I don’t know how many times it has been said but I am sure
it is quite a lot. The assertion that the United States Constitution has
verbiage specifically providing for a separation of church and state is a
false one. At no time has there ever been any mention of the separation of
church and state in the US Constitution. There was never even any discussion
by the Framers of the Constitution to put verbiage in the Constitution
regarding the separation of church and state. What the United States
Constitution states in the First Amendment is, and I quote:
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Because of this fact, and it is just
that, one has to wonder how there can be such turmoil over the issue of the
separation of church and state, especially when it comes to the word "God”.
Michael Newdow, the admitted political activist who literally
used his daughter to further his crusade against anything religious, is
still making the rounds on the talk shows spouting his disdain for the words
"under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. And while the US Constitution
reserves for him that right, the right to free speech, the right to protest
what he alone believes is something of an outrage, it does not afford him a
few things. It does not afford him the right to add words to the
Constitution. By asserting there is a separation of church and state in the
Constitution he is literally rewriting the Constitution, a document who’s
Framers were heads and shoulders above Mr. Newdow’s level of vision,
intelligence and understanding. It also doesn’t afford him the right to
rewrite the Pledge of Allegiance. These words were forged with the lives of
true patriots, not the modern day cause de jour chest thumpers like Newdow.
The Pledge of Allegiance has been said faithfully by all Americans who
possess love of country for over 100 years. For us to change it to appease
Mr. Newdow would be ridiculous and it would kowtow to his narcissism.
But,
for all the turmoil that Newdow’s cause de jour is creating it must be said
that the Constitution affords him the right to be disgruntled about the
issue and to speak his mind. So, rant on Mr. Newdow, the Constitution
affords the rest of us the right not to listen and to dismiss your argument
as incredibly naïve, short of vision and, in my opinion, whiny.
Then we have Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore who is refusing
to remove a granite monument from the halls of the Alabama Supreme Court. He
contends that the very premise of law is established on the basis of God.
Now, I am no theologian so I can’t in good faith completely agree with
Justice Moore but I can stand with him in countering his opponents that cite
the US Constitution as stating there is a separation of church and state. To
remove the monument with the highly offensive commandments "Thou shall not
kill”, "Thou shall not steal” and other incredibly immoral phrases (please
note the sarcasm) based on the false belief that there is verbiage in the
Constitution that separates church and state would be blind to the truth.
While US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will ultimately
decide as to whether or not the monument should stay within the hallowed
walls of the Alabama Supreme Court, it will be decided on a moral level
whether or not the good people of Alabama believe in Justice Moore’s
initiative on the next ballot that has his name on it. Regardless of the
outcome, the fact remains there is no verbiage in the US Constitution that
separates church and state so that argument would be a losing one.
For a moment let’s look at what all of the hoopla is about, shall we? In the
Pledge of Allegiance it is the phrase "under God”. On our money it is the
phrase "In God We Trust”. In the oath used to swear in Constitutional
Officers the phrase is "so help me God”. Most often when there is some flap
over the word "God” being used in anything publicly sanctioned by the
government there is a linguistic sect that leaps out of the dark and dank
places from where they dwell only to scream the words "separation of church
and state”. As we have deduced, there are no words to that affect in the US
Constitution. But what is more interesting is that simply stating the word
"God” doesn’t promote one religion over another. God is not representative
of or exclusive to any one religion. In Catholicism they refer to
Jesus and the Holy Spirit. In Islam it is
Muhammad. In Buddhism it is Buddha. The list goes on
and on but in the end, when one really looks at it, the word "God” simply
represents a higher power. It represents it in Catholicism, Islam, Judaism,
Buddhism and every other religion known to man perhaps with the exception of
Scientology.
So, it needs to be stated that no one religion is shown preference because
the word "God” is used in anything sanctioned by the government. In fact,
religion itself isn’t promoted simply because the word is used. The only
thing being asserted by the use of the word "God” in anything related to
government is the fact that we as a people, Americans, are all but a part of
a greater whole. It reminds us that there is something bigger and more
important than just making sure that an individual’s vanity isn’t
encumbered. It reminds us that we have to embrace and view as a privilege
the maintenance of our country, our government, through civic responsibility
and a caretaking of the things that achieve the greater good in our society.
The fact of the matter is, if we look out for our country it will look out
for us. If we turn our backs on the greater good for all our people, as Mr.
Newdow is doing by pursuing his narcissistic agenda, then our society will
fail and our country will die a youthful death. A greater tragedy the world
could never know.
The choice is ours…God help us all.
Frank Salvato is a
political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a
contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials,
Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are
regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The
O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer
Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan
Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The
Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and
international publications.
|
