Under God' clearly unconstitutional
http://www-stu.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=2275
[excerpts]
By Tommy Heyboer
Staff Writer
Separation of church and state has been a salient issue throughout
history. Many wars have been fought in the name of God. Political
revolutionaries have claimed God as the authority for their grotesque
and heinous acts. Even in our largely secular and pluralistic culture,
the U.S. government constantly deals with improper relations between
church and state.
Specifically, the current Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of
America includes the much-debated phrase "one nation, under God."
Many citizens feel that the phrase "under God" ought to be expunged from
the Pledge of Allegiance and recent court cases are pointing toward
its removal.
First, we must take a brief look at the historical inclusion of the
first amendment in the Constitution as it fundamentally relates to
jurisprudence surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance. The First
Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion; or the free exercise thereof."
It is difficult to determine the exact meaning of these words in their
original context. However, by looking at the writings and actions of
the framers before the Constitution was written, one can capture a
glimpse of what they actually meant by "establishment."
Madison argued that the Constitution "forbids everything like an
establishment of national religion." Madison considered chaplains for
the Navy and Congress and national presidential proclamations of fasts
and thanksgivings to be an "establishment of national religion."
Similarly, Thomas Jefferson refused to proclaim a national day for
Thanksgiving on the grounds of separation between church and state. As
a result, it is quite clear that the First Amendment covers a wide
range of state and church issues.
The framers did not merely construct the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights simply to prohibit the formation of a state church. Both of
these documents illustrate the fact that Madison so eloquently pointed
out; "there is not a shadow of right for government to intermeddle
with religious affairs."
Second, I now turn my attention to the history of the Pledge of
Allegiance. The history of the pledge casts some suspicion of the
inclusion of the phrase, "one nation, under God."
Francis M. Bellamy, a former socialist minister, wrote the original
words to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892; it read: "I pledge
allegiance to my flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one
nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It is quite clear that the phrase "under God" was not originally a
part of the Pledge of Allegiance. Just over 60 years later in 1954, at
the height of the Cold War, Congress revised the language to include
the phrase "one nation, under God."
The driving motivation of the phrase's inclusion came from a sermon by
Reverend George M. Docherty, a pastor of the New York Avenue
Presbyterian Church. In a stirring speech attended by President
Eisenhower, Reverend Docherty vehemently stated that there was
something missing in the pledge. The Pledge of Allegiance could sound
like a pledge being recited to the "hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow."
The argument follows, then, that the Pledge of Allegiance was not
"American" in character. Somehow, including the words "under God"
distinguished the United States from the communist bloc.
Then President Dwight D. Eisenhower gladly pronounced the new addition
to the Pledge of Allegiance by remarking, "From this day forward, the
millions of school children will daily proclaim in every city and
town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our
Nation and our people to the Almighty."
Based on these proceedings, there is no doubt that the addition of
"under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was not foundational to the
pledge. Its purpose was twofold: to distinguish the United States of
America from the godless communist nations and to daily reaffirm the
United States' spiritual and religious heritage. As one can plainly
see, the nature of the phrase is explicitly religious.
Even Justice O'Connor admits the explicitly religious nature of the
phrases' inclusion: "It is true that some of the legislators who voted
to add the phrase `under God' to the Pledge may have done so in an
attempt to attach to it an overtly religious message."
[snip]
Justice Thomas, in concurrence to the ruling on Elk Grove Unified
School Dist. vs. Newdow (2002) reasoned, "Adherence to `Lee' would
require us to strike down the Pledge policy."
Judicial precedent unequivocally anticipates that, in the coming
years, the Supreme Court will rule the current Pledge of Allegiance to
be unconstitutional because the phrase "under God" is coercive,
preferential and an endorsement of religion. Once removed, the United
States will be able to move forward with a greater sense of unity and
justice for all, not just those who believe in God.
[end excerpts]
***************************************************************
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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
