Listen to the Founding Fathers
There are many individuals that feel our freedoms, those granted by the US Constitution, are under attack. Among those freedoms includes the freedom of religion. Our constitution prevents the government from establishing a national religion. Yet, we have managed to have religious symbolism everywhere we turn in our government. Ten Commandments displayed in various courthouses (recently ruled unconstitutional), “In God We Trust” on our currency, and lastly… even “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.
The Pledge of Allegiance did not include the words “under god” in its original form. In fact, in the early 1950’s, President Eisenhower signed legislation adopting the addition.
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." President Eisenhower (1954) after signing into law a bill to have "under God" added to the original pledge.
This move was clearly unconstitutional. This is exactly what our founding fathers, the author of the Constitution, and other Presidents following wanted and warned to prevent to prevent such legislation. One such founder, Thomas Jefferson, addressed this very matter directly with a religious organization.
"In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts. In most of the Govts. of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt." James Madison - Letter to Jasper Adams, 1832-1833 (date uncertain)
Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separate. Ulysses S. Grant, 1875
The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled in Newdow vs U.S. Congress that California Public Schools may not require its students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This case has been before the Supreme Court once before where the original ruling was that “under god” was unconstitutional, and (due to political, and to some extent social, pressure) the same judge that made the original ruling overturned and changed his own ruling.
Now, the Alberto Gonzalez, United States Attorney General, has vowed to overturn the latest courts ruling. (Chicago Tribune | Gonzales Says Justice to Fight for Pledge) Ironically, the oath of the Attorney General itself is un-constitutional as it states:
"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
How can he “support and defend the Constitution” if he is vowing to overturn a fundamental law of the very same document? It is a severe contradiction to swear by oath of office to uphold the Constitution and all that it represents while working to overturn a ruling a court decision on an issue that was obviously unconstitutional. Is he putting his faith and personal beliefs above the law? The ruling was correct. These were government funded/sponsored schools, therefore they are bound by the no establishment of a religion clause of the US Constitution. The ruling should stand.
So who exactly is doing the most damage to the freedoms provided to us by the US Constitution?
The Pledge of Allegiance did not include the words “under god” in its original form. In fact, in the early 1950’s, President Eisenhower signed legislation adopting the addition.
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." President Eisenhower (1954) after signing into law a bill to have "under God" added to the original pledge.
This move was clearly unconstitutional. This is exactly what our founding fathers, the author of the Constitution, and other Presidents following wanted and warned to prevent to prevent such legislation. One such founder, Thomas Jefferson, addressed this very matter directly with a religious organization.
"In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts. In most of the Govts. of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt." James Madison - Letter to Jasper Adams, 1832-1833 (date uncertain)
Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separate. Ulysses S. Grant, 1875
The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled in Newdow vs U.S. Congress that California Public Schools may not require its students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This case has been before the Supreme Court once before where the original ruling was that “under god” was unconstitutional, and (due to political, and to some extent social, pressure) the same judge that made the original ruling overturned and changed his own ruling.
Now, the Alberto Gonzalez, United States Attorney General, has vowed to overturn the latest courts ruling. (Chicago Tribune | Gonzales Says Justice to Fight for Pledge) Ironically, the oath of the Attorney General itself is un-constitutional as it states:
"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
How can he “support and defend the Constitution” if he is vowing to overturn a fundamental law of the very same document? It is a severe contradiction to swear by oath of office to uphold the Constitution and all that it represents while working to overturn a ruling a court decision on an issue that was obviously unconstitutional. Is he putting his faith and personal beliefs above the law? The ruling was correct. These were government funded/sponsored schools, therefore they are bound by the no establishment of a religion clause of the US Constitution. The ruling should stand.
So who exactly is doing the most damage to the freedoms provided to us by the US Constitution?
posted by Gatorrrrrr @ 4:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home