Re: God in Constitution? #4
buckeyeelo
--- In HRSepCnS@yahoogroups.com, "HumanC wrote:
Published in the November 20 Charleston Post and Courier
http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=53077§ion=faithvalues
Faith & Values
Sunday, November 20, 2005 - Last Updated: 8:14 AM
[ http://www.charleston.net/stories/default_pf.aspx?newsID=53077 ]
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2005 12:00 AM
Writer maintains there's no 'God' in Constitution
So dates, oaths and Sundays are the only constitutional citations
Johnson had to offer. He then attempted to buttress his argument for
God's being in the Constitution with what he believes to be the
"intent" of the founders.
First, Johnson mentioned that the Declaration of Independence refers
to people being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights." The Declaration of Independence is not part of the
Constitution. It is not a governing document. It was a call for
rebellion against the British Crown. This emphasis on people having
inalienable rights was a way for our founders to distinguish us from
an empire that asserted the divine right of kings.
**************************************************
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/natrnew.html
The Christian Statesman POBox 8741-WP Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15221
Declaration of Independence and National Renewal by
William Einwechter
**************************************************
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/00/decaslaw.html
The Christian Statesman
POBox 8741-WP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15221
Declaration of Independence as Moral and
Constitutional Law: Whatever Happened
to the Bible?
**************************************************
OBJECTIONS ADMITTING THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED,
BUT URGED AGAINST THE EXPEDIENCY OF
THE MOVEMENT.
Objection 1. The Constitution already acknowledges God.
The objector says, substantially: "The proposed amendment is
just and proper, but it is unnecessary. God and Christianity are now
acknowledged in the fundamental law of the nation." And what is the
proof of such acknowledgment? The word oath, a passing reference to
the Christian Sabbath in the clause, "Sundays excepted," making th'~
Sabbath a dies non in the reckoning of days during which the Resident
may retain a bill for approval, the mention of the common law, and the
formula of date. These are all. They hardly require notice. It may be
said in brief, however, that the mention of the Sabbath is simply an
incidental allusion, an evidence, indeed, that there was a Sabbath
known; but it is no acknowledgment of the obligation of the Sabbath.
The dating again is no part of the instrument. It merely marks the
time. And more than all else, the name of God was excluded from the
form of the President's oath, incorporated in the Constitution. Can
these features of the Constitution, with a mention of the common law,
be regarded as an adequate acknowledgment of the nation's subjection
to God and his government? It is now almost universally admitted
that they are not religious acknowledgments at all. So completely
devoid is our Constitution of any religious character that multitudes
of both infidels and Christians agree in stating that it is no more
Christian than Mohammedan. As Ex-President Woolsey declared in his
paper read before the Evangelical Alliance, it needs no change to
adapt it to a Mohammedan nation. Admiring, as we do, the many ex eN
lencies of our Constitution, we are constrained to admit this sad
defect. If it is still claimed that an acknowledgment of God and Chris-
3
tianity is in the Constitution, it must also be admitted that such an
acknowledgment, now dimly there at best, should be made so clear and
explicit that no room may be left for doubt. What is there rightfully
ought to be there indisputably.*
_______________________
* For another remark In this connectian, see last page
[the following is the last page referenced]
Since the foregoing pages were stereoyped the First
Objection has been brought to our notice in another form by an eminent
citizen of New England. He says "The Declaration of Independence is
really the, full Preamble of the Constitution. It sets forth
sentiments and principles; the Constitution follows it with rules and
regulations. That document, at the outset, declares it to be a
self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endouved by
their Creator with all their rights; and closes with an appeal 'to the
Supreme Judge of the World.'"
We are fully sensible of the value of these expressions in
the Declaration. They prove that the nation then owned her allegiance
to God. They vindicate her right, now strenuously denied, to
acknoxvledge God in public documents. They show that what we propose
is consistent with the spirit and exantple of our fathers, in the
noblest passages of our history. But we must clearly distinguish
betwcen these two documents. The Declaration is not part of the
written Constitution. Its value is historical rather than legal. It is
a deed of the nation which has passed into history; the Constitution,
as a law, is an ever-present act of the nation's will.. The argument
which is drawn from the silence of the Constitution concerning God and
Religiou against all Christian features of our government as contrary
to " our political covenant," nut covered by the bond, cannot be
adequately met by an appeal in the Declaration of 1776.
SOURCE: The Christian Statesman Tracts No. 6, ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS to
the RELIGIOUS AMENDMENT of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.BY THE REV.
D. M'ALLISTER. (1874}
**************************************************
A Big Fuss Over Nothing
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bigfuss.htm
**************************************************
AND FOR GOOD MEASURE"
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The constitutional and legal status of the Declaration of Independence is
curiously ambiguous.
John Hancock (in his capacity as president of the Second Continental
Congress) and James Madison both considered it to be, in Madison's
words, "the fundamental Act of Union of these States."
Reflecting that view, Congress has placed it at the head of the United
States Code, under the caption, "The Organic Laws of the United States
of America."
The Supreme Court has INFREQUENTLY accorded it binding legal force,
for example, in resolving questions of alienage (Inglis v. Trustees of
Sailor's Snug Harbour, 1830).
YET LAWYERS GENERALLY, AND THE SUPREME COURT IN PARTICULAR,
HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO TREAT THE DECLARATION AS PART OF AMERICAN
ORGANIC LAW, OR EVEN TO ACCORD IT THE RESTRICTED STATUS OF THE
PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION.
Conservatives like Daniel Webster denied that there is a
constitutionally recognized right of revolution, and those state
supreme courts that have addressed the issue in the twentieth century
have adopted Webster's view.
Reformers, such as antebellum abolitionists, insisted that the
Declaration was part of the constitutional order, while their
opponents, including John C. Calhoun, denigrated its authority and
validity.
The adoption of the 'Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments allayed the
urgency of that question by incorporating concepts of equality,
freedom, and citizenship into the operative constitutional text.
SOURCE: The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United
States, Kermit Hall, editor (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992),
p. 223,
**************************************************
Of course, he's right. There's no mention of God, the Creator, the
Almighty or any higher being that I can find in the Constitution.
And since he was so adamant on this point, to be fair to all who
choose to strike the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, I
mention the lack of its existence in the Constitution here.
Ah, excellent! Advanced reading skills.
However, sadly, JILL KAISER DION does not mention that the Pledge
of Allegiance to which s/he is referring has been through a
"revisionist" process itself and has been changed to a document -
said document formerly a "patriotic" pledge or oath to our country
- to an endorsement of a god being on top of the United States.
However, whether or not the U.S. Constitution evokes the name of a
higher being does not quiet the argument that declaring the phrase
"under God"
unconstitutional might lead to the unraveling of our founding documents.
Now, before we go any further, let's examine "The Rule of the
Exploded Middle" (aka Shockley's 11th Rule). To wit:
If "A" equals "B";
And "D" equals "F";
Then "M" equals "X".
Let us start off with undisputed facts (if any thinks that one or
more is disputed, that can be done in another message).
"The Declaration of Independence": a "founding document" because
General Geo Washington was told by Chuck Cornwallis, "Me go home
now". If Geo Washington had sent a white handkerchief to Chuck,
more than likely the Declaration of Independence would have only
the status of a British document of a list of folks who were
executed for Treason to the Crown.
The Constitution for and of The United States of America. A
historical document legalized by time and actions as the purpose of
the meeting was to update The Articles of Confederation rather than
to write a constitution.
The Bill of Rights: The early amendments to the Constitution. [Ten
out of twelve ain't bad.] Close enough to "founding documents" to
be considered one.
Status: Declaratiion of Independence: historical
Status: Articles of Confederation: historical
Status: Constitution without Amendments: historical
Status: Constitution: legal and binding with all active amendments
as part of The Constitution.
But
Alas but would the ability to read contain within it the ability to
think clearly and rationally.
Is the "Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag" a founding document? (No)
Did the Pledge of Allegiance - historically contain any references
to The Big Guy® contain any references to - as JILL KAISER DION
stated -
Even if it, once, had been, its wording has been changed, and it is
no longer "historical" to any great extent because revisionists
have changed it.
Now this JILL KAISER DION person/thingie is using the revisionist
Pledge to suggest that actual historic documents could be changed (
theme music from "The Twilight Zone" slowly getting louder) because
It was modified by the federal government to change its original
form.
Certainly, it is nowhere one of the "founding documents" - but is a
"pledge", an "oath" which is repeated daily by many people.
From: Gray Shockley <grayshockley
****************************************************************************
"The second of these reasons is, 'the sinful character of our
nation'. Notwithstanding the prevalence of Religion, which I have
described, the irreligion, and the wickedness, of our land are such,
as to furnish a most painful and melancholy prospect to a serious
mind. We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgement of GOD;
without any recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his
government, or even of his existence. The Convention, by which it was
formed, never asked, even once, his direction, or his blessing upon
their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the
present system, without GOD. I wish I could say, that a disposition to
render him the reverence, 'due to his' great 'Name', and the
gratitude, demanded by his innumerable mercies, had been more public,
visible, uniform, and fervent."
"At the same time I have no hesitation to say, that 'the eagerness,
with which public offices are hunted for', and the sacrifices of
principle and conscience, which, as we have but too much reason to
believe, are made, in order to acquire them, constitute a great and
dreadful sin; and are a deep brand upon the moral character
of our country...."
The quote is from "A discourse in two parts : delivered July 23, 1812,
on the public fast, in the chapel of Yale College / by Timothy
Dwight..." ( I also note that he is Timothy Dwight, D.D.L.L.D.,
President of that Seminary; Published at the request of the students,
and others; New Haven Published by Howe and Deforest; Sold also by
A.T. Goodrich and Co. No, 124, Broadway, New-York; Printed by
J.Seymour, 49, John-street, New-York)
**************************************************
The Declaration of Independence didn't especially have any
great importance in its own time
How the word [about the DOI ] went out is one story; what
became of the Declaration afterward is another, more complex and of
continuing significance. The Declaration was at first forgotten almost
entirely, then recalled and celebrated by Jeffersonian Republicans,
and later elevated into something akin to holy writ, which made it a
prize worth capturing on behalf of one cause after another. The
politics that attended its creation never entirely left its side, such
that the Declaration of Independence, which became a powerful
statement of national identity, has also been at the center of some of
the most intense conflicts in American history, including that over
slavery which threatened the nation itself. In the course of those
controversies, the document assumed a function altogether different
from that of 1776: it became not a justification of revolution, but a
moral standard by which the day-today policies and practices of the
nation could be judged.
The Declaration of Independence was in some ways the most
unlikely of all documents to play such a role, one whose work was
essentially done once it had successfully announced and justified
Congress's decision to break with Britain and begin a new nation.
Moreover, its assertion that "all men are created equal," which became
a prominent part of the document's moral message, had originally
referred to men in a state of nature, that is, before government
existed. . .
SOURCE: American Scripture, Making the Declaration of Independence,
July 4, 1776. Pauline Mailer Vintage books, (July 1998) pp. 154-55)
[Emphasis added]
*****************************************************************************
* Declaration of Independence: Its Purpose
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doipurp.htm
* Jefferson's Declaration of Independence did not use the word
"Creator"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doitj.htm
* Lincoln's reinventing of the Declaration of Independence
* The United States Supreme Court and the Declaration of Independence
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doisussc.htm
* An analysis of the Declaration of Independence
o Declaration of Independence: Preamble
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doi-pream.htm
o Declaration of Independence is not law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doinotlaw.htm
o The Declaration of Independence Didn't Create Independence,
Didn't "Found" Anything, Didn't Separate Anything: It Was an Explanation
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/doiexplain.htm
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
