| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2005 12:04:14 PM |
| Object: |
State should endorse monotheism |
Theocracy in action
State should endorse monotheism
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/11/22/state_should_endorse.php
by Darryn Beckstrom
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
I knew it was coming. I just didn’t know when.
Michael Newdow, perhaps the nation’s most well known atheist, has found his
way back into a courtroom. But it isn’t because “under God” is in the
Pledge of Allegiance. With that issue working its way through the federal
courts, Mr. Newdow has now sued to remove our nation’s motto — “In God We
Trust” — from U.S. currency.
In light of Mr. Newdow’s most recent assault on our nation’s history and
creed, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal last week from the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the constitutionality of
the message of “In God We Trust” on government buildings. This appeal came
less than six years after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a
resolution encouraging the motto to be placed in classrooms and government
buildings across America.
But this isn’t the beginning of this legal action.
Recent litigation has addressed the constitutionality of government actions
under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment — including the
recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools and the displaying
of the Ten Commandments on public property.
Given these lawsuits, an important question must be asked. Why has this
nation allowed a diminutive group of obviously disgruntled people to create
legal turmoil by challenging the fundamental principles of our nation’s
credo?
It is true the founders of our Constitution sought a separation of church
and state. The early settlers of this nation escaped religious persecution
from a monarchy heavily entangled with religion. And such was not going to
be the framework for the New World. But to exclude a monotheist God from
influencing our nation’s ideas and beliefs did not seem to be their intent.
In a recent case regarding the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments on
government property, Justice Scalia — in his dissent in McCreary v. ACLU —
suggested the Supreme Court endorse monotheism — the belief in one God. The
justices of the Court should strongly consider their fellow brethren’s
words.
Currently, the high court relies heavily on the Lemon test to determine
whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment. But if anyone is to make any sense of the Establishment Clause
cases of the Court, they should realize these holdings reflect decisions
made on a whim and a prayer — no pun intended — more often than an
application of coherent precedent.
The government should be allowed to endorse monotheism. But such an
endorsement would not allow the government to endorse different monotheist
religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. In keeping with the
intent of this nation, this is indeed a reasonable interpretation of the
Constitution, as an endorsement of monotheism would allow for the presence
of God in our nation’s courtrooms, classrooms, and government buildings.
It would also keep frivolous “Newdow” lawsuits from falling into the hands
of activist judges who could potentially threaten the belief system this
nation was built upon.
Historical evidence suggests the Founders were careful to avoid reference
to Christianity in their writings; however, they relied heavily on their
faith in God. George Washington was the first to include “so help me God”
after taking the oath of office as president. Since his utterance of those
words, every president has followed suit. Other examples of the Founders’
reliance on God are abundant.
If Mr. Newdow has such a problem with God being the motto of this nation,
then what is next — an attack on this university’s motto, Numen Lumen? This
Latin phrase has been translated to mean “God our Light,” and this saying
can be found on the seal of this university and in Memorial Library.
The question many should be asking, though, is when will an unrelenting
atheist decide to engage this university — a public institution — in a
legal battle over the constitutionality of “God” in the school’s motto?
This abhorrent litigation will end only when the Court adopts a
constitutional test that is consistent with the text of the Constitution.
Recently, I came across a car obviously owned by an atheist who turned a
bumper sticker that read “God Bless America” into “Godless American” by
crossing out the “b” and adding an “n.” I get it. You don’t believe in God.
But that doesn’t mean the rest of the nation must reject the principles
upon which this country was built.
Darryn Beckstrom is a doctoral student in the department of political
science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public
Affairs.
**************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
