Posted on 08/22/2003 8:58:31 AM PDT by 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ahem, the Commandments were around long before Christianity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.