Can Government Acknowledge God?
Can government acknowledge God?
In the
United States
, absolutely not! It can acknowledge
a widespread belief in God and the vast contribution from people of all faiths
to the building of this nation and to its rich history.
To do otherwise would be to deny the obvious, but since the existence of
God cannot be proven, any acknowledgement of his or her existence would
constitute a belief, a religious belief. Certainly
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents the government from
officially engaging in specific religious beliefs.
If it does not at least prohibit government from preferring one religion
over another, what does it do? It
should also be noted that while government should not acknowledge God, it should
not deny the existence of God either. Government
should remain neutral in matters of religion.
Much has been made of the fact that
the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator and the Laws of Nature and
Nature’s God. In his letter, Dave
Muntsinger goes so far as to assert that
Jefferson
was referring specifically to the Judeo-Christian God, an assertion for which
there is little if any evidence.
Jefferson
, remember, was the one who said that the First Amendment erected “a wall of
separation between church and state.” Muntsinger
also writes that the power of government is derived from God according to the
Declaration. Wrong!
Governments in this country derive their powers from the people.
Jefferson
was saying, as John Locke and others did before him, that the human rights of
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or property are natural, and
therefore cannot be justly removed by other humans.
Governments are created by people to protect these natural rights.
The TD implies that there is little difference between the Declaration
and the Ten Commandments regarding the constitutionality of their public display
on government property. The
Declaration of Independence is one of the founding documents of the
United States
, which refers to a Creator or God to illustrate the idea that human beings are
born with certain rights. It is not
a religious document.
The Ten Commandments are.
In fact, according to Judeo-Christian belief, they were inspired by God.
It is certainly true that prohibitions against killing and theft found in
the Commandments also appear in the laws of this country.
Governments institute these laws to maintain order and protect the rights
of life, liberty, and property. Civil
societies have been instituting such laws since long before the delivery of the
Ten Commandments by Moses. However,
prohibitions against the recognition
of other Gods “before me” (implying as Mr. Muntsinger does by singling out
the “Judeo-Christian” God that there are indeed other Gods), against the making of any graven image (Does Judge Moore’s Ten
Commandments monument constitute a graven image?), against taking the Lord’s name in vain, and against labor on the Sabbath in order to keep it holy are obviously
religious. Also, different faiths
within the Judeo-Christian tradition recognize different versions of the
Commandments, so government display of them is not only an endorsement of that
tradition but of a specific denomination within it.
Regarding Judge Moore, he quotes
“our Founders” as defining religion as “the duty we owe our Creator and
the manner for discharging it.” This
comes from Article XVI of George Mason’s VA Declaration of Rights which reads
in its entirety, “That religion, or the duty which
we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by
reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are
equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian
forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”
James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment, also used
this phrase in his Memorial and Remonstrance against religious assessments, “Because
we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, ‘that religion or the duty
which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed
only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.’ The Religion then of
every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is
the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.”
Elsewhere in the same document he writes, “We maintain therefore that
in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil
Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that
no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be
ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that
the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.”
Finally, in a classic defense of the separation of church and state,
Madison
asserts, “Because it is proper to take alarm at
the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the
first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late
Revolution. The free men of
America
did not wait till usurped power had strengthened
itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the
consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the
principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see
that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all
other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of
Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can
force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support
of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in
all cases whatsoever?”
Besides
taking quotes from men who believed in a strict separation out of context to
advance his own anti separation view, Moore also cites the Alabama Constitution
as invoking “’the favor and guidance of Almighty God’ as the basis for our
laws and justice system.” Once
again, further reading is illuminating. The
Preamble to the Alabama Constitution states, “We, the people of the
State of
Alabama
, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and
guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and
form of government for the State of
Alabama
.” I do not see this, as Judge
Moore does, as a requirement to “acknowledge God in the public
sector,” but if it does mean that, then it runs afoul of the United States
Constitution and therefore is indeed unconstitutional.
That interpretation, though, would even seem to contradict Section 3 of
the Alabama Constitution which reads, “That no religion shall be established
by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society,
denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to
attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for
building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or
ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges,
and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his
religious principles.”
Moore
also claims to be arguing for the rule of law which, considering the fact that
he has defied a federal court order, is a notion so preposterous it doesn’t
even deserve a response.
It is true, as stated by the TD,
that the “Declaration and the Constitution did not spring from voids but
resulted from centuries of secular and religious thought.”
Considering this, it is interesting that 55 mostly Christian men, well
versed in those centuries of thought, devised a Constitution that does not
mention religion except to forbid any religious test as a condition for holding
public office. Two years later, many
of those same men wrote and adopted the religion clauses of the First Amendment
which were applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment and read,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The wall of separation between
church and state, as the author of the Declaration of Independence described it,
had been erected. This wall should
prevent government from acknowledging the existence of God by law, which would
include references on money and in the Pledge of Allegiance, mandates by the VA
General Assembly, and certainly Judge Moore’s graven image.
Lest one think these be harmless, minor infractions, remember
Madison
’s words as noted above, “it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment
upon our liberties.” The
separation of church and state protects and benefits both institutions, and
government acknowledgement of a particular God is not as the TD states,” an
expression of humility” but the height of arrogance.
Long live
Jefferson
’s wall!