Ruling God unconstitutional: Kyle Williams covers erroneous roots of court's decision

On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in a 2-1 decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is an endorsement of religion and may not be recited in government schools. Apparently, "under God" is the wording that made its unconstitutional way into the Pledge.

Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit judge has a great precedent to make his decision. The Supreme Court has created a basis for such decisions. Starting in 1947, the Court ruled that the Constitution required a separation of church and state. Later, the court ruled all forms of God and religion in public schools unconstitutional.

Along with the American Civil Liberties Union and other such organizations, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is taking these decisions and is working for separation, stopping at nothing to fight for this misinterpreted belief.

"The Constitution mandates [separation of church and state]. Most Americans believe in it. But today it is under threat as never before," Americans United states. "Church-state separation stands as one of the foundations of our nation. Because of it, Americans enjoy unparalleled religious liberty and nurture one of the most vital religious communities in the world."

Though church-state separation may, too, allow for religious freedom and liberty, the Constitution of the United States never allowed for it, and such separation is definitely not a part of the foundation of America.

Many of the founding fathers of the American nation were moral and religious people; they made it a point to let their faith and values be reflected in the legal documents of that age.

The creation of the phrase, "separation of church and state," was "invented" by Thomas Jefferson – the main crafter of the Declaration of Independence.

Perhaps in the worst out-of-context quote, many have taken a small portion of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists and shaped the history of a nation forever.

The original intent regarding separation of church and state is much like the way a proper government should perform. A government should not meddle in the affairs of people and their culture, but people and culture can meddle in the "affairs" or workings of government. This same concept was originally intended for religion and government.

This was the point that Thomas Jefferson was attempting to make. The Danbury Baptists were concerned that the government would, as in Great Britain, interfere in the workings of their religion and other religions. But Jefferson assured them that would not happen, because there is a "wall" of separation between church and state.

However, many organizations and special interest groups have taken this private document from a man that wasn't even a delegate in the Constitutional Convention and believe it to mean that the Constitution requires separation.

The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states, "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."

I don't see the word, "separation," in this amendment. Indeed, the words, "separation," "church" and "state" are not found once in the United States Constitution. Moreover, the First Amendment simply says that Congress shall not make a law with respect to the establishment of religion. The amendment makes no mention of "government" but rather the Congress of the United States.

Furthermore, if a division between the church and state was actually an original intent of the founders, wouldn't you find it odd that the Declaration of Independence mentions God and the "Creator" numerous times? If God and government should be divided, the Declaration should be ruled unconstitutional, for that document makes reference to God.

On the other hand, many of the things that are done under the guise of, "Separation of church and state," don't even agree with their belief regarding this dividing issue.

The separation-of-church-and-state crowd has said that it is unconstitutional for prayer meetings and Bible studies to take place on government property – specifically public schools. However, the only group of people who can actually violate the Constitution are those who are under the color of law. Because the Constitution only applies to government and its restrictions and powers; it was not meant to apply to the average person.

This case of the "unconstitutional" Pledge of Allegiance further exposes the fact that such decisions are not made by strict interpretation of law and the Constitution, but opinions seeping into their rulings by anti-religious atheists.

I just want to add that using the term "separation of church and state" in a legal setting ought to be unconstitutional by the current standards in use because it singles out a specific religion for exclusion. We never hear "separation of mosque and state," "separation of coven and state," or even "separation of state and state" for all of those Demo-socialists whose god is the government.

"Church-state separation stands as one of the foundations of our nation. Because of it, Americans enjoy unparalleled religious liberty and nurture one of the most vital religious communities in the world."

First of all that's an oxymoron, and second, the reason why the phantom "Separation" clause is cited is not to ensure religious liberty but to suppress religious expression thus attacking both the right to free speech as well as religion.

"However, many organizations and special interest groups have taken this private document from a man that wasn't even a delegate in the Constitutional Convention and believe it to mean that the Constitution requires separation. "

Since when are God-haters concerned with the facts or history?

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.