 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
News of interest to former Christians
In April, Herb Silverman, a professor of mathematics at the College of Charleston and president of the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry, challenged readers of the Charleston Post & Courier to find God in the Constitution. Skip Johnson, an author and former Post and Courier religion writer, took on the challenge in a column in the Oct. 2 issue of Faith & Values. This is Silverman's rebuttal.
When I offered $1,000 to anyone who could find the words God or Jesus in the U.S. Constitution, I hoped it would inspire many citizens to carefully read our wonderful founding document. I commend local writer Skip Johnson for doing exactly that, and for making the best case he could for claiming the reward.
Johnson could not find either the words God or Jesus in the Constitution. Therefore, he did not meet the condition of the challenge. But, reluctant to admit it, Johnson tried several inferential or interpretive arguments from the words he did find in the Constitution. He also brought up several other documents. I'll respond to each of his points.
Johnson mentioned that the Constitution was signed "in the year of our Lord." This was the standard way of dating important documents in the 18th century. Its use was conventional, not religious, just as today we may use B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini, Latin for "the year of our Lord").
Johnson next pointed out the constitutional requirement that elected officials take an oath or affirmation before they can serve. He claimed that oaths were necessarily a call to God even though the word "God" was not mentioned in the Constitution. However, at that time, kings would swear oaths by their crowns and knights would swear oaths by their knighthood, so the concept of swearing an oath to something other than God goes back a long time and was well-known in 1787.
Had our founders wanted officeholders to invoke God, they could have worded the oath to accomplish that objective. Instead, the oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution contains no reference to God, need not be administered on the Bible and need not even be considered an oath. The option to either swear an oath or to make an affirmation was written into our Constitution for the purpose of including those who did not feel comfortable swearing an oath to anything, not just to God or some other deity.
Johnson then turned to Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which allows the president an extra day to return a bill if the 10th day falls on a Sunday. He then hypothesized that the founders added this exception because they meant for Sunday to be a day of worship. He even contended that a case could thus be made that the Constitution is a Christian document.
In 1787, as now, Sunday was considered a day of rest. People were free to worship, rest or work. True, there were and are a large percentage of Christians in this country. An employer today who is an atheist may schedule Sundays off or excuse employees from working on their religious holidays.
For those who maintain we are a Christian country, I refer them to another document: Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which states, "As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion ..." This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate. It was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, but only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history.
So dates, oaths and Sundays are the only constitutional citations Johnson had to offer. He then attempted to buttress his argument for God's being in the Constitution with what he believes to be the "intent" of the founders.
First, Johnson mentioned that the Declaration of Independence refers to people being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. It is not a governing document. It was a call for rebellion against the British Crown. This emphasis on people having inalienable rights was a way for our founders to distinguish us from an empire that asserted the divine right of kings.
Johnson erred in thinking our currency in 1787 carried the motto "In God We Trust." The first such appearance came more than 75 years later during the Civil War, when both the North and South claimed to have God on their side. It didn't appear on all money until the shameful McCarthy era of the 1950s, also a time when "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
Johnson then turned to an inaugural address of George Washington in which Washington referred to an "Almighty Being." Imagine that! A politician alluding to a deity (though not explicitly God or Jesus). After giving instances of similar public acts by politicians, Johnson asked: "Does it really seem like the people who wrote the Constitution intended to keep God out of it?"
Well, yes! They were a lot wiser than Johnson gives them credit for being. They were careful and thoughtful writers. Had they wanted to put God into the Constitution, they would have done so, specifically by name. To his credit, Johnson mentioned that several of his examples are "hints" of God being in the Constitution. He used such hints to assert that "atheists, legal extremists and other nitpickers tried to sweep away the Constitution writers' obvious intent." Well, unlike political utterances, the Constitution really is a legal document, the law of our land. I admit to being a legal extremist if, by that term, Johnson means placing more value on the words of the Constitution than on his opinion of the obvious intent of its writers.
Just as interesting as what Johnson said was what he didn't say. He ignored the only two references to religion in the Constitution. Article VI says that "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." And the First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Johnson also failed to mention James Madison, affectionately known as the Father of our Constitution, who said, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the endless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." Our founders understood the devastating nature of holy wars. They wisely established a secular nation whose authority rests with "We the People" (the first three words of the U.S. Constitution) and not with "Thou the Deity."
When I offered $1,000 to anyone who could find the words God or Jesus in the U.S. Constitution, I hoped it would inspire many citizens to carefully read our wonderful founding document. I commend local writer Skip Johnson for doing exactly that, and for making the best case he could for claiming the reward.
Johnson could not find either the words God or Jesus in the Constitution. Therefore, he did not meet the condition of the challenge. But, reluctant to admit it, Johnson tried several inferential or interpretive arguments from the words he did find in the Constitution. He also brought up several other documents. I'll respond to each of his points.
Johnson mentioned that the Constitution was signed "in the year of our Lord." This was the standard way of dating important documents in the 18th century. Its use was conventional, not religious, just as today we may use B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini, Latin for "the year of our Lord").
Johnson next pointed out the constitutional requirement that elected officials take an oath or affirmation before they can serve. He claimed that oaths were necessarily a call to God even though the word "God" was not mentioned in the Constitution. However, at that time, kings would swear oaths by their crowns and knights would swear oaths by their knighthood, so the concept of swearing an oath to something other than God goes back a long time and was well-known in 1787.
Had our founders wanted officeholders to invoke God, they could have worded the oath to accomplish that objective. Instead, the oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution contains no reference to God, need not be administered on the Bible and need not even be considered an oath. The option to either swear an oath or to make an affirmation was written into our Constitution for the purpose of including those who did not feel comfortable swearing an oath to anything, not just to God or some other deity.
Johnson then turned to Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which allows the president an extra day to return a bill if the 10th day falls on a Sunday. He then hypothesized that the founders added this exception because they meant for Sunday to be a day of worship. He even contended that a case could thus be made that the Constitution is a Christian document.
In 1787, as now, Sunday was considered a day of rest. People were free to worship, rest or work. True, there were and are a large percentage of Christians in this country. An employer today who is an atheist may schedule Sundays off or excuse employees from working on their religious holidays.
For those who maintain we are a Christian country, I refer them to another document: Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which states, "As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion ..." This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate. It was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, but only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history.
So dates, oaths and Sundays are the only constitutional citations Johnson had to offer. He then attempted to buttress his argument for God's being in the Constitution with what he believes to be the "intent" of the founders.
First, Johnson mentioned that the Declaration of Independence refers to people being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution. It is not a governing document. It was a call for rebellion against the British Crown. This emphasis on people having inalienable rights was a way for our founders to distinguish us from an empire that asserted the divine right of kings.
Johnson erred in thinking our currency in 1787 carried the motto "In God We Trust." The first such appearance came more than 75 years later during the Civil War, when both the North and South claimed to have God on their side. It didn't appear on all money until the shameful McCarthy era of the 1950s, also a time when "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
Johnson then turned to an inaugural address of George Washington in which Washington referred to an "Almighty Being." Imagine that! A politician alluding to a deity (though not explicitly God or Jesus). After giving instances of similar public acts by politicians, Johnson asked: "Does it really seem like the people who wrote the Constitution intended to keep God out of it?"
Well, yes! They were a lot wiser than Johnson gives them credit for being. They were careful and thoughtful writers. Had they wanted to put God into the Constitution, they would have done so, specifically by name. To his credit, Johnson mentioned that several of his examples are "hints" of God being in the Constitution. He used such hints to assert that "atheists, legal extremists and other nitpickers tried to sweep away the Constitution writers' obvious intent." Well, unlike political utterances, the Constitution really is a legal document, the law of our land. I admit to being a legal extremist if, by that term, Johnson means placing more value on the words of the Constitution than on his opinion of the obvious intent of its writers.
Just as interesting as what Johnson said was what he didn't say. He ignored the only two references to religion in the Constitution. Article VI says that "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." And the First Amendment guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Johnson also failed to mention James Madison, affectionately known as the Father of our Constitution, who said, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the endless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." Our founders understood the devastating nature of holy wars. They wisely established a secular nation whose authority rests with "We the People" (the first three words of the U.S. Constitution) and not with "Thou the Deity."
The first 200 comments appear here under the article. If over 200 comments are posted, click on the "newer" and "newest" links on the Post a Comment page to continue reading the latest comments.
Subscribe to this post's Comments (Atom). Subscribe to every post's Comments (RSS).Quickly catch up on all recent comments posted on ExChristian.Net on the Recent Comments page.
<< Home
Shop
Previous News
Saenz charged with assault, resisting arrestPastor Arrested On Sexual Abuse Charges
Atheist Veterans Liken God to an 'Imaginary Friend...
Event to show support for atheists in military
Robertson warns Pennsylvania voters of God's wrath...
The Brontosaurus
Army Chaplain Sentenced For Sodomizing Troops
Police accuse pastor of selling house, too
Medina pastor charged with rape
Father tells court he trusted God to heal sick son...
Top Posts This Month
Books, DVDs, etc.
Topics: Leaving Christianity
Atheism
Parenting w/o religion
Skepticism
Science vs. Religion
Evolution
Bible
Ethics & Logic
Authors:
Isaac Asimov
Dan Barker
Clarence Darrow
Richard Dawkins
Daniel C. Dennett
Stephen Jay Gould
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Robert Ingersoll
Robert M. Price
Carl Sagan
Michael Shermer
Julia Sweeney
Misc:
Various works
Audio Books
Apparel
DVDs
Magazines
Software & Games
Recent activity in the forums
Blog stats
Disclaimer
Click here and readbefore commenting
Search this site
Translate
Donate
Help support this site with a one time donation:
First things
WebMaster's Anti-Testimony I don't have enough faith to be a Christian
Conversion, Spiritual Epiphanies and Mystical Experiences
Not ready to be nice
Test Your Bible Knowledge
Take the Gospel Story Quiz - English
Take the Gospel Story Quiz - French
Compact Bible Errors Helper
Anti-Tracts Archive
Becoming an Ex-Christian
A Letter to CHRISTIANS
A Plea to TRUE Christians
Recent Comments
Click here to read all the latests comments and even subscribe to receive updates of recent comments posted to ExChristian.Net.
Email updates via
|
|
Join the ExChristian.Net Google Group notification list to receive an email whenever a new article is posted. |
| Visit this group |
Blog Roll
Or, perhaps show what Religion "doesn't" offer or guarantee... and its negative impact...
Next, one could determine "why" religion "doesn't" offer or guarantee its claims...
Then, of course, "alternative" belief systems that don't suffer from the same problems will obviously be more attractive...
Universal "Absolute" Truths are extremely easy to disprove, besides Change, and therefore, any belief system that doesn't work from this premise will clash with a culture and society who change over time, which create and follow newly set morals and legal guidance... Religion by default is an absolute belief system... For an absolute belief system, religion doesn't "guarantee" that its followers will be more moral, it doesn't guarantee, that they will be less criminal, as a matter of fact, religions push "guarantees", but... they don't have "one" guarantee based solely on their "belief" system, in this life, or after death... Making "absolute" statements and guarantees to people, and telling them all they need do, is follow the clergy's guidance... is Lying... Blind promises, are "Lies"... Any person who Values Honesty, in a strict sense, will at that point have to search for a belief system that isn't "absolute", and offering "lies"...
Methodological Naturalists are considered by many religious people to be Atheists, because they don't accept "SuperNatural" gods, blindly, and without evidence, however, Methodological Naturalists still hold out that there could be evidence, but, it would be a "lie" to give "credibility" to a belief system without "any" evidence... There are no lies, there are no absolutes, this would seem attractive to anyone wanting to establish a belief system with Honesty as a core Value... There are Other belief systems that don't rest on "absolutes", but, your point was against Atheism, and what it offers... "Honesty"... Its hard to cognitively reconcile a belief system "continuously" every second of someones' subconscious life, because a religion pushes for morality, justice, mercy, humility, etc., and the origin/foundation is founded on "lies"... Some people just need peace in this life, withotu torment, and making their mind bend unnaturally...
Also, if one is looking for "something" Atheism offers, its obvious, there are materialistic rewards, and then there are personal rewards... Atheism doesn't offer golden streets, or pearly gates, or a hundred virgins in heaven, so on that level I suppose Atheism loses, because of "noble" honesty... The gains of course for Atheism would be in peace and harmony of ones' own mind, its a hard thing to prostitute ones' mind for material wealth, whether it be in the here and now, or some afterlife...
The Treaty of Tripoli stands as a resounding FACT that our country is not run by a christian government. To state otherwise is re-writting history or is completely ignorant of history. Then again, religous fanatics are generally ignorant!
Its not a matter of "wishing" like religion is famous for... its a matter of what's in writing... The Constitution has made it plain that there indeed will 'Be' a seaparion of Church and State by ensuring there be no 'Religious' test to hold public office, and further made ammendment to proclaim that places of public interest where citizens are required to attend, not be affiliated with "religious" connotation, hence the pissing contest between the psychotoc morons of religion and those who believe in "freedom", and the "framework" of the constitution...
From a Federal Web-site... where some child is obviously trying to grasp the oh, so complex writing of the Constitution, perhaps you can write in also... Chuckster...
"Q42. "I have to give a persuasive speech on how I think a Bible class should be offered, as an elective at public schools (or at least for them to be possible to allow). I am going to give examples of how the Constitution changes through interpretation, but I would like to know what were the most recent amendments added on and how they effected the old ways. I'm trying to convince that it's possible for the Constitution to alter in order to allow a Bible class to be offered, giving the Bible is a historic document and that it is based on facts."
A. I think that any school would be (and should be) allowed to teach about the Bible as an historical and literary book. I don't think that it should be taught as a religious book, per se, unless it were a course on religious texts in general, part of a series of texts which might include Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam. When I went to high school we had a class called "The Bible as Literature." In that context, the Bible is not promoted as a part of any religion. It is being examined as any book would be, but because of its historical nature, its many versions, and its length, you can have a full semester class devoted to it.
If you are trying to argue that a class that celebrates the Bible as a Christian Holy Book, which may include praying and sermonizing, then you have a hard row to hoe. I don't see as likely any such class being taught in a public school, short of an amendment to the Constitution.
To answer your questions specifically, to see what the most recent amendments are you simply need to look at the document itself. The last concerned congressional pay. The next concerns voting age. Before that, clarification of the line of succession to the presidency. Before that, a bar to poll taxes. And the last since 1960, Washington D.C. residents were granted suffrage. THERE IS NOTHING NEW IN THE CONSTITUTION CONCERNING RELIGION IN THE PAST 200 YEARS. You can look to the decisions of the Supreme Court to see how they have applied the so-called separation of church and state. Could the Constitution be changed the allow more religion in the schools? It could, but I don't think it ever will."
www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a3.html
No Religious test required, meaning, total removal from religious foundations... PERIOD... And since there have been no changes, what does the Constitution read to date:
"Article 6 - The United States
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES."
www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html
Uh, Supreme law of the land, you can boot out religion as being Supreme's equal. Furthermore, no religious test, means, Separation, no specific "conscience", need apply, hence, a guarantee of freedom of conscience, to hold public office - and the Constitution "forbids it", be a litmus test. The Constitution is The Supreme Law of the Land, therefore, State Laws must follow suit.
"The Presidential Oath of Office is codified in the Constitution in this way:
I do solemnly swear (OR AFFIRM) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html#original
Hope you caught, the "Or Affirm" piece, that's for the future President's that believe in Evolution. In regard to 'any' freedom of conscience, its plainly evident that there is Deliberately No requirement for a specific conscience to hold the highest office of the U.S.
Is there a freedom of conscience, so that there not be Discrimination, in public schools governed by States, or any federally funded institution? Lets see...
"Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868."
"5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Obviously, the framers, ensured that freedom of conscience was Required for the keepers of the keys, so that no one belief system/group could gain control of the governing powers and build a theocracy by legislating religious dogma. Then, they passed the 14th Amendment in 1868, to ensure Congress could put forth appropriate Legislation to enforce freedom of conscience, without discrimination.
Lets see if Congress followed up on the freedom of conscience.
"Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under . Discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in public establishments that had a connection to interstate commerce or was supported by the state is prohibited. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. Public establishments include places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, motels, trailer parks), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns, and places of entertainment in general. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation also DECLARED A STRONG LEGISLATIVE POLICY AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES WHICH AIDED IN DESEGREGATION. Title VI of the civil rights act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs."
www.law.cornell.edu/topics/civil_rights.html
So, yes, the Constitution does guarantee freedom of conscience, (Separation of Church and State) specifically to those who will ever hold public office, and then the Constitution delegated Power to Congress to ensure freedom of conscience nationally. I think, the delegation of Power in and of itself, is significant enough on its own, to show that the framers ensured there would be a Mechanism for protecting diversity caused by cultural change - hence freedom of conscience.
Now, lets see, does:
"freedom of conscience" = "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" = Separation of Church and State...
I wonder why they don't teach this in civic class in high-school... Oh, that's right, they do...
So, instead of entering that realm of higher order critical thinking, we have to disallow a "true" education with philosophy from entering the public school system, because of those who would exploit the chance, to push their "agenda"... and religion... churches, etc... all have an agenda...
Home bound children being taught by parents will only increase as the public school systems become more and more restrictive, regarding philosophy of education... due to the fact, that the religious extremists continue to "force" the courts to make tighter and tighter limits on the public education system...
At some point, if the morons keep it up, children will only be going to school, to learn route memory information, Only, and spitting the memorized information out on a test, with no higher order thinking engaged... so, the development of "innovative" and "creative" children, will be lost in the science, and math classes... uh, and isn't that where the U.S. is falling behind in relation to other nations... yes, I believe it is...
Religion, and its paid advocates have done nothing to enhance science, they have attached themselves to the natural sciences, in order to prevent "philosophical" renderings from occurring in the classroom... which again, inhibits a childs' ability to "apply" the information, or "anchor" it in this reality... and further contemplate "innovative" ways to entend the knowledge base for humanity...
I don't see the pendulum swinging Lenny... As a matter of fact, the constitution has been written for quite a while now, and is pretty explicit on what the parameters are for federal and state sponsored events... You see Lenny, there are intellectually handicapped freaks or victims of society in this nation who actually believe that "God" is in the Constitution... Some, who are supposed to be "educated", i.e., Judges, Lawyers, etc., should know this, but... "NO"... Here's an example;
"USA, Sep 25 (VNN) — Commentary by Bill Press - September 03, 2003 Thank God for the people of Alabama. They make the rest of us look normal.
A band of Alabama zealots, led by Chief Justice Roy Moore, are determined to keep a monument of the Ten Commandments prominently displayed in an Alabama judicial building.
Under orders of a federal judge, the 5,300-pound monument known as "Roy's Rock" was moved out of the building's rotunda - where it had been installed by Moore in the middle of the night two years ago. Moore has been suspended as chief justice for REFUSING TO OBEY THE LAW. But he and his deluded followers insist they will continue their protests and legal battles until Moore is back on the bench and the giant granite tablets are back in their place of honor."
http://www.vnn.org/usa/US0309/US25-8370.html
Lenny: "You won't win that way."
One judge down, more to go...
Lenny, you are obviously ignorant of the pendulum... This nation has yet to swing to the side, where the entire nation is actually following the Constitution by the letter of the law, i.e., Judges running their own little religious campaigns in the middle of the night...
"Anything" for religion, even breaking the law as a "Juge"... Morality? Ethics? If religion makes it into the "Writing" of the constitution, or other federal documentation, there will be "war", and it won't be civil... the Atheists are attempting to get this nation back to the basic foundations of the Constitution, and insure those premises are being enforced... It is the religious zealots, who are attempting to re-write or ammend the Constitution to include Religion, because at this moment, they are breaking the law, when they place religious rhetoric anywhere within a federal or state sanctioned event... that includes, employment, etc...
Lenny: "But you are going to lose. You do realize that don't you?"
The only way an Atheist is going to lose, is if the Constitution is ammended to include a Religious test for holding office, and separation of Church and State are then removed... But then, this nation becomes a theocracy, with mandated religious laws following... If the Atheist loses, the battle to keep this country's Judges, political leaders, etc., in line with the Constitutional laws, etc., and this nation becomes a theocracy, the Athiests will be effected...
However, if that occurs, I plan on mailing all the religious zealots, a list of their rivaling denominations, so they can murder eachother, in the name of their God...
"Pierce is one of only three presidents to affirm the Oath of Office, the two other being Herbert Hoover, who chose to "affirm" rather than "swear" because of his Quaker beliefs, and John Tyler. He is also one of only two not to take the oath on the Bible (Theodore Roosevelt did not place his hand on anything at all)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Pierce#Beginnings