Replies

btw, some other good quotes:

Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, & a very unexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants.
Thomas Jefferson

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.
James Madison

The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. ... The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States?
- Thomas Jefferson (Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805)

traviskicks, I’m wondering whether you might have any insight into why Michael Newdow would so object to the “under God” language of the Pledge of Allegiance that he would make a personal crusade out of legally extirpating it, which arguably he has done.

And finally found a sympathetic federal judge who ruled the language “unconstitutional.” Of course, the decision will be appealed, no news there. My questions go to the reason of Newdow’s animosity, and to the question of how a federal judge had reached this conclusion.

The way I analyze the problem: The first inalienable right of the Bill of Rights is freedom of religion, otherwise known as freedom of conscience. There are two clauses that refer to this right. The first — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” — clearly restrains federal power vis-à-vis the states in matters of religion/conscience. At the time of the Founding, several states had “established” (i.e., “official”) churches of their own, and were mighty jealous to preserve them. The second — “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — extends to the personal sphere: the federal government may not prohibit religious practice or the right of conscience more generally, with respect to the human person. Indeed, this is the government’s most basic pledge to free men — to get “out of their face” when it comes to matters spiritual.

The problem I’m having with the Newdow case is I don’t see how the “under God” language is a constitutional issue. Because (1) that language was authorized by due, legitimate enactment of Congress. Now Congress is — under the constitutional framework — supposed to be the closest governmental body to the People there is — and of the three equal yet separate and balanced powers, the one most directly responsible/accountable to them.

What I want to know is: Where is the interest of the “sovereign states” in the Newdow matter? Where the interest of (2) the human person? Does Newdow really imagine that ideas of God contribute to the delinquency of minors? Or somehow subvert the civil peace? If that is the case, by such criteria of judgment as he employs, pornography gets an easier ride in contemporary culture than religion does.

But the real question is: Can a supposedly “sane” society justify such things?

This problem became topical for me with the recent observation of a friend, who noted that Christianity is in severe decline in contemporary society, and that contemporary society is not the least bit affected by this trend.

I have strong doubts about both statements. I wonder what you think.

Thanks so very much for your informative and thought-provocative essay/post, and for the great quotes!