Secularists believe that they have the right view of America. They are convinced that America should be a secular state or a godless state. They believe that religion was not a decisive factor in the formation of the Constitution of the United States and therefore, this proves that the framers of the Constitution did not want religion to influence public policy. Simply put, politics and religion dont mix. Government and religion should be kept as far apart as possible. There are several historical facts secularists use to support their views. Apparently, one of the most important historical facts is the absence of the word God in the U.S. Constitution. To secularists, the absence of the word God is extremely significant. Indeed, it has a deep, almost mystical significance to them. It suggests that the framers of the Constitution had little or no interest in religion. Secularists are convinced that the absence of the word God proves that there should be a strict separation of church and state in the United States. The purpose of this article is to argue that the conclusions reached by the secularists goes far beyond what the historical evidence will allow and to offer some reasons for why the word God does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution Before and After Charles Darwin Most people would not consider Charles Darwin to be someone important in order to understand the U.S. Constitution. Most people would consider the writings of men like John Locke, Blackstone and James Madison as important in order to understand the Constitution. Obviously, these men had a great influence on the Constitution. But there is a sense in which Charles Darwin is more important than all of them. Charles Darwin, the author of The Origin of Species (1859) had a profound impact on the U.S. Constitution. In fact, a case could be made that he has had a greater or equal impact on the Constitution than the delegates at the constitutional convention! The reason is simple. Charles Darwin changed the way we see the Constitution. For better or for worse, the way many Americans see the Constitution today is very different from the time before Darwin. The dominant legal philosophy in the United States today is secularism. The U.S. Constitution is seen today as a secular document. This is what Charles Darwin gave us. Charles Darwin gave us secularism. Secularism as a philosophy is based on the principle that there is an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe. Secularists believe that only scientific evolution is valid. They are not atheists as often claimed. Many secularists believe in God. However, secularists believe that in terms of the government, it does not matter whether God exists or not. The impact of secularism on the Constitution was revolutionary. Secularists read the Constitution in a way that is totally foreign to its framers. In a nutshell, secularists think that religion was not important to the framers of the Constitution. As one of their writers said concerning the majority of the delegates at Philadelphia: . . . most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone. Note 1. The Constitution Before Darwin To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationist. This is the reason the framers did not create a secular state in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, the concept of secularism as it is used today didnt even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth century concept. Since the framers of our Constitution predated Darwin and the theory of evolution, the desire to have a secular state would have made as much sense to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is only with the advent of Darwin and an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe that a secular state becomes desirable. There were atheists in 1787 to be sure but they lacked a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe. At the same time, the framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. However, this is not to say that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washingtons first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the Presidents opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . . Note 2. The words to obey His will are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in secularism. In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people. The Constitution After Darwin The rise of modern secularism made the debate about the word God in the Constitution very intense. It was not until the legal community in the United States adopted secularism that the absence of the word God took on the kind of significance it has today. It is true that before the rise of modern secularism some Americans objected to the fact that the word God was not in the Constitution. There were suggestions to amend the Constitution to add it. There were efforts to add Almighty God and Jesus Christ to the Preamble for example. Some members of Congress suggested that In the Name of God should be inserted before the Preamble. As early as the time of the Civil War, Americans have been trying to amend the Constitution to add some sort of reference to God. These efforts did not get very far with the public. Thankfully, Americans were content with the Constitution the way it was. However, in all of these early debates about whether the word God should be added to the Constitution, the debate was between one group of creationist verses another. Almost no believed that the United States was a godless country just because the word God was not in the Constitution. Today, this is no longer true. Today the fight is between creationist and evolutionist. Secularists insist that the absence of the word God means that the Constitution created a godless government in America. Where is God in the Preamble to the Constitution? Secularists are very quick to point out that the word God does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be under God in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point. The word God does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. However, it is doubtful that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word God will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word God appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is Almighty God. This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, the state constitution does not have a preamble. However, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights in each instance. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words Almighty God appear in the state religion clauses. In the case of the U.S. Constitution however, no divine reference appears in either the Preamble or in the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Why is this true? The most likely reason why the word God does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word God in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . and Georgia. When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of the much simpler form We the People.Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word God does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularists groups like the ACLU and their spin on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Where is God in the First Amendment? The most likely reason why the word God does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here however the textual reason is due to the subject matter of the First Amendment. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clauses in the First Amendment is the government or Congress. This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference in the subject matter is the reason the word God does not appear in the First Amendments religion clauses. Lets compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . . The subject of the clause is clear. It is All men. The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses better wording. It says Every individual . . . In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual. In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a natural right of an individual to worship Almighty God according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the right of an individual, the word God naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the Congress. The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words God natural right worship or conscience do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word God in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress. Where is God in the Constitution? The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like secularism and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didnt even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word God does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is God is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers. Note 3. Special Note: Even if the word God was in the Constitution it probably would not make any difference. Secularist groups like the ACLU would probably dismiss it as a mere formality. There are 50 reasons to believe that this is true. Since secularists dismiss all references to God in the state constitutions, there is no reason to believe that they would behave any differently with the federal Constitution. Their commitment to secularism will not allow for the possibility that they might be wrong. Interestingly, in 1915 there was one state supreme court which said that the reference to in the year of our Lord in the U.S. Constitution was a reference to Jesus Christ! Note 4. For a more in-depth discussion of how monotheism and the Ten Commandments influenced the U.S. Constitution read new my booklet: The Ten Commandments For Beginners. Visit: mytencommandments.us for ordering information. Notes. 1. Clinton Rossiter, 1787, The Grand Convention, pg. 126 (1966). 2. Vol 1. Messages and Papers of the Presidents, p. 64 (1896). 3. State v. City of Tampa, 48 So. 2d 78 (1950). 4. Herold v Parish Board of School Directors, 136 L.R. 1034 at 1044 (1915). TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events KEYWORDS: churchandstate; founders; usconstitution; wrongforum Navigation: use the links below to view more comments. first 1-50, 51-100, 101-123 next last Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1) The freedom to practice religion and to express religious thought is acknowledged to be one of the fundamental and unalienable rights belonging to all individuals. (2) The Framers of the Constitution deliberately withheld, in the main body of that document, any authority for the Federal Government to meddle with the religious affairs or with the free speech of the people. Then, as further and more specific protection for the people, they added the first amendment, which includes the `establishment clause and the `freedom of speech clause which are as follows: `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .. It is of utmost importance to note that the first amendment is not a grant of authority to the Federal Government. To the contrary, it is a specific restriction upon the exercise of power by the Federal Government. (3) For over 150 years, the Court held to this historically correct position in interpreting the first amendment. During this period, scant mention was made to `The Separation of Church and State. (4) Then, beginning in 1947, and accelerating through the 60s, the Court abruptly reversed its position. This was done with no change in the law, either by statute or by amendment to the Constitution. The Court invented the distorted meaning of the first amendment utilizing the separation of `church and state in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education when it announced: The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. (Everson v. Board of Education; 330 U.S. 1, 18 [1947]). Over the past five decades, rulings of the United States Supreme Court have served to infringe upon the rights of Americans to enjoy freedom of speech relating to religious matters. Such infringements include the outlawing of prayer in schools and of the display of the Ten Commandments in public places. These rulings have not reflected a neutrality toward religious denominations but a hostility toward religious thought. They have served to undermine the foundation of not only our moral code but our system of law and justice. (5) In making this abrupt change, the Court ignored all historical precedent established previously by the Court, the wording of the First Amendment, and the intent of its framers. The rulings are legally irrational and without foundation. Although the Court presumed to rely upon the First Amendment for its authority for these rulings, a review of that Amendment reveals that said rulings could not possibly have been based upon its original intent. Consequently, it is incumbent upon this Congress to review not only the rulings of the Court which are in question but the wording and history of the First Amendment to determine the intent of its framers. This abrupt change is found in the following court cases: (A) `A verbal prayer offered in a school is unconstitutional, even if that prayer is both voluntary and denominationally neutral. (Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Abington v. Schempp, 1963, Commissioner of Education v. School Committee of Leyden, 1971.) (B) `Freedoms of speech and press are guaranteed to students and teachers unless the topic is religious, at which time such speech becomes unconstitutional. (Stein v. Oshinsky, 1965, Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 1981, Bishop v. Aronov, 1991, Duran v. Nitsche, 1991.) (C) `It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments since they might read, meditate upon, respect, or obey them. (Stone v. Graham, 1980, Ring v. Grand Forks Public School District, 1980, Lanner v. Wimmer, 1981.) (D) `If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud. (Reed v. Van Hoven, 1965.) (E) `The Ten Commandments, despite the fact that they are the basis of civil law and are depicted in engraved stone in the United States Supreme Court, may not be displayed at a public courthouse. (Harvey v. Cobb County, 1993.) (F) `When a student addresses an assembly of his peers, he effectively becomes a government representative; it is therefore unconstitutional for that student to engage in prayer. (Harris v. Joint School District, 1994.) (G) By interpreting the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in any public place, the Supreme Court necessarily violates the free speech clause of the very same first amendment. These rulings of the Court constitute de facto legislation or Constitution-amending. This is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, as all legislative authority bestowed by the people through the Constitution is bestowed upon the Congress and the Congress alone. (6) A fundamental maxim of law is, whenever the intent of a statute or a constitution is in question, to refer to the words of its framers to determine their intent and use this intent as the true intent of the law. (7) The intent of the First Amendment was and is clear on these two points: The Federal Government was prohibited from enacting any laws which would favor one religious denomination over another and the Federal Government has no power to forbid or prohibit any mention of religion, the Ten Commandments or reference to God in civic dialog. (8) In its rulings to prohibit Americans from saying prayers in school or from displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, the Court has relied heavily upon the metaphor, `Separation of Church and State. Note that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment or any other place in the Constitution. (9) The metaphor, `Separation of Church and State, was extracted, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in reply to a letter from them expressing concern that the Federal Government might intrude in religious matters by favoring one denomination over another. Jeffersons reply was that the First Amendment would preclude such intrusion. (10) The Court, in its use of Separation of Church and State, has given to this phrase a meaning never intended by its author; it took it out of context and inverted its meaning and intent. The complete text of Jeffersons letter is found in Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. (11) Justice William Rehnquist made an extensive study of the history of the First Amendment. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 48, n. 30 [1984],) he stated: `There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the `wall of separation that was constitutionalized in Everson. . . . But the greatest injury of the `wall notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . [N]o amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The `wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history. . . . It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. . . . Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights, as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today, to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from endorsing prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God. History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause. (12) As Justice Rehnquist states, the greatest injury of the `wall notion is its `mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . It is necessary to review not only Jeffersons intent in his use of this `wall, but his involvement or noninvolvement in the drafting of the First Amendment, and the intent of the framers of the First Amendment. (13) Jefferson was neither the author of nor a coauthor of the First Amendment. He cannot be considered as a source of legal authority on this subject. The Court, if it had wished to rely upon Jefferson to determine the true and original intent of the First Amendment, could have served themselves and the American people well by referring to Jeffersons admonition to Judge William Johnson regarding the determination of the original intent of a statute or a constitution: `On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor [Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830, Vol. IV., p. 373,] to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823). (14) The principal authors of the First Amendment, the record reveals, were Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, not Thomas Jefferson. Others who participated were John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and James Madison and George Mason of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson is not found in the record as having participated. (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Seaton, 1834], Vol. I, pp. 440-948, June 8-September 24, 1789.) (15) George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention and recognized as `The Father of the Bill of Rights, submitted this proposal for the wording of the First Amendment: `All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others. (Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.) (16) The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, submitted the following wording for the First Amendment: `The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established. (The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States [Washington, D.C.; Gales and Season, 1834,] Vol. I, p. 451, James Madison, June 8, 1789.) (17) The true intent of the First Amendment is reflected by the proposals submitted by Fisher Ames, George Mason and James Madison and the wording finally adopted. (18) Justice Joseph Story, considered the Father of American Jurisprudence, stated in his Commentaries on the Constitution: `The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohometanism [sp], or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive patronage of the national government. (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [Boston; Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833], p. 728, par. 1871.) (19) Proof that the intent of the framers of the First Amendment did not intend for the Federal Government to restrict the exercise of free speech in religious matters in civic dialog is found in various statements by George Washington, who was President when the Congress adopted the First Amendment. The following is found in his `Farewell Address: ` . . . of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. (George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States. . . . Preparatory to his Declination [Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge, 1796], pp. 22-23. (20) James Wilson was a very active member of the Convention and was later appointed by President George Washington as an original Justice on the United States Supreme Court where he coauthored Americas first legal text on the Constitution. Wilson never mentioned a `separation of church and state. To the contrary, he declared the correlation between religion and civil laws: Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. (James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor. Philadelphia; Bronson and Chauncey, 1804. Vol. I, pp. 104-106.) (21) It was Fisher Ames of Massachusetts who provided, on the 20th of August, 1789, the final wording for the First Amendment as passed by the House of Representatives. Fisher Ames, who should be considered the foremost authority on the intent of the First Amendment, never spoke of a separation of church and state. (Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames, Boston; T.B. Wait & Co. 1809, p. 134, 135.) (22) Because the Court does not seem to be disposed to correct this egregious error, it is incumbent upon the Congress of the United States to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, by the use of its authority to apply checks and balances to other branches of the government, when usurpations and the exercise of excesses of power are evident. The Congress must, then, take the appropriate steps to correct egregious problem.
Posted on: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 02:38:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015