| 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. "The
separation of church and state" is to blame 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.
|