thedrifter
05-05-04, 01:36 PM
Sunday, May 2, 2004
'Under God' - freedom, not religion
By Phil Lucas
Executive Editor
God has enemies in America. So does freedom. They are the same ones. The trick, if you oppose freedom, is to remove God from public discourse. That makes liberty an easier mark. If you can pull this off in the name of freedom itself, so much the better. Americans will never know what hit them.
The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in March to decide whether the words "under God" shall remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. A ruling is expected in summer.
Arguments were heard, as always, in a room in which the Ten Commandments are ensconced high upon the wall, which puts the justices, inconveniently, "under God" themselves. No matter. The Commandments are a relic among many others put there by an architect from long ago. This august body has tacitly banished these same Commandments from public places across the land.
Upon this surreal stage, the court pondered "under God," as in the line, "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Many of us said those words on sleepy spring mornings, standing amongst our desks and books, hands over our hearts, facing dutifully toward the front. It became rote, just another ceremony of civil society.
It might surprise you to learn you were praying. That is one argument the court heard. The justices took it seriously, most of them too old to have ever said "under God" in school. They heard also that the pledge is an unconstitutional government-sponsored endorsement of religion.
Oh my.
If you love football, here’s hoping the government doesn’t sponsor the Super Bowl.
As usual the arguments have been diverted to religion, guaranteed to get everybody’s blood boiling.
A California man, Michael Newdow, brought this case. His daughter attends a school where the pledge is recited. An atheist, he sued. Simultaneously, he was fighting for custody of the child with the girl’s mother, a Christian. Newdow has issues in his life. His problems have now become ours. Did I mention he is a lawyer, too? Argued his own case.
Other lawyers support him, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-ofthe-court brief.
As the name implies, the ACLU supports liberties, most spectacularly for drug dealers, pornographers and would-be terrorists, which, but for the grace of God, there go we all. So goes their reasoning, minus the God, of course.
Ever vigilant, the ACLU misses no opportunity to purge the country of relics of the past, such as the Boy Scouts, marriage and public references to God. They do it in the name of freedom. They label such things un-American and seek redress through federal courts, the branch of our government most out of touch with the people it serves.
Thomas Jefferson feared an imperial court. He called Supreme Court justices "bold speculators" on the nation’s patience, "secure for life," independent of the will of the people.
For good reason, it turns out.
To further stack the deck, Newdow asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself. Scalia had commented on the case in public.
Stung from criticism that he would not step down from a case involving hunting pal Dick Cheney, Scalia came down with a touch of propriety and acquiesced.
Evidently, it wasn’t contagious. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remained. From 1973 to 1980 Ginsburg was general counsel of the ACLU. For six years she served on its board of directors.
Let’s see if we have this right. Scalia stays on a case involving his hunting pal, and he gets hammered. Ginsburg stays on a case in which her pals at the ACLU have a dog in the fight, and she tiptoes through the tulips.
Good thing for the country she’s impartial.
Scalia should take two aspirin and report to work. The court has long passed any shame over appearances.
The justices will agonize the details of this case: when "under God" was added to the pledge, the intent of that addition, the tea leaves of religion and the phases of the moon.
Meanwhile, Americans, 90 percent of whom want the words to stay, can consider the big picture, such as whether it is time to amend Article III of the Constitution with term limits for the federal judiciary.
Americans might also consider the real meaning of God in our form of government, the flip side of "In God We Trust," which is, "In Men We Don’t."
In our government, God is an idea, the central concept upon which the whole country is built. God makes possible our overarching concept of liberty, meaning the entire nation is, indeed, "under God."
God, not men, endows individual liberty and other natural rights. Men form governments to secure those liberties. When government fails to do so, we may alter or abolish it. We have that right. We have that obligation. An individual does not even have the power to give away his own liberty. It is "unalienable."
Don’t take my word for it. Read the first two paragraphs of The Declaration of Independence. That old architect Jefferson wrote it. It lays out the political philosophy upon which the nation was founded and our Constitution written.
Jefferson’s use of the words God and Creator included "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination," according to his autobiography. We don’t need an autobiography to figure that out. He wrote the Declaration in English.
This concept of a Creator was a revolutionary idea in the government of men. It made freedom unassailable and unalienable, even by religion, even by government, because what men cannot give, men cannot take away. Liberty is guaranteed by God.
If this idea makes you squirm, or if you oppose it, with what or whom do you propose to replace it?
Like the Declaration and Constitution, God and liberty cannot be halved, lest we lose both. It’s not about religion. It’s about freedom. If you think otherwise, you have taken the bait.
http://www.newsherald.com/viewpoint/phillucas/040502.shtml
Ellie
'Under God' - freedom, not religion
By Phil Lucas
Executive Editor
God has enemies in America. So does freedom. They are the same ones. The trick, if you oppose freedom, is to remove God from public discourse. That makes liberty an easier mark. If you can pull this off in the name of freedom itself, so much the better. Americans will never know what hit them.
The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in March to decide whether the words "under God" shall remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. A ruling is expected in summer.
Arguments were heard, as always, in a room in which the Ten Commandments are ensconced high upon the wall, which puts the justices, inconveniently, "under God" themselves. No matter. The Commandments are a relic among many others put there by an architect from long ago. This august body has tacitly banished these same Commandments from public places across the land.
Upon this surreal stage, the court pondered "under God," as in the line, "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Many of us said those words on sleepy spring mornings, standing amongst our desks and books, hands over our hearts, facing dutifully toward the front. It became rote, just another ceremony of civil society.
It might surprise you to learn you were praying. That is one argument the court heard. The justices took it seriously, most of them too old to have ever said "under God" in school. They heard also that the pledge is an unconstitutional government-sponsored endorsement of religion.
Oh my.
If you love football, here’s hoping the government doesn’t sponsor the Super Bowl.
As usual the arguments have been diverted to religion, guaranteed to get everybody’s blood boiling.
A California man, Michael Newdow, brought this case. His daughter attends a school where the pledge is recited. An atheist, he sued. Simultaneously, he was fighting for custody of the child with the girl’s mother, a Christian. Newdow has issues in his life. His problems have now become ours. Did I mention he is a lawyer, too? Argued his own case.
Other lawyers support him, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-ofthe-court brief.
As the name implies, the ACLU supports liberties, most spectacularly for drug dealers, pornographers and would-be terrorists, which, but for the grace of God, there go we all. So goes their reasoning, minus the God, of course.
Ever vigilant, the ACLU misses no opportunity to purge the country of relics of the past, such as the Boy Scouts, marriage and public references to God. They do it in the name of freedom. They label such things un-American and seek redress through federal courts, the branch of our government most out of touch with the people it serves.
Thomas Jefferson feared an imperial court. He called Supreme Court justices "bold speculators" on the nation’s patience, "secure for life," independent of the will of the people.
For good reason, it turns out.
To further stack the deck, Newdow asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself. Scalia had commented on the case in public.
Stung from criticism that he would not step down from a case involving hunting pal Dick Cheney, Scalia came down with a touch of propriety and acquiesced.
Evidently, it wasn’t contagious. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remained. From 1973 to 1980 Ginsburg was general counsel of the ACLU. For six years she served on its board of directors.
Let’s see if we have this right. Scalia stays on a case involving his hunting pal, and he gets hammered. Ginsburg stays on a case in which her pals at the ACLU have a dog in the fight, and she tiptoes through the tulips.
Good thing for the country she’s impartial.
Scalia should take two aspirin and report to work. The court has long passed any shame over appearances.
The justices will agonize the details of this case: when "under God" was added to the pledge, the intent of that addition, the tea leaves of religion and the phases of the moon.
Meanwhile, Americans, 90 percent of whom want the words to stay, can consider the big picture, such as whether it is time to amend Article III of the Constitution with term limits for the federal judiciary.
Americans might also consider the real meaning of God in our form of government, the flip side of "In God We Trust," which is, "In Men We Don’t."
In our government, God is an idea, the central concept upon which the whole country is built. God makes possible our overarching concept of liberty, meaning the entire nation is, indeed, "under God."
God, not men, endows individual liberty and other natural rights. Men form governments to secure those liberties. When government fails to do so, we may alter or abolish it. We have that right. We have that obligation. An individual does not even have the power to give away his own liberty. It is "unalienable."
Don’t take my word for it. Read the first two paragraphs of The Declaration of Independence. That old architect Jefferson wrote it. It lays out the political philosophy upon which the nation was founded and our Constitution written.
Jefferson’s use of the words God and Creator included "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination," according to his autobiography. We don’t need an autobiography to figure that out. He wrote the Declaration in English.
This concept of a Creator was a revolutionary idea in the government of men. It made freedom unassailable and unalienable, even by religion, even by government, because what men cannot give, men cannot take away. Liberty is guaranteed by God.
If this idea makes you squirm, or if you oppose it, with what or whom do you propose to replace it?
Like the Declaration and Constitution, God and liberty cannot be halved, lest we lose both. It’s not about religion. It’s about freedom. If you think otherwise, you have taken the bait.
http://www.newsherald.com/viewpoint/phillucas/040502.shtml
Ellie