Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Constitution - Reference to God
US Constitution ^ | 6/28/02 | Nightshift

Posted on 06/28/2002 10:34:43 PM PDT by Nightshift

Is there any reference to God in the US Constitution?

I have watched many news shows lately and have heard many say that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. However, I have found a reference to God that these people have overlooked or just plain ignored.

Below is the last paragraph of the Constitution prior to being signed.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

From what I see, the signers of this Constitution recognize the exsitance of God. If they (the signers) wanted to keep God out why didn't they just write; the seventeenth day of September in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven or the seventeenth day of September in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States of America.

I would like to hear comments on this


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitution; god
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: B.R. Burton
Well said
21 posted on 06/29/2002 12:06:26 AM PDT by Nightshift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift
Well usually while you dont have a hold of it your holding a weapon keeps em from grasping it !
22 posted on 06/29/2002 12:08:08 AM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: B.R. Burton
If "year of our Lord" is Constitutional, then "Under God" should also be.

The usage of "A.D." or "Anno Domini" or "In the Year of the Lord" by the government is clearly Constitutional, for two reasons: it is standard practice in society (where the usage is not seen as implying any acceptance or endorsement of any religious belief--atheists commonly use it), and there is no law, that has any religious purpose, that requires anyone to use any of those phrases.

The California law that was ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit is a different matter altogether. A law requiring a recital of words that imply belief in God is not the same thing at all as the occurrence of the word "God" in some government document. For example, it would be Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that would forbid the words "In God We Trust" from appearing on legal tender. This clearly shows that the mere occurrence of the word "God" on government documents is not the issue.

23 posted on 06/29/2002 12:08:49 AM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift
Besides God said turn the other cheek well he didnt say stand and get yourself killed what do you do when you run out of cheeks? fight like he##!
24 posted on 06/29/2002 12:10:40 AM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
touché
25 posted on 06/29/2002 12:11:00 AM PDT by Nightshift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
A law requiring a recital of words

It not a law requiring each student to say the pledge. They have the option not to recite it. They are not being forced to recite it. They just don't want their child to make that choice. It would be to difficult for them to do.

26 posted on 06/29/2002 12:15:54 AM PDT by Nightshift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift
Our society and culture was influenced by a religion, and that the composition of the declaration of independence and the constitution were also influenced by this same religion. Did I read this right?

Yes. Our culture is heavily influenced by Christianity, although somewhat less so now than was the case two hundred years ago.

27 posted on 06/29/2002 12:17:09 AM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
This clearly shows that the mere occurrence of the word "God" on government documents is not the issue.

If this not the issue, then what are the atheists all upset about. They don't won't God anywhere, especially in the government, in words or on paper.

28 posted on 06/29/2002 12:20:41 AM PDT by Nightshift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
"and there is no law, that has any religious purpose, that requires anyone to use any of those phrases."

No one is required to say the pledge either.
29 posted on 06/29/2002 12:23:32 AM PDT by B.R. Burton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
I agree that this influence is somewhat less, but is still the dominant influence. I believe that most Americans want this influence of God to continue. We should not change that influence to accommadate the minority, such as Mr Newdow. For if we did that, then almost all the laws in this country would have to be changed. Is that not the reason we need a two thirds vote in congress (if the then president vetos the bill) to change or make new law.

It is the clear intent of atheists to this, but they are not the majority. So, since this culture is majority then the influence should remain.

30 posted on 06/29/2002 12:36:59 AM PDT by Nightshift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift
The law requires the teacher (a government employee) to recite the words, with the students as a captive audience. It also sets up a situation where there is strong peer/social pressure on the students to recite the pledge along with the teacher.

How is it that requiring a teacher to recite a pledge whose words strongly imply belief in a Supreme Being does not clearly constitute an "establishment of religion"?

How is it that requiring students to listen to their teacher recite a pledge whose words strongly imply belief in a Supreme Being does not clearly constitute an "establishment of religion"?

How is it that subjecting students (by force of law) to a situation where they will daily experience strong peer/social pressure to recite a pledge whose words strongly imply belief in a Supreme Being does not clearly constitute an "establishment of religion"?

When the law says you must stop at a stop sign, it means you must come to a complete stop. The Constitutional prohibition against laws that establish religion is no different. Once you start allowing the scofflaws to slide by at one mile an hour, they'll start pushing for ever greater relaxation of the restrictions. What part of "Congress shall pass no law" don't you understand?
31 posted on 06/29/2002 12:40:24 AM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
How is it that requiring students to listen to their teacher recite a pledge whose words strongly imply belief in a Supreme Being does not clearly constitute an "establishment of religion"?

The congress did not establish any religion, but only acknowleged that God exsits and gave us those inalienable rights that we have today (See Declaration of Independence) So what are our rights given to us by the creator? Look at the US Constitution and the Bill of rights. This is what the founding fathers wanted us to have. Rights, given to us by our creator (a clear acknowledement of God) not men. The Declaration of Independence and the Constiitution was influenced by men that believed in God.

If this establishes a religion, then the declaration of independence and the constitution are both unconstitutional and that our inalienable rights are unconstitutional. Should we then rewrite them?

However,I do agree that the child should not have to listen to other children recite the pledge,but dealing with peer pressure is something we all do all of our life.

32 posted on 06/29/2002 1:34:41 AM PDT by Nightshift
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
What part of "Congress shall pass no law" don't you understand?

Well, let's look at that phrase. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; etc.

Now, let's parse, shall we? Congress shall make no law...This pertained to the U.S. House and Senate, not state legislatures, not town councils, not school boards. Is saying the pledge in California a U.S. law or a local one? I believe it is local.

Next, respecting the establishment of religion. This means there will be no national church, such as the Church of England. It did not refer to individual states or towns. A state could have had it's own church and taxed everyone for its upkeep.

Last section, or prohibit the free exercise thereof;. This says that Congress doesn't have the right to tell people they can't read a bible in public, or pray at a football game. It says mind your business, you power hungry little creeps in Congress.

The whole problem has come up because the Supremes feel it is their job to expand the role of government into every facet of people's lives, and we let them.

If we were to truly follow the Constitution, There would be public schools whose flavor would tend mostly Christian, although many different denominations would be represented, a few Jewish, and a couple less Moslem. There would be others who would vote for no religious references, but it would be done at the district level and not the national.

33 posted on 06/29/2002 8:08:30 AM PDT by Betty Jane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
The use of BC and AD for numbering calendar years was invented by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 AD.

Very interesting and concise. However, for the record, the correct way to express that date is AD 525, not 525 AD.

34 posted on 06/29/2002 11:12:48 AM PDT by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift
The congress did not establish any religion, but only acknowleged that God exsits and gave us those inalienable rights that we have today (See Declaration of Independence)

The law passed by the California legislature that was invalidated by the Ninth Circuit absolutely and undeniably does have the effect of establishing theistic religion, for two separate reasons: because it requires teachers to recite a pledge that strongly implies belief in a Supreme Being, and because it creates a situation where students must either recite the same pledge along with the teacher, or listen while others do so (a clear and undeniable attempt to establish religious belief by indoctrination).

Imagine a law that required you to always answer the door whenever the Jehovah's Witnesses came calling, and to always listen to them for at least two minutes. If such a law would be Unconstitutional, then (for the same reasons) so is any law requiring anyone to listen to a pledge that strongly implies either the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Being.

So what are our rights given to us by the creator? Look at the US Constitution and the Bill of rights. This is what the founding fathers wanted us to have. Rights, given to us by our creator (a clear acknowledement of God) not men. The Declaration of Independence and the Constiitution was influenced by men that believed in God.

If this establishes a religion, then the declaration of independence and the constitution are both unconstitutional and that our inalienable rights are unconstitutional. Should we then rewrite them?

No one is claiming that the Founders and the Framers were not Christian, or that the decisions they made when writing the Constitution were not motivated by their religious beliefs. Just because a religion has a strong prohibition against ever using the power of the government to promote, endorse, or establish the beliefs or practices of any religion, and just because those who write a Constitution are followers of such a religion, and so include a prohibition in their Constitution against any use of government power in favor of any particular religion, and even cite their Holy Scriptures in the Constitution as the authority for the prohibition, does not make the prohibition, or the Constitution which contains it, Unconstitutional. To make any such unfounded claim reveals a deep and disturbing lack of understanding of the distinction between a Constitution and the government it creates.

The strictures of a Constitution apply to the government it creates, not to the Constitution itself.

35 posted on 06/29/2002 12:58:44 PM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
You are wrong. No law "required the recital" of anything, including the Pledge. That is why the panel of the Ninth Circus is FOS.
36 posted on 06/29/2002 1:11:59 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Betty Jane
Now, let's parse, shall we? Congress shall make no law...This pertained to the U.S. House and Senate, not state legislatures, not town councils, not school boards. Is saying the pledge in California a U.S. law or a local one? I believe it is local.
Ammendment XIV. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note also that the First Ammendment is not granting or creating a right to free speech or freedom of religion, but simply recognizing those rights as the inalienable rights that any and all individuals have against any government whatsoever, including that of States, counties, cities and towns.

37 posted on 06/29/2002 1:48:13 PM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
You are wrong. No law "required the recital" of anything, including the Pledge. That is why the panel of the Ninth Circus is FOS.

Prove it.

Here's my proof that what I said is factually accurate: "In Elk Grove, teachers were required by California law as well as school district policy to begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance."

38 posted on 06/29/2002 1:59:56 PM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Besides God said turn the other cheek well he didnt say stand and get yourself killed what do you do when you run out of cheeks? fight like he##!

Which Cheek was it?

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Note the right cheek, also notice that most people are right handed thus a full blown attack/punch would occur on the left cheek. This verse was in reference to a slap, not a full attack. IMHO...if someone attacks your pride or something small, turn the other cheek, if they come with force, well I think you said it right.....

39 posted on 06/29/2002 2:20:36 PM PDT by LowOiL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
State of California EDUCATION CODE, SECTION 52720
52720. In every public elementary school each day during the school year at the beginning of the first regularly scheduled class or activity period at which the majority of the pupils of the school normally begin the schoolday, there shall be conducted appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section. In every public secondary school there shall be conducted daily appropriate patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy such requirement. Such patriotic exercises for secondary schools shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations which shall be adopted by the governing board of the district maintaining the secondary school.

40 posted on 06/29/2002 5:26:59 PM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson