"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREaTOR, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Do these words sound familiar to you? They are, of course, found in the Declaration of Independence and were used as a justification under Natural Law for the separation of the american Colonies from the Crown.
In our modern age it is often forgotten that the United States was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles since it was the belief of our founding fathers that God had sanctioned their separation from the Crown. These men were not religious fundamentalists; they were accepting of that age’s universally-held tenet that the concept of God and the right to governance were intertwined. This did not mean that the founding fathers all held the same beliefs in God, as they displayed years later when the Bill of Rights were adopted into the United States Constitution.
Having lived under the burden of a single, state-sanctioned religion, the founding fathers rejected the English model of endorsing a state religion and, instead, enshrined the concept of the Freedom of Religion. The complete text of the First amendment reads: "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." On the issue of religion it is these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" that are, today, used by the american atheists and left-wing zealots to attempt to remove religion from all aspects of our public life. The touchy predicament is that the First amendment was incorporated in to the Constitution to protect the rights of the practitioners of religious faith, not to sanitize the practice of religion from the public square or protect the sensibilities of atheists. The only restriction the First amendment places on Congress is that the federal government may not establish a national church or prevent its citizens from practicing the religion of their choice. These are relatively simple concepts designed solely to protect God-fearing people from governmental parochialism.
Fast forward two hundred plus years and the First amendment has been adopted as the mantra of those who are determined to remove God from our daily lives. It is, in effect, being used as a sledge hammer to obliterate the right of the free exercise of any religion. It is sad to say that but these extremists have been very successful at decimating the role of God in the United States. Today, children may no longer pray in public schools and counties in some jurisdictions have been forced to remove the Ten Commandments from their court rooms, despite the fact that these very commandments have been engraved since time immemorial on the edifice of the US Supreme Court.
The most resent assault on the free exercise of religion in the United States is a lawsuit brought by Michael Newdow, who previously sued to remove the term "One Nation under God" from our Pledge of allegiance, and is now suing to have the national motto of the United States declared "unconstitutional".
The motto, "In God We Trust" was enshrined by way of a joint resolution of the 84th Congress in 1956. By adopting this non-denominational motto, Congress did not violate the First amendment, "In God We Trust" neither endorses a state religion nor does it prevent any person from practicing their faith. The term may offend american atheists, but they are not a protected class under our Constitution; they are, in fact, a group without a religion and, therefore, not affected by the religious protections offered by the Bill of Rights. Mr. Newdow may not like the fact that the First amendment was not written for him but that is the reality. In fact, the federal courts have up held the constitutionality of this national motto, twice: In aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (1970) and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, et al. v. W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of Treasury, et al, 588 F.2d 1144 (1979) precedents were set that will doom the Newdow litigation. In aronow, the Ninth Circuit summed it up best by writing: "[Our] national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
Like his predecessors, Michael Newdow has no case and is simply forum shopping in the hopes that he can find some court, somewhere, to finally harass people of faith to give up their constitutional right to practice their religion as our founding fathers intended. If Mr. Newdow, truly, wants to remove God from public life then he should pursue an amendment to the Constitution. If he were to do so, he would quickly learn that, under this democracy, the United States is, since its inception, still One Nation Under God.
William John Hagan is a columnist for Canada Free Press.
He can be reached at: William_Hagan@excite.com.Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement