"Under God" and "In God We Trust"

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

But if it was not intended to be secular, why were our founding fathers so careful not to include God in the Constitution?

It seems like the inclusion of God in an official way only came about in the 20th century.

Many early leaders expressed individual faith in God, but it was not part of any government policy.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation 'under God' violates school children's right to be 'free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.'

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

I think I remember reading somewhere that the 9th Circuit was the most reversed appeals court in the land. And that most of their reversals by SCOTUS were unanimous.

I find that a little hard to believe with people like Ginzberg on the SCOTUS. I think I'll research it a little when I have time.

 

[buckster75]

that, in someways, has always puzzled me too. but I still think they never invisioned it not being "under God" maybe they felt the people would fear the estab. of a official church if they mentioned anything about it.

 

[Johnv]

You're right, Carpro. The 9th circuit court has the most reversals on record.

 

[buckster75]

does the Const. protect any inalienable rights given by our Creator? even if it is not mentioned specificly?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by buckster75:
that is kind of where my thinking goes. that it was not intended to be a secular gov. I might even go as far as the original thought of free religion was: "you can be and kind of believer in the God of the Bible you want to be."

What kind of religious freedom would that be?

Reminds me of Vaughn Meador's parody of President Kennedy on his hit album of the 60s, "Vote for the Kennedy of your choice, but vote!"

Or maybe Henry Ford's statement about the Model T. "You can have it in any color you want, as long as it's black."

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by buckster75:
does the Const. protect any inalienable rights given by our Creator? even if it is not mentioned specificly?

No. The Constitution promotes the blessings of liberty, among other things. This is expressly spelled out in the preamble (though the preamble itself is not a codification, but a purpose for the codification).

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by buckster75:
does the Const. protect any inalienable rights given by our Creator? even if it is not mentioned specificly?

I think you are thinking of a quote from the Declaration of Independence

 

[buckster75]

I know exactly where the statement comes from. Now look at the question.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by buckster75:
... maybe they felt the people would fear the estab. of a official church if they mentioned anything about it... it was not intended to be a secular gov

The history of Amendment I suggests differently. Some people espose that Amendment I was intended only to prevent the establishment of a state church or state religion. But in reality, there were several versions of Amendment I that read something like "Congress shall make no law establishing a state church". If tAmendment I were simply to abolish a state church, then one of these more directly worded amendments would have been adopted. Yet, all of these were abandoned, in favor of "Congress shall make no loaw respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..."

 

[buckster75]

don't read any tone in that last statement CK4

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
I'd like to take this up in another thread. Is it Biblical for a Christian to pledge loyalty to a secular government.

Interestingly, the Constitution allows the POTUS oath to "affirm" his duties, instead of swearing an oath. At least one POTUS made use of that. The accommodation was included by the Framers to accommodate those who, like the Quakers, morally objected to the swearing of oaths.

Scripture encourages us to not have to rely on oaths, but to simply be our yes be yes, and our no be no (aka, an affirmation). But I don't see that swearing an oath, in and of itself, violates scripture. However, I think that "requiring" the swearing of an oath may be a scriptural violation. Does that make sense?

I recently was a court witness in a traffic case, and had no problem swearing an oath to tell nothing but the whole truth. </font>[/QUOTE]It is interesting that as a government employee, we are required to take an oath that we will respect the United States, etc. It is the same oath ALL government employees are required to take.

 

[Johnv]

Actually, Phillip, you were not required to swear an oath. You could have chosen to simply affirm your office instead. But all this really means is that instead of saying "I solemnly swear...", you would say "I affirm...".

 

[buckster75]

but it was an Ammendment. (added later)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by buckster75:
does the Const. protect any inalienable rights given by our Creator? even if it is not mentioned specificly?

I don't see how any part of the Constitution could be interpreted to do so.

 

[buckster75]

and are Bibles used in court anymore?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by buckster75:
... maybe they felt the people would fear the estab. of a official church if they mentioned anything about it... it was not intended to be a secular gov

The history of Amendment I suggests differently. Some people espose that Amendment I was intended only to prevent the establishment of a state church or state religion. But in reality, there were several versions of Amendment I that read something like "Congress shall make no law establishing a state church". If tAmendment I were simply to abolish a state church, then one of these more directly worded amendments would have been adopted. Yet, all of these were abandoned, in favor of "Congress shall make no loaw respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..." </font>[/QUOTE]In other words, Congress said she was not going to be involved in religious establishement or practice, at all.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by buckster75:
but it was an Ammendment. (added later)

The Bill of Rights were written by most of the same Framers that wrote the Constitution. Note that the Bill of Rights was ratified 1791, a mere three years after the Constitution was ratified.

However, whether an item in the Constitution is part of the original articles or one of the amendments, it makes no difference. No part, except where changed by amendment, is less valid or legal than the rest. Amendment XXVII, for example, is no less a part of the Constitution than Article I.

Originally posted by buckster75:
and are Bibles used in court anymore?

Bibles have bever been mandatory in court, since they are a defacto religious test, forbidden by the Constitution.

But, in regards to use, they're still used, in some places by custom, and in some places upon request.

Originally posted by C4K:
In other words, Congress said she was not going to be involved in religious establishement or practice, at all.

I think that's a simplistic, but reasonably accurate, way of saying it.

 

[buckster75]

I wasn't sure I remember they had people put hand on Bible and say "so help me God"

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by buckster75:
I wasn't sure I remember they had people put hand on Bible and say "so help me God"

That's not a requirement. Never has been. It's a custom started by Geo Washington when he took his oath of POTUS office. But it's never been a requirement.