wpe3.jpg (20850 bytes)               

Search Now:
 
In Association with Amazon.com

Free Website Calendars by Bravenet.com View my Online Calendar
 

Free Web Journal from Bravenet.com

 

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!

 

 

Send mail to boballey@comcast.net with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2003 Bob Alley's Education Web Site
Last modified: 11/26/2008