|
| |
"...so help me God."
The Fifth Column/Frank
Salvato, Managing Editor |
January
21, 2005
- "…so help me God.” Such are the final words of the
Oath of Office as recited by second term president George W. Bush on
Inauguration Day 2005. They concluded the oath that saw the president
reaffirm the duties he faithfully executed during his first term in office
and that he swore to perform again in his second. To President Bush these
words mean something. They are the ultimate expression of his commitment to
fulfill the promise that he has made to the American people, himself and, so
help him, to his God.
Most people, whether religious or not, recognize that the phrase "so help me
God,” emphasizes the seriousness of the oath just administered. They
recognize them as confirmation that President Bush has once again promised
to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,” and to
the best of his ability, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States." These words hurt no one but instead hold President Bush
to a commitment, and in the president’s eyes, a solemn commitment made under
the watch of the One that will ultimately judge him. To President Bush this
is more pressing than any opinion poll or approval rating.
So, it is stunning that words which express so much to an entire nation,
words that hurt no one, could be so vehemently opposed.
The US Supreme Court, namely Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice
John Paul Stevens, recently refused to hear an emergency appeal brought
before them by Michael Newdow, the perennial cyst on the buttocks of common
sense, asking the court to bar any prayer or religious content during the
Presidential Inauguration. In his complaint Newdow argued that permitting
religious content in the proceedings violated the US Constitution’s first
amendment ban on government establishment of religion. To say the least, Mr.
Newdow’s argument is such a far stretch it is reminiscent of Michael Moore
in spandex.
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
There is no separation of church and state mentioned in the first amendment
or anywhere else in the US Constitution. To believe so is to be mistaken. In
fact, the issue of there being a separation of church and state is based on
a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of the Danbury
congregation in order to quell their fears of a widespread rumor that the
Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national
religion. He wrote:
"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus
building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
The US Constitution had 55 people working on it yet the likes of Newdow
insist that the personal writings of Jefferson – although a noted member of
the Constitutional Congress – somehow afford them validity when they insist
that the US Constitution embraces the idea of "separation of church and
state.” It does not. If anything, the intentions of Jefferson were to have
the "wall of separation” flow one way, allowing the people of the United
States to practice religion freely without interference from government.
These intentions were shattered in 1961 when the US Supreme Court, lorded
over by Chief Justice Earl Warren, removed prayer from school without
precedent in the case of Engel v. Vitale.
Jefferson’s, "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom,” enacted by the
Virginia legislature in 1786 has at its core the idea that citizens may
neither be obliged to worship nor prohibited from worshiping however and
whenever they wish. Jefferson is quoted as saying, "It does me no injury for
my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my
pocket nor breaks my leg.” In this statement Jefferson illustrates the
importance of tolerance. Where one man may not recognize god he should defer
to another’s right to practice his faith. Tolerance is born of an ideal
realized through courtesy and conviction, qualities the narcissistic
carbuncle Newdow lacks completely.
Common sense suggests that if one doesn’t share the same faith as another
one should be strong enough in their own faith to be unshaken. If one is an
Atheist and truly believes that there is no god then how can someone who
prays to a god, any god, be a threat? To be shaken, threatened, because
someone does not believe in the same way as you is a sign of weakness and
demonstrates a lack of conviction. But in these days of Atheists wanting to
ban religion (Atheism being a recognized religion) and anarchists planning
demonstrations of defiance (anarchists planning anything – the ultimate
oxymoron) common sense doesn’t always prevail and the facts of the matter –
and their sources – seldom come to light. To that end we can only pray that
common sense re-emerges before it is too late…so help me God.
Related Reading:
The Myth of the Separation of Church and State
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed.
(NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1,
1802.
Religious Liberty: Legacy to the World
http://www.irla.org/documents/fel/fel1998/negus.html
|
|
