The Religion Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.It's a simple phrase: The federal government can neither establish a religion nor prohibit people from exercising their religious beliefs. The founders' writings show that they believed faith in God to be essential to the survival of the Republic. Indeed, public prayer and acts of fasting were common in those days, practiced by these great men, but never mandated by government.
Consider this quote by the father of our country, George Washington, first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen:
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, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.Thomas Jefferson saw no role whatsoever for the federal government in deciding religious issues:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story, anti-slavery judicial pioneer and constitutional scholar summarized the founders' intentions, as explained at Findlaw.com.
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.''But then the lawyers entered in, and the justices twisted this simple concept beyond all recognition.
8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9
This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.''We went from "Congress shall make no law" to prohibiting small town school boards from starting their meetings with a prayer. Now comes a man wishing to shut down public inauguration prayers and the use of the phrase "So help me God." Monte Kuligowski reports in The American Thinker:
With the approach of the presidential inauguration, America's most notorious atheist, Michael Newdow, is back in the headlines. Once again, he and an assortment of other plaintiffs are challenging the long-standing addendum, "So help me God," to the presidential oath of office. The lawsuit, filed by the American Humanist Association on Dec. 30, also challenges as unconstitutional, the pending invocation and benediction prayers to be offered respectively by Pastor Rick Warren and Rev. Joseph E. Lowery at the swearing-in ceremony of President-select Barack Obama on Jan. 20.Kuligowski does an outstanding job explaining this constitutional travesty in layman's terms. If you care about the 1st Amendment and what has happened to it, I highly recommend this short article.
Atheist crusades such as these are a direct contradiction of the founding principles laid out by Jefferson, Madison and the other brilliant men who founded this country. While our founders would argue for the rights of atheists, they would vehemently disagree with those who seek to expunge all traces of God from society.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/inauguration_2009_so_help_me_g.html
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djclpp/index.php?action=showitem&id=38#F148
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
1 comments:
Loved the Duke law article on the constitutionality of the Declaration of Independence.
I guess we owe Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen of America, Defender of the Faith, etc. a humble and sincere apology. President Obama's first act should be submission to the English Parliment and a humble request for admission to the commonwealth. Perhaps in her graciousness our sovereign will not punish us too harshly.
Cheers!
Finntann
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.