Posted on 09/05/2003 1:45:10 PM PDT by G. Stolyarov II
To assert that a phrase used one time in private correspondence should determine our national policy is stretching it.
A resolution calling for a national day of Prayer:
RESOLVED, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States, to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, that many signal favors of almighty God, especially by affording them the opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness.
US Congress, 25 Sep 1789
Well, since the SCOTUS has deemed it perfectly proper to cite the private correspondence of a POTUS to a Baptist minister in Danbury, CT as legal precedent, there is a simple solution to the matter.
President Bush can simply write a letter to a current Baptist minister in Danbury, Ct letting him know that displaying the Ten Commandments, praying before football games, voluntary rectitation of the Pledge with the words "under God" and voluntary prayer in public institutions are indeed Constitutional.
Voila!
ALRIGHT! PIZZA'S HERE! Sausage, extra cheese and mushrooms (for the wife) Gotta go.
Regarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit.
I don't know why an invisible country (you can't find "America" on a map) would have trouble serving an "invisible Lord".
These historical points are interesting, but the overall point -- and one of the key points of the original article -- is that separation of church and state is essential to a free society. Jefferson and Madison were absolutely correct on this point. We have the benefit of more than 5,000 years of human history to illustrate the consequences of people who try to impose their particular religion on the rest of us. We saw it in spades during the Dark and Middle Ages, the heyday of religious rule. We see it today in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as in the Islamofascist terrorist movement. In sum, theocracy and religious fanaticism, in all of their forms, is hazardous to human life and well-being.
The Bill of Rights hadn't yet been ratified and therefore were not yet the law of the land. Nice try. :)
The founding fathers knew that, which is why they were always respectful of the God of the Bible, even though they were deists. They knew that if they didn't make it appear they had God on their side, they wouldn't have Christians on their side. And today, that means they wouldn't have anybody at all.
Something for you secular humanists to consider, when the US government collapses and the government jobs you guys always hold go unfunded.
"CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The phrase that governs all the rest of the sentence is " Congress shall make no law..." It is addressed to no other branch of government. Even if we make a giant leap to the view that the First Amendment was made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment, it is still not clear what application could be made of it.
The 14th Amendment provides that " The CONGRESS shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." But how can Congress legislate about matters concerning which the governing phrase is, CONGRESS shall make no law? The obvious answer is that it can't.
That aside and even supposing the the 14th made the First applicable to the states, there was NO grant of power to the Federal courts to lay down rules as to what constituted an establishment of religion, what states governments might authorize regarding religion, how local governments might celebrate religious occasions etc. No such powers are granted to any branch of the federal government, including Congress, by the First Amendment.
For nearly 70 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the courts and and just about everybody else believed the First Amendment meant what it said, no more no less.It was not until the 1930's and 40's that the federal judiciary started to stick it's nose under the tent of state authority in the matter of religion and morals.
The fed courts have hijacked a power not enumerated to them in the Constitution
So, those who crafted the 1st Amendment immediately disregarded it and had a "let's proclaim a national day of prayer and acknowledge God before this monster we have created comes into effect and we will no longer be allowed to" attitude?
I think not.
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.