I have long been perplexed and frustrated by those who take from history only what supports their position. This is especially true of those who seek to pick and choose from the Constitution. This phenomenon occurs throughout the political spectrum as the politically-motivated twist and spin the foundations of liberty for their cause.
First case in point: the Second Amendment. Regardless of the ad nauseum debates about commas, grammar and the definitions of "well-regulated" and "militia", the most objective conclusion is that the founders would not have included the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" had they not intended for such a right to exist. Expanding on that, they probably would not have not included this short paragraph in what amounted to a "Bill of Rights" had it not been intended to enumerate (remember, not establish) such a right.
Of course, debate still rages. Political passion has turned many people who would fight to the death to preserve a strict interpretation of the rest of the Bill of Rights, against any such interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Another example of this conundrum comes from conservatives, chiefly the "evangelical" variety, who both ardently argue the uncompromising clarity of the Second Amendment and just as passionately that the inclusion of religious phrases in our Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency are lawful, right, and constitutionally allowed. They often remind us that the founders were religious folks, and that they intended and believed God to be a part of our national institutions. (1)
This is most likely the truth. But why, then, is the Constitution's only reference to religion, other than the "no test" for public office clause, the prohibition of Congress establishing or preventing the free exercise thereof? It seems logical that a person working under the same strict and objective interpretation that was applied to the Second Amendment would hold that laws made by Congress requiring the use of the phrases "In God We Trust" and "under God" violate both the free-exercise test (by requiring citizens to make a pledge and use currency that includes a specific religious reference) and the establishment clause (by specifying a religious deity under which our nation lives and in which it, apparently, should trust).
After all, what of those religious Americans who do not believe in "God", per se? A 2007 Pew study on religious affiliation found that as many as 1 in 10 Americans are either atheist, agnostic, or secular in their beliefs. (8) What about these citizens? Aren't they also entitled to the protection from establishment of religion? Or do rights exist only at the whim of the majority? What if the people someday elected a Muslim majority to Congress? I have a feeling that today's proponents of these phrases would sing a different tune if Congress voted to change them to "In Allah we Trust" and "...one nation, under Allah".
But, back to the constitutional dilemma. These dedicated guardians of the Second Amendment nearly take up their arms when presented with the idea that "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional. While it is true that religion is a major part of our nation's history and that most of the founders were pious men and that many traditions, morals, culture and heritage do come from religious roots, the constitution prohibits this. Regardless of whether one agrees, as did the Supreme Court in Zorach (2), that our nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" the Constitution simply does not, and no truly free nation can exist otherwise.
It was written in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (3), that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". At that time, with the barely 8 year old Constitution and its founders' intent still fresh in the mind, the statement was true. But 158 years later Congress found that it would be of "great spiritual and psychological value" to adopt the national motto, "In God We Trust". (4) Today, the premise of that passage in the treaty is readily dismissed as contextual. (5)
It does not surprise me that a McCarthy-era Congress and Supreme Court in a nation whose adult population was over 80% Christian would muscle through such measures. It does, however, surprise me that they have endured.
As of 2003, these phrases continue to enjoy enjoy a 90% approval rating (6) in a nation that remains around 80% Christian (7). But in that math lies my entire point. It is easy to look past the 10% of non-believers and say they are overruled by a 90% majority. But rights are not democratically derived! They are, to borrow an argument from the majority, "God-given". To our founders those rights most certainly included the exercise of any of the world's 10,000-some odd religions -- or the right to exercise none at all.
Abrogating the rights of the few to recognize the deity of the many, for the purpose of improving the "spiritual and psychological" health of the nation, was a pure abomination. Our founders understood that liberty, like religion, is not a matter of opinion. Just as the pious believe in their religions' fundamental truths, it is fundamentally true that specifying a religious deity under which this country exists is an affront to individual liberty.
But like so many truths, this one is easily clouded by religious passion -- the very reason our founders chose to leave religion out of the American equation. Both religion and government would be well served by the 90% majority learning to distinguish these religious men from the nation they founded, and their beliefs from the freedom to believe them. We can only hope that the future does not hold the application of this double-standard to more of our "God-given" and inalienable rights.
--
1. "Wall Builders" website, http://www.wallbuilders.com/default.asp
2. Zorach v. Coulson 343 U.S. 306 (1952). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=343&page=306
3. Wikipedia - Treaty of Tripoli. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
4. Congressional Record, 1956, p.13917. http://www.nonbeliever.org/images/CR102-13917.pdf
5. Wall Builders- Treaty of Tripoli. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125
6. Gallup Poll, 2003. http://www.gallup.com/poll/9391/Americans-Approve-Public-Displays-Religious-Symbols.aspx
7. Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel1.htm
8. The Pew Forum, "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey", 2007. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment