One hundred years ago, our government failed to keep statistics on how
many 14 year-olds had sexually transmitted diseases. Today our
government has risen to the challenge, and now keeps growing statistics
on 14 year-olds in categories unheard of among children a century ago:
rape, violent assault, drug addiction, and sexually transmitted
diseases. I blame "the separation of church and state" for
this "progress."
The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared that our Founding
Fathers did not intend for us to be a nation "under God," but
that phrase was merely the
product of hysterical anti-communism of the 1950's. The Framers
of the Constitution, we
are told, were a bunch of deists and atheists.
There are several lines of evidence which show that the Constitution
was never intended nor understood to deny the fact that human beings --
both as individuals and in their institutions (such as "the
State") -- have duties given them from
God which they are obligated to obey. Until the rise of the ACLU and the
myth of the "separation of church and state," the
Constitution never prevented a politician from publicly acknowledging
God or performing his public duties in accord with God's Commandments.
Not just individuals "down in their hearts," but our
nation was to be "under God." Ecclesiastical and
political power could be kept separate, but there is nothing in the
Constitution which separates America from God and from True
Religion.
Our laws were patterned after the Ten
Commandments. In this way our legislators acknowledged their duty to
conform their political acts to the will of God. By making laws for the
nation which conformed to the Higher Law of God, legislators
acknowledged that this was a nation "under God."
In Engel
v Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 440, Justice Douglas, concurring,
provided the following in note 5:
|
The Pledge of Allegiance, like the [voluntary New York public
school] prayer [which the Court in this case banned], recognizes
the existence of a Supreme Being. Since 1954 it has contained the
words "one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all." 36 U.S.C. 172. The House Report
recommending the addition of the words "under God"
stated that those words in no way run contrary to the First
Amendment but recognize "only the guidance of God in our
national affairs." H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.,
p. 3. And see S. Rep. No. 1287, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. Senator
Ferguson, who sponsored the measure in the Senate, pointed out
that the words "In God We Trust" are over the entrance
to the Senate Chamber. 100 Cong. Rec. 6348. He added:
"I have felt that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
which stands for the United States of America should recognize
the Creator who we really believe is in control of the destinies
of this great Republic.
"It is true that under the Constitution no power is
lodged anywhere to establish a religion. This is not an attempt
to establish a religion; it has nothing to do with anything of
that kind. It relates to belief in God, in whom we sincerely
repose our trust. We know that America cannot be defended by
guns, planes, and ships alone. Appropriations and expenditures
for defense will be of value only if the God under whom we live
believes that we are in the right. We should at all times
recognize God's province over the lives of our people and over
this great Nation." Ibid. And see 100 Cong. Rec. 7757 et
seq. for the debates in the House.
The Act of March 3, 1865, 13 Stat. 517, 518, authorized
the phrase "In God We Trust" to be placed on coins. And
see 17 Stat. 427. The first mandatory requirement for the use of
that motto on coins [370 U.S. 421, 441] was made by the Act of May
18, 1908, 35 Stat. 164. See H. R. Rep. No. 1106, 60th Cong., 1st
Sess.; 42 Cong. Rec. 3384 et seq. The use of the motto on all
currency and coins was directed by the Act of July 11, 1955, 69
Stat. 290. See H. R. Rep. No. 662, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep.
No. 637, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. Moreover, by the Joint Resolution
of July 30, 1956, our national motto was declared to be
"In God We Trust." 70 Stat. 732. In reporting the
Joint Resolution, the Senate Judiciary Committee stated:
"Further official recognition of this motto was given by
the adoption of the Star-Spangled Banner as our national anthem.
One stanza of our national anthem is as follows:
"`O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto - "In God is our trust."
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.'
"In view of these words in our national anthem, it is
clear that `In God we trust' has a strong claim as our national
motto." S. Rep. No. 2703, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2.
|
As to the phrase "under God," consider the following:
Gettysburg, Nov. 19. 1863:
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task
remaining before us —that from these honored dead we take increased
devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of
devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have
died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new
birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for
the people, shall not perish from the earth.
You may have heard these words from Abraham Lincoln -- unless you
went to a government school.
And the line about government of by and for the people -- it comes
from the early
Protestant Reformer John Wycliffe. He was referring to the Bible.
It was therefore not without reason that the colony foreboded
collision with the crown; and, after a full report from a numerous
committee, of which Bradstreet, Hawthorne, Mather, and Norton were
members, the general court, on the tenth of June, 1661,
published a declaration of natural and chartered rights. In this
paper, which was probably written by Thomas Danforth, they declare
their liberties under God
and their patent to be: to choose their own governor, deputy governor,
and representatives; to admit freemen on terms to be prescribed at
their own pleasure; to set up all sorts of officers, superior and
inferior, and point out their power and places; to exercise, by their
annually elected magistrates and deputies, all power and authority,
legislative, executive, and judicial, without appeal, so long as the
laws were not repugnant to the laws of England; to defend themselves
by force of arms against every aggression; and to reject, as an
infringement of their right, any parliamentary or royal imposition
prejudicial to the country, and contrary to any just act of colonial
legislation." The duties of allegiance were narrowed to a few
points, which conceded neither revenue nor substantial power.
George Bancroft, History of the
United States, Vol.1, p.368-69
On the first of August, the general court of
Massachusetts, as petitioners, thus addressed their complaints to the
king: "Your poor subjects are threatened with ruin, reproached
with the name of rebels, and your government, established by charter,
and our privileges, are violated and undermined; some of your faithful
subjects dispossessed of their lands and goods without hearing them
speak in their cases; the unity of the English colonies, which is the
wall and bulwark under God
against the heathen, discountenanced, reproached, and undermined;
our bounds and limits clipped and shortened. A just dependence upon
and allegiance unto your majesty, according to the charter, we have,
and do profess and practice, and have by our oaths of allegiance to
your majesty confirmed; but to be placed upon the sandy foundations of
a blind obedience unto that arbitrary, absolute, and unlimited power
which these gentlemen would impose upon us, who in their actings have
carried it not as indifferent persons toward us, this as it is
contrary to your majesty's gracious expressions and the liberties of
Englishmen, so we can see no reason to submit thereto."
George Bancroft, History of the
United States, Vol.1, p.378
While America generally was so tranquil,
Samuel Adams continued musing, till the thought of correspondence and
union among the friends of liberty ripened in his mind. "It would
be an arduous task," he said, meditating a project which required
a year's reflection for its maturity, "to awaken a sufficient
number in the colonies to so grand an undertaking. Nothing, however,
should be despaired of." Through the press, in October, he
continued: "We have nothing to rely upon but the interposition of
our friends in Britain, of which I have no expectation, or the LAST
APPEAL. The tragedy of American freedom is nearly completed. A tyranny
seems to be at the very door. They who lie under oppression deserve
what they suffer; let them perish with their oppressors. Could
millions be enslaved, if all possessed the independent spirit of
Brutus, who, to his immortal honor, expelled the tyrant of Rome and
his royal and rebellious race The liberties of our country are worth
defending at all hazards. If we should suffer them to be wrested from
us, millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers in the event.
Every step has been taken but one; and the last appeal would require
prudence, unanimity, and fortitude. America must herself, under
God, work out her own salvation."
George Bancroft, History of the
United States, Vol.3, p.406-7
You are in my opinion perfectly right in your
supposition, that "the redress of American grievances likely to
be proposed by the ministry will at first only be partial; and that it
is intended to retain some of the revenue duties, in order to
establish a right of Parliament to tax the colonies." But I hope
that, by persisting steadily in the measure you have so laudably
entered into, you will, if backed by the general honest resolution of
the people to buy British goods of no others, but to manufacture for
themselves, or use colony manufactures only, be the means, under
God, of recovering and establishing the freedom of our
country entire, and of handing it down complete to posterity
Benjamin
Franklin, Smyth 5:220. (1769.)
The congress of Massachusetts, though
destitute of munitions of war, armed vessels, military stores, and
money, had confidence that a small people, resolute in its
convictions, out weighs an empire. On the return of Samuel Adams, they
adopted all the recommendations of the continental congress. They
established a secret correspondence with Canada. They entreated the
ministers of the gospel in their colony "to assist in
avoiding that dreadful slavery with which all were now
threatened." "You," said they to its people, "are placed
by Providence
in the post of honor, because it is the post of danger; while
struggling for the noblest objects, let nothing unbecoming our
character as Americans, as citizens, and Christians, be
justly chargeable to us. Whoever considers the number of brave men
inhabiting North America will know that a general attention to
military discipline must so establish their rights and liberties as, under
God, to render it impossible to destroy them. But we
apprise you of your danger, which appears to us imminently
great." With such words they adjourned, to keep the annual
Thanksgiving which they them selves had appointed, finding occasion in
their distress to rejoice at "the smiles of Divine Providence
on the union in their own province and throughout the continent."
George Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol.4, p.94
"The minister must recede," wrote Garnier to Vergennes,
"or lose America forever." "Your chief
dependence," such were Franklin's words to Massachusetts,
"must be on your own virtue and unanimity, which, under
God, will bring you through all difficulties."
George Bancroft, History of the United
States, Vol.4, p.115
When the quiet of a week had revived ancient usages, Washington
attended the Thursday lecture, which had been kept up from the days of
Winthrop and Wilson, and all rejoiced with exceeding joy at seeing this
New England Zion once more a quiet habitation; they called it
"a tabernacle of which not one of the stakes should ever
be removed, nor one of the cords be broken." [Isaiah 33:20] The
Puritan ancestry of Massachusetts seemed holding out their hands to
bless the deliverer of their children.
On the twenty-ninth the two branches of the legislature addressed
him jointly, dwelling on the respect he had ever shown to their civil
constitution, as well as on his regard for the lives and health of all
under his command. "Go on," said they, "still go on, approved
by heaven, revered by all good men, and dreaded by tyrants; may
future generations, in the peaceful enjoyment of that freedom which
your sword shall have established, raise the most lasting monuments to
the name of Washington." And in his answer he renewed his pledges
of "a regard to every provincial institution." When the
continental congress, on the motion of John Adams, voted him thanks
and a commemorative medal of gold, he modestly transferred their
praises to the men of his command, saying: "They were, indeed, at
first a band of undisciplined husbandmen; but it is, under
God, to their bravery and attention to duty that I am
indebted for that success which has procured me the only reward I wish
to receive, the affection and esteem of my countrymen."
George Bancroft, History of the United
States, Vol.4, p.330-31
Special Session Message, May 16, 1797.
Gentlemen of the Senate and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:
* * *
Convinced that the conduct of the Government has been just and
impartial to foreign nations, that those internal regulations which
have been established by law for the preservation of peace are in
their nature proper, and that they have been fairly executed, nothing
will ever be done by me to impair the national engagements, to
innovate upon principles which have been so deliberately and uprightly
established, or to surrender in any manner the rights of the
Government. To enable me to maintain this declaration I rely, under
God, with entire confidence on the firm and enlightened
support of the National Legislature and upon the virtue and patriotism
of my fellow-citizens.
JOHN ADAMS.
Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
John Adams, vol. 1, p.229
The New England Puritans not only ordered their commonwealth by the
Ten Commandments and the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but
constantly drew parallels between themselves and the people of Israel
and Judah. The Puritans thought of themselves as experiencing afresh, under
God, the tribulations and the successes of the Hebrew people.
"For answers to their problems," says Daniel Boorstin,
"they drew as readily on Exodus, Kings, or Romans, as on the less
narrative portions of the Bible. Their peculiar circumstances and
their flair for the dramatic led them to see special significance in
these narrative passages. The basic reality in their life was the
analogy with the Children of Israel. They conceived that by going out
into the Wilderness, they were reliving the story of Exodus and not
merely obeying an explicit command to go into the wilderness. For them
the Bible was less a body of legislation than a set of binding
precedents.
[Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: the
Colonial Experience (New York: Random House, 1958), p. 19.]
Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, p.46
Clinton Rossiter expresses succinctly the cardinal point [p.48]
that American democratic society rests upon Puritan and other
Calvinistic beliefs—and through those, in no small part upon the
experience of Israel under
God. "For all its faults and falterings, for all the
distance it has yet to travel," Rossiter states, "American
democracy has been and remains a highly moral adventure. Whatever
doubts may exist about the sources of this democracy, there can be
none about the chief source of the morality that gives it life and
substance..."From this Puritan inheritance, this transplanted
Hebrew tradition, there come "the contract and all its
corollaries; the higher law as something more than a 'brooding
omnipresence in the sky'; the concept of the competent and responsible
individual; certain key ingredients of economic individualism; the
insistence on a citizenry educated to understand its rights and
duties; and the middle-class virtues, that high plateau of moral
stability on which, so Americans believe, successful democracy must
always build.''
[Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic: the
Origin of the American Tradition of Political Liberty (New York:
Harcourt, Brace, 1953), p. 55.]
Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, p.48
Where in the Constitution is America's status as a nation "under
God"
repudiated? Where is this Christian heritage replaced with ACLU-brand
secularism?
It was Christians of various denominations, not atheists, who
worked to create a government which separated ecclesiastical power
from political power. But NOBODY -- Christian or atheist -- advocated
a government which would claim godhead for itself.
And if the common law was the foundation of order, also it was
the foundation of freedom. The high claim of the old commentators on
the common law was this: no man, not even the king, was above or
beyond the law. "The king himself," Bracton wrote,
"ought not to be under man but under
God, and under the Law, because the Law makes the king.
Therefore, let the king render back to the Law what the Law gives to
him, namely, dominion and power; for there is no king where will,
and not Law, wields dominion." The Law is a bridle upon the
king. Though the king may not be sued, he may be petitioned; if he
will not do justice upon receiving a reasonable petition, the king's
own Great Council, or the barons and the people, then may restrain
his power. Just that had been done to King John, less than half a
century before Bracton wrote, and would be done to later kings who
tried to set themselves above the Law. Here are the beginnings of
the principle of a government of laws, not of men.'
Kirk, The Roots of American Order, p.190
Without Authority vested somewhere, without regular moral
principles that may be consulted confidently, Justice [p.463] cannot
long endure anywhere. Yet modern liberalism and democracy are
contemptuous of the whole concept of moral authority; if not checked
in their assaults upon habitual reverence and prescriptive morality,
the liberals and democrats will destroy Justice not only for their
enemies, but for themselves. Under
God, the will of the people ought to prevail; but many
liberals and democrats ignore that prefatory clause. In America,
particularly since 1825, there had been distressingly obvious a
tendency to make over the government into a pure and simple
democracy, centralized and intolerant of local rights and powers,
upon the model of Rousseau. That "pure" democracy, if
triumphant, would destroy the beneficent "territorial
democracy" (a phrase Brownson borrowed from Disraeli) of the
United States, with its roots in place. This would be a change from
a civilized constitution to a barbaric one. The Civil War, said
Brownson, had accelerated the process.
Yet Brownson labored on, an old man in Detroit, exhorting Americans
to vigor. Under God,
said Brownson in his emphatic way, the American Republic may grow in
virtue and justice. A century later, the words "under
God" would be added to the American pledge of
allegiance. Brownson's principles of justice, after all, expressed
those American moral habits of thought and action that
Tocqueville had found strong. The violence and confusion of
Brownson's time would diminish somewhat; Marxism would make little
headway in the United States. So thoroughly American himself,
Orestes Brownson knew that there was more to America's great
expectations than the almighty dollar.
Kirk, The Roots of American Order, p.462, 468
For more than half a century, the public school children of
Baltimore had opened their school day by hearing two or three verses
from the Bible, saying the Lord's Prayer, and reciting the Pledge of
Allegiance—which, since 1954, included the words "under
God." This was in compliance with a rule adopted in
1905 by the Baltimore Board of Education, pursuant to the
authority vested in it by state statute, requiring each public
school within its jurisdiction to open each school day with
exercises consisting primarily of the "reading, without
comment, of a chapter in the Holy Bible and/or the use of the Lord's
Prayer." The Baltimore school authorities now informed [Madalyn
Murray O'Hair] that all students must participate in the morning
exercises.
George Goldberg, Church, State and the Constitution,
p.73-74
The Court requires government at all levels to maintain a
neutrality between theism and non-theism which results, in practical
effect, in a governmental preference of the religion of agnostic
secularism. Justice Brennan argued, in his concurrence in the 1963
school prayer case, that the words "under
God" could still be kept in the Pledge of Allegiance
only because they "no longer have a religious purpose or
meaning." Instead, according to Brennan they "may merely
recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have
been founded 'under God."[Abington
School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 304, (1963).] This
false neutrality would logically prevent an assertion by any
government official, whether President or school teacher, that the
Declaration of Independence—the first of the
Organic Laws of the United States printed at the head of the
United States Code—is in fact true when it asserts that men are
endowed "by [p.156] their Creator" with certain
unalienable rights and when it affirms "the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," a "Supreme
Judge of the world" and "Divine
Providence." If a pupil asks his public school teacher
whether God exists, as the Declaration affirms He does, and if the
teacher says, '"Yes," that is unconstitutional as a
preference of theism; if the teacher says, "No," that is
unconstitutional as a preference of atheism. The only thing the
teacher can do, according to the theory of the Court, is to suspend
judgment, to say, "I (the State) do not know." But this is
an affirmation of the religion of agnosticism.
Edward B. McLean, Derailing the Constitution, p.155
My countrymen:
This occasion is not alone the administration of the most sacred
oath which can be assumed by an American citizen. It is a dedication
and consecration under
God to the highest office in service of our people. I
assume this trust in the humility of knowledge that only through the
guidance of Almighty Providence can I hope to discharge its
ever-increasing burdens.
Public Papers of the Presidents, Hoover, 1929, p.1
Inaugural Address. March 4, 1929
Well, there are over 300 more references in my computer search
through US documents and selected other publications. I hope this
will disabuse anyone of the idea that America as a nation "under
God" was invented by Cold War anti-communists.
Even if it was invented by them, they were right to do so.
Part Two: For
more on the religious foundations of American Government.
Back to: The Myth of the "Separation
of Church and State."
The whole
point of the Declaration of Independence was to lay out the founders'
breathtaking new argument that rights came not from the king, but from
God or, as the Declaration said, "Nature's God," the
"Creator."
That
summer, in 1776, Gen. George Washington -- a charter member of the
founding fathers -- rallied his troops, saying: "The time is now
near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be
freemen or slaves. ... The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under
God, on the courage and conduct of the army."
So Washington not only used the
phrase "under God," but gave us one of the earliest known
references to the rights of the "unborn." That's right! George
Washington was a "pro-life extremist,"
AnnCoulter.com
next: Campaign Finance, Corruption and the Oath of Office
|