An attempt to pass a so-called "Christian Amendment" was started in 1863, with the National Reform Movement sending an amendment to the preamble to Congress that went like this: "We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the inalienable rights and the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves and our posterity, and all the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[1]" My thoughts about one amendment conflicting with another amendment is that the first amendment has precedence, unless the new amendment specifically overrules that amendment or part of that amendment. In this case, the Christian Amendment does not have any language that repeals the Religion clause of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". If this amendment were to be passed, it would have violated the First Amendment because this rewording to the preamble would, in effect, say that the Christian Church is the church sanctioned by the government. Another attempt came up in 1954, when Senator Ralph Flanders proposed this amendment:
Section 1: This nation devoutly recognizes the authority and law of Jesus Christ, Savior and Ruler of nations, through whom are bestowed the blessings of Almighty God
Section 2: This amendment shall not be interpreted so as to result in the establishment of any particular ecclesiastical organization, or in the abridgment of the rights of religious freedom, or freedom of speech and press, or of peaceful assemblage.
Section 3: Congress shall have power, in such cases as it may deem proper, to provide a suitable oath or affirmation for citizens whose religious scruples prevent them from giving unqualified allegiance to the Constitution as herein amended.[4]
If people would follow Section Two of this amendment, no controversy would come up. But, however, people would ignore Section Two. I think that this should also be unconstitutional, again, by the same reasoning as presented above. Section 1 says that the country "recognizes the... of Jesus Christ and...of Almight God." That would be endorsing Christianity without paying any attention to Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, and atheists who might not believe in one god or believe in many. And Section 3 says the Congress shall have the power to force people to be Christians. That is clearly against the Constitution. About the Pledge of Allegiance and the motto, In God We Trust. In effect, I think "In God We Trust" is only conforming to the beliefs of Christians, Muslims, and followers of Judaism, while although these religions are the majority in America, they are not the only religions in America, and the writers should have taken that into account. And by saying "...., under God,...." in the Pledge of Allegiance during school, students are acknowledging the existence of God, while being led by a teacher. I also think that is a violation of the First Amendment.
