like honest men and loyal citizens."
The framers of the Constitution did no such thing. They allowed every
officer, from the President down, either to swear or to affirm, and
those who affirmed did not call God to witness. In other words, our
Constitution allowed every officer to abolish the oath and to leave God
out of the question.
The Bishop informs us, however, that: "The causes which would have
made it unwise to introduce any phase of religious controversy into the
Constitutional convention have long since ceased to exist." Is there
as much division now in the religious world as then? Has the Catholic
Church thrown away the differences between it and the Protestants? Are
we any better friends to-day than we were in 1789? As a matter of fact,
is there not now a cause which did not to the same extent exist then?
Have we not in the United States, millions of people who believe in no
religion whatever, and who regard all creeds as the work of ignorance
and superstition?
The trouble about putting God in the Constitution in 1789 was, that they
could not agree on the God to go in; and the reason why our fathers
did not unite church and state was, that they could not agree on which
church was to be the bride. The Catholics of Maryland certainly would
not have permitted the nation to take the Puritan Church, neither would
the Presbyterians of Pennsylvania have agreed to this, nor would the
Episcopalians of New York, or of any Southern State. Each church said:
"Marry me, or die a bachelor."
The Bishop asks whether there are "still reasons why an express
recognition of God's sovereignty and providence should not form part of
the organic law of the land"? I ask, were there any reasons, in 1789,
why an express recognition of God's sovereignty and providence should
not form part of the organic law of the land? Did not the Bishop say,
only a few lines back of that, "that the introduction of the question
of religion into that body would have brought discord, and would
have engendered strife throughout the land." What is the "question of
religion" to which he referred? Certainly "the recognition of God's
sovereignty and providence," with the addition of describing the God
as the author of the supposed providence. Thomas Jefferson would have
insisted on having a God in the Constitution who was not the author of
the Old and New Testaments. Benjamin Franklin would have asked for the
same God; and on that question John Adams would have voted yes. Others
would have voted for a Catholic God--others for an Episcopalian, and so
on, until the representatives of the various creeds were exhausted.
I took the ground, and I still take the ground, that there is nothing
in the Constitution that cannot on occasion be enforced by the army and
navy--that is to say, that cannot be defended and enforced by the sword.
Suppose God is acknowledged in the Constitution, and somebody denies the
existence of this God--what are you to do with him? Every man elected to
office must swear or affirm that he will support the Constitution. Can
one who does not believe in this God, conscientiously take such oath, or
make such affirmation?
The effect, then, of such a clause in the Constitution would be to
drive from public life all except the believers in this God, and this
providence. The Government would be in fact a theocracy and would resort
for its preservation to one of the old forms of religious persecution.
I took the ground in my article, and still maintain it, that all
intelligent people know that no one knows whether there is a God or not.
This cannot be answered by saying, "that nearly all intelligent men in
every age, including our own, have believed in God and have held that
they had rational grounds for such faith." This is what is called a
departure in pleading--it is a shifting of the issue. I did not say that
intelligent people do not believe in the existence of God. What I did
say is, that intelligent people know that no one knows whether there is
a God or not.
It is not true that we know the conditions of thought. Neither is it
true that we know that these conditions are unconditioned. There is no
such thing as the unconditioned conditional. We might as well say that
the relative is unrelated--that the unrelated is the absolute--and
therefore that there is no difference between the absolute and the
relative.
The Bishop says we cannot know the relative without knowing the
absolute. The probability is that he means that we cannot know the
relative without admitting the existence of the absolute, and that we
cannot know the phenomenal without taking the noumenal for granted.
Still, we can neither know the absolute nor the noumenal for the reason
that our mind is limited to relations.