I Swear To God...

Opinion Editorials ^ | August 22, 2003 | Frank Salvato

[The Rant]

I don’t know how many times it has been said but I am sure it is quite a lot. The assertion that the United States Constitution has verbiage specifically providing for a separation of church and state is a false one. At no time has there ever been any mention of the separation of church and state in the US Constitution. There was never even any discussion by the Framers of the Constitution to put verbiage in the Constitution regarding the separation of church and state. What the United States Constitution states in the First Amendment is, and I quote:

”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Because of this fact, and it is just that, one has to wonder how there can be such turmoil over the issue of the separation of church and state, especially when it comes to the word “God”.

Michael Newdow, the admitted political activist who literally used his daughter to further his crusade against anything religious, is still making the rounds on the talk shows spouting his disdain for the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. And while the US Constitution reserves for him that right, the right to free speech, the right to protest what he alone believes is something of an outrage, it does not afford him a few things. It does not afford him the right to add words to the Constitution. By asserting there is a separation of church and state in the Constitution he is literally rewriting the Constitution, a document who’s Framers were heads and shoulders above Mr. Newdow’s level of vision, intelligence and understanding. It also doesn’t afford him the right to rewrite the Pledge of Allegiance. These words were forged with the lives of true patriots, not the modern day cause de jour chest thumpers like Newdow. The Pledge of Allegiance has been said faithfully by all Americans who possess love of country for over 200 years. For us to change it to appease Mr. Newdow would be ridiculous and it would kowtow to his narcissism.

But, for all the turmoil that Newdow’s cause de jour is creating it must be said that the Constitution affords him the right to be disgruntled about the issue and to speak his mind. So, rant on Mr. Newdow, the Constitution affords the rest of us the right not to listen and to dismiss your argument as incredibly naïve, short of vision and, in my opinion, whiny.

Then we have Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore who is refusing to remove a granite monument from the halls of the Alabama Supreme Court. He contends that the very premise of law is established on the basis of God. Now, I am no theologian so I can’t in good faith completely agree with Justice Moore but I can stand with him in countering his opponents that cite the US Constitution as stating there is a separation of church and state. To remove the monument with the highly offensive commandments “Thou shall not kill”, “Thou shall not steal” and other incredibly immoral phrases (please note the sarcasm) based on the false belief that there is verbiage in the Constitution that separates church and state would be blind to the truth. While US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will ultimately decide as to whether or not the monument should stay within the hallowed walls of the Alabama Supreme Court, it will be decided on a moral level whether or not the good people of Alabama believe in Justice Moore’s initiative on the next ballot that has his name on it. Regardless of the outcome, the fact remains there is no verbiage in the US Constitution that separates church and state so that argument would be a losing one.

For a moment let’s look at what all of the hoopla is about, shall we? In the Pledge of Allegiance it is the phrase “under God”. On our money it is the phrase “In God We Trust”. In the oath used to swear in Constitutional Officers the phrase is “so help me God”. Most often when there is some flap over the word “God” being used in anything publicly sanctioned by the government there is a linguistic sect that leaps out of the dark and dank places from where they dwell only to scream the words “separation of church and state”. As we have deduced, there are no words to that affect in the US Constitution. But what is more interesting is that simply stating the word “God” doesn’t promote one religion over another. God is not representative of or exclusive to any one religion. In Catholicism they refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. In Islam it is Muhammad. In Buddhism it is Buddha. The list goes on and on but in the end, when one really looks at it, the word “God” simply represents a higher power. It represents it in Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and every other religion known to man perhaps with the exception of Scientology.

So, it needs to be stated that no one religion is shown preference because the word “God” is used in anything sanctioned by the government. In fact, religion itself isn’t promoted simply because the word is used. The only thing being asserted by the use of the word “God” in anything related to government is the fact that we as a people, Americans, are all but a part of a greater whole. It reminds us that there is something bigger and more important than just making sure that an individual’s vanity isn’t encumbered. It reminds us that we have to embrace and view as a privilege the maintenance of our country, our government, through civic responsibility and a caretaking of the things that achieve the greater good in our society.

The fact of the matter is, if we look out for our country it will look out for us. If we turn our backs on the greater good for all our people, as Mr. Newdow is doing by pursuing his narcissistic agenda, then our society will fail and our country will die a youthful death. A greater tragedy the world could never know.

The choice is ours…God help us all.

###

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant, a freelance writer from the Midwest and the Managing Editor for www.TheRant.us. He is a contributing writer to The Washington Dispatch. He has appeared as a guest panelist on The O’Reilly Factor and his pieces are featured at OpinionEditorials.com, Etherzone.com, and Townhall.com.

[The Rant]

As always, comments on the content of this piece is greatly appreciated. Thanks fellow FReepers...

[steve50]

The Constitution is a living document, it's been abused for decades. Little late to get upset about original intent now.

[kimmie7]

Refreshing. Thank you.

[CA Conservative]

Pledge of Allegiance has been said faithfully by all Americans who possess love of country for over 200 years.

This is the only part of his piece that I have an issue with. The pledge was not written until 1892, and the words "under God" were added in 1954. I just think we should always be factually correct, lest the innaccuracy cast the rest of our argument into disrepute.

[Amish with an attitude]

The original intent of the establishment clause has always been Freedom _OF_ Religion not_FROM_ Religion.

"tell someone a lie long enough and it will eventually be perceived as fact"

[Tax-chick]

Nicely done.

This: a document who’s Framers

should say: "a document whose Framers"

I also suggest the use of commas in some of those well-phrased compound sentences.

[johnb838]

God is not representative of or exclusive to any one religion.

It's really only atheists that can be offended by the 10 Commandments. To Jews, Christians, and Muslims it is law. In fact it is one of the few places where all three agree. Buddhists would accept it, and I don't think Shinto's would care. Trying to appease a tiny tiny minority who would then move on to bigger and better things (yes, the slippery slope), is just wrong. Screw Newdow. Oh, and I believe that when an atheist dies, there is no heaven and no hell for them... they just wink out like a light. If you deny God, he denies you. JMHO.

[r9etb]

I think a very good addition to this would be to point out that several states had established state religions even under the Constitution.

For example, Massachusetts had one until 1833, and Connecticut's established religion was in place until 1818. (I think South Carolina might be added to this number, as well, but I didn't try very hard to check it out.)

So, at least historically, the establishment clause seems to be limited to the national government -- it was clearly permissible for a state legislature to establish a religion, probably under 9th and 10th Amendment grounds.

[So Cal Rocket]

The assertion that the United States Constitution has verbiage specifically providing for a separation of church and state is a false one. At no time has there ever been any mention of the separation of church and state in the US Constitution.

Ahhh... good point... and where do the words separation of church and state appear? Why in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, towit:

Article 13. In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State , and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

[usapatriot28]

If those who don't like the name of God be place in public space, then my question is; why do you use money, on which it says "In God we trust". Unless, their god is not God that we think of.

One could argue (and many have) that for many Americans money is their god (little g on purpose). Therefore it makes sense for "In God We Trust" to appear on currency.

[lilylangtree]

Everytime I hear the judicial branch quote the ACLU-pushed "constitutional separation of church and state" I want to scream in outrage and frustration, and yank on those judicial members hair or kick them in the shins. It's a lie perpetrated upon the public consciousness back in the 40s by the ACLU. In today's paper, the article entitled "Judges rule against monument" states: "Trying to head off a showdown with a federal court, the justices said the state Supreme court must abide by federal rulings that found Justice Roy Moore violated the separation of church and state." These justices need to return to law school and be forced to read the Constitution. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. This needs to be forced down lawyers and judges throat. I'm angry that our judicial branch is so ignorant considering they're suppose to be the smart ones to interpret the LAW OF THE LAND. (Notice the background noise where I'm grinding my teeth.)

[MineralMan]

"How does an Atheist make sense of the following commandments: "

Well, I make sense of those first four Commandments by realizing that Jews and Christians consider them important. To me, they are nonsense, since I don't believe that any deities of any kind exist.

It's fine with me that others believe, but...and this is the crux of the matter...when I come to the courthouse, I don't expect to be confronted with a prominent display of a religious document that insists that I have just one god and no others. Now, if there was a display of legal documents from many religions, along with secular documents, then it would represent historical artifacts. Indeed, we have that at the Supreme Court building in the frieze of the lawgivers.

But, here, in this courthouse, there's nothing of the sort, and Judge Moore himself has said that only Christianity is valid as a religion. He further said that other religions have the right to worship because Christians allow them to have that right.

That is the spirit in which this monument was installed, and it is just plain wrong. Our nation is a nation of many faiths. Every world religion is represented here by citizens of this nation. To single out one religion for display in a courthouse, of all places, is wrong.

Judge Moore can tattoo the Ten Commandments on his buttocks, for all I care. He can paint them prominently on his house. But this courthouse is not his property any more than it is that of any citizen of Alabama. He may not insist that his religious beliefs (and only his) be represented there. That is what he has done, and it is simply wrong.

The monument will be removed.

[bruin66]

and trying to eliminate Chrsitian [sic] symbology from our daily life is destroying our identity

Ahem, the Commandments were around long before Christianity.

[aimhigh]

In the oath used to swear in Constitutional Officers...

Jesus said don't swear any oaths, and so did James. That's why the constitution allows for "affirmations". Those who are disobedient in little, ...

[Search4Truth]

It is good to read words for a change, that serve to unite people, rather then divide them.

[b9]

>>> I accept the positive impact it has on our moral values <<<

Thank you.
Beautifully stated.

[Search4Truth]

Just an excuse for malcotents like yourself to impose their miserable, morally and spiritually bankrupt life on the rest of America. Such little men whose highest authority are laws of men.

Enjoy your time casting the shadow, it will be short-lived.

[MineralMan]

"Just an excuse for malcotents like yourself to impose their miserable, morally and spiritually bankrupt life on the rest of America. Such little men whose highest authority are laws of men.
"

Huh? I'm one little guy in California. How can I impose anything on anyone? As for my life, it's just fine, thanks. And yes, my highest authority is the Constitution of the United States of America. It assures me that folks cannot ever, ever impose their religious beliefs on me without my consent. What a wonderful nation we live in!

[Search4Truth]

"It assures me that folks cannot ever, ever impose their religious beliefs on me without my consent. What a wonderful nation we live in!"

You are a liar as well. The Ten Commandments in the Alabama court house imposes nothing on anyone. But you already know that.

You can thank Christian Judeo principles and the men who valued them, for the Constitution.

Your ignorance is astounding. But not as much so as your willingness to profess it.

[MalcolmS]

>>>So, at least historically, the establishment clause seems to be limited to the national government -- it was clearly permissible for a state legislature to establish a religion, probably under 9th and 10th Amendment grounds. <<<

Those states established religions existed when they were colonies, they pre-dated the 9th and 10th, and even the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

[roderick]

You are correct. The Constitution originally applied only to the Fed Government. The states had their own Constitutions and had no need for Federal oversight. It is a pity that Fed courts have any jurisdiction over state courts.

[roderick]

You are correct. The Constitution originally applied only to the Fed Government. The states had their own Constitutions and had no need for Federal oversight. It is a pity that Fed courts have any jurisdiction over state courts.

[roderick]

You are correct. The Constitution originally applied only to the Fed Government. The states had their own Constitutions and had no need for Federal oversight. It is a pity that Fed courts have any jurisdiction over state courts.

[justalurker]

It's been said many times that you'll never find an atheist in a foxhole. :)

[Lurking Libertarian]

In the oath used to swear in Constitutional Officers the phrase is “so help me God”.

Wrong. Read the Constitution. The oath is there (except that the Constitution says "oath or affirmation"), but the "so help me God" isn't.

[Reactionary]

"...when I come to the courthouse, I don't expect to be confronted with a prominent display of a religious document that insists that I have just one god and no others."

Oh, the insensitity! To think that your fragile mind would be "confronted" by a religious monument!

No doubt it would cause you to crack!

[68 grunt]

It's been said many times that you'll never find an atheist in a foxhole.

That its been said does not make it true.

[Don Corleone]

The Constitution is a living document, it's been abused for decades. Little late to get upset about original intent now.

If you truly believe that then the libs have succeeded in brainwashing you just as they hope to do with all others. If the Constitution was a "Living Document" we would not need it. All we would need is pronouncements from the Judiciary (such as we have been getting) to guide us along Their selected way. The Constitution is the ROCK upon which this Republic is built.It is unique in the world. Don't help crush it!

[tet68]

They only get religion while the sh*t is still falling,
after it's over, it's "Ain't we the lucky ones?"

[A Navy Vet]

As a deist, I agree. Apparently, so did Thomas Jefferson who was also a deist.

[A Navy Vet]

"Oh, and I believe that when an atheist dies, there is no heaven and no hell for them... they just wink out like a light."

That's also what they believe. But if that's the case, so what? If you don't exist, then you don't know you don't exist.

[teldon30]

well said..

[CGVet58]

hello SoCal,

having read your above regarding the Soviet Constitution, I searched Google for the same topic. I found several variants of the Soviet document, notably that which was approved in 1977, which did not have the above separation of church and state.

After additional searches, I did find the following:

Click here for 1918 Soviet Constitution

which does show that article 13 indeed, does mention the separation of Church and State.

This is an important pearl of knowledge for which I thank you very much... and you just know how much fun I'm going to have sticking this little tidbit down the craw of any leftists I engage in discussion on this!!!

God Bless America, and God keep the souls of our Founding Fathers in the palm of His Hand for creating the noble thing that is the Constitution!

Juan

CGVet58

[Greybird]

God is not representative of or exclusive to any one religion. In Catholicism they refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. In Islam it is Muhammad. In Buddhism it is Buddha. The list goes on and on but in the end, when one really looks at it, the word "God" simply represents a higher power.

You're being extremely careless here. In Christianity (why do you say "Catholicism"?), Jesus is considered God, or -- in terms of the "trinity" -- a personage of God. Muhammad is not the equivalent in Islam, he is seen as its (last) prophet. And Buddha is not the equivalent in Buddhism, he is seen as the ultimate exemplar of attaining enlightenment.

Disdain may be invoked, for whatever reason, but informed disdain is likely to actually end up having some persuasive value. Christians are considered by many others on this planet to be almost deliberately poorly informed about other cultures and religions. You're feeding that assumption, unfortunately.

[steve50]

If you truly believe that then the libs have succeeded in brainwashing you just as they hope to do with all others.

Being a strict constructionist it's not what I believe, it's just the way things are. Most of those who claim total support of the Constitution have no problem when it's bounds are overstepped, as long as it's not their ox that's getting gored.

[lainde]

bttt