Ten Commandments: Don’t Mention Jesus
The Supreme Court has not ordered the immediate removal of all Ten Commandments displays from government buildings, or from the lawns outside those buildings. In fact, its ruling Monday in two cases could serve as an implied endorsement of such displays – in the right context.
But one aspect of this overheated controversy will not be sorted out, even in a preliminary way, until Tuesday morning. At that time, the Court is expected to provide some indication of its current view of Ten Commandments displays inside public school buildings, or on the grounds outside. That, from the Court’s perspective, may be a very different venue, constitutionally speaking, for religious monuments. Three other pending appeals deal with displays in or around schools – a setting that the Court did not confront in Monday’s rulings. The Court’s only prior ruling on the Commandments, the 1980 decision in Stone v. Graham, barred such displays on public school classroom walls.
In some ways, the outcome Monday for other government sites resembles the Court’s approach to the Christian nativity scene on government property: the religious nature of the manger scene can be neutralized, and thus made constitutionally accepted, if it is surrounded by other objects that are non-religious in character. (See the Pawtucket, R.I.,case, Lynch v. Donnelly, in 1984).
If government officials are careful not to say publicly that the reason they are displaying the Ten Commandments is to promote religion, and not to say publicly that they are commemorating Jesus as “the Prince of Ethics,” and if they put up this sacred text amid a “display on law or history,” they probably can satisfy the two new decisions.
Out of the eight separate opinions that the Court used to decide the Kentucky courthouse and the Texas state capital grounds cases, two appear to be controlling. One is Justice David H. Souter’s opinion in the Kentucky case, laying out in very specific detail why county officials crossed the Establishment Clause line by the way they displayed the Commandments inside county courthouses. The other is the separate opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer in the Texas case, speaking only for himself but providing the crucial fifth vote for the outcome, thus making his the controlling opinion in that dispute.
Souter stressed that the Court was not holding that “a sacred text can never be integrated constitutionally into a governmental display on the subject of law, or American history. We do not forget, and in this litigation have frequently been reminded, that our own courtroom frieze was deliberately designed in the exercise of governmental authority so as to include the figure of Moses holding tablets exhibiting a portion of the Hebrew text of the later, secularly phrased Commandments; in the company of 17 other lawgivers, most of them secular figures, there is no risk that Moses would strike an observer as evidence that the National Government was violating neutrality in religion.”
What decided the Kentucky case against the county displays, Souter made clear, was the clear religious objective the officials had in mind in putting up the Commandments on courthouse walls, and leaving them there, only later surrounding them with historical documents in a failed attempt to neutralize their original purpose. That was not neutrality, Souter emphasized. It was, rather, an attempt to find “any way to keep a religious document on the walls of courthouses.”
That probably will mean some other Commandments displays around the country will not be able to pass muster. But it by no means suggests that no existing display, and no future display, can survive constitutional scrutiny. Context, in short, will mean everything.
Breyer’s separate – and decisive – opinion in the Texas statehouse grounds case uses a somewhat different, though not contradictory, approach than the one Souter employed. What seemed to make the most difference to Breyer was that the Commandments monument had stood “apparently uncontested for nearly two generations. That experience helps us understand that as a practical matter of degree this display is unlikely to prove divisive. And this matter of degree is, I believe, critical in a borderline case such as this one.”
Turning to the purpose factor that was so decisive in the Kentucky cases, Breyer said that Texas officials put up the lawn display of monuments primarily to emphasize non-religious aspects. And, like Souter, Breyer put some emphasis on the physical setting – a parklike venue, with 17 monuments and 21 historical markers, all illustrating the values of those who settled Texas and have lived there since. “The setting does not readily lend itself to meditation or another religious activity,” Breyer concluded.
Along the way toward resolving these disputes, the Court majority chose not to abandon the basis Establishment Clause formula laid down in the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzmann
What an odd decision for the Justices to make when you take into consideration that they all took a solemn oath to uphold and defend a constitution in which “The LORD” is invoked directly.
The US constitutional invocation of The LORD is just as much a fixed component of that constitution as is Article III, Article VI, The Bill of Rights, The First Amendment or the legal endorsements of the framers who placed their signatures directly after that invocation when adopting the contents of the US Constitution into National Law.
All sworn constitutional officers are required to take “The Oath” before lawfully assuming the duties of their office.
So why is there any question as to where their loyalty should rest now?
Hmmmmmmm?
msc
Comment by Michael S. Chacon — June 27, 2005 @ 4:42 pm
“The US constitutional invocation of The LORD is just as much a fixed component of that constitution…”
Take another look; everywhere the word “oath” appears in the Constitution, it is followed by the words “or affirmation”.
And surely you’re not suggesting that the reference to “our Lord” in the Constitution imparts to it a religious grounding – coming as it does in the phrase, “in the Year of our Lord one thousand, seven hundred and eighty-seven”.
On the other hand, Article VI is pretty clear: “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Comment by eggbert — June 27, 2005 @ 5:28 pm
The law is a constant religious test Eggbert. There is little difference between the basic legal dynamics of The Ten Commandments vs.The Bill of Rights or the subsequent amendments. It all boils down to “do do this” and “don’t do that”. One group believes a deity imparted the commandments, another has deified their own legislative and judicial representatives and laws.
Faithfully adhering to either political doctrine requires the practice of religious ritual. A government that does not officially acknowledge GOD is just as much a religion as one that does. The only thing that changes for the people at large is which laws and rules will be imposed upon them by enforcers.
And no, I am not “suggesting” that the reference to “The LORD” in the constitution imparts religious grounding. I am directly declaring that it clearly sets the operating parameters for those who have used their religious freedom to enter into a legal/ religious contract/ covenent with The LORD, The People and The Law. If judges and other sworn constitutional officers don’t like the legal and official invocation of “The LORD” in the US Constitution, they should have made sworn commitments to minister in a different church!
Comment by Michael S. Chacon — June 27, 2005 @ 6:23 pm
eggbert is quite correct. Sorry Michael, but there’s nothing in the Constitution that even remotely resembles the kind of “invocation” of “the LORD” that you’re implying. If you have a citation to the text, please provide it so you can prove us wrong. But note: even the oath of office, which today is traditionally concluded with “so help me God,” does not actually contain those four words – George Washington added them on his own, and they’ve been traditionally included ever since. But they’re not constitutionally required.
Comment by David — June 27, 2005 @ 6:24 pm
Why should athiests, buddists, hindus and anyone else who doesn’t have any connection to the commandments be subjected to them in a “free” country on public property. The commandments belong in places of worship and books. Respect other peoples beliefs and non beliefs.That is what real freedom is all about. Keep church and state seperate or we will all suffer the consequences as this line gets thinner and thinner.
Comment by Robert Corrao — June 27, 2005 @ 8:57 pm
While the Ten Commandments don’t refer to any one specific religion, our judicial system is based upon specific commandments. While I would like to express my opinion as AOL asks, the last time I expressed my personal opinion, which the constitution grants me, and AOL asked for, the company penalized me. I didn’t use any obscene words or racist remarks. I’m not sure the purpose of messages and blogs if your opinion will be held against you.
Comment by Bill — June 27, 2005 @ 8:58 pm
In response to David’s post: A citation to the text? The text is the citation. The Constitution in it’s entirety is the precedent and to intrepret it ex post facto is legally abhorrent. What is the point of carefully drafting fixed legislation if judges and others are free to reinterpret it when it suits them? You wouldn’t let someone reinterpret the amount of change you receive after making a cash transaction would you? So why should the decendants of Christian Statesman accept this legal shortchange maneuver? The term “In the year of our LORD” means something very specific and very powerful but not to secular zealots, atheists and certainly not to a generation of legal unawares who have been seduced into believing that there is some order mandating a separation of church and state enshrined in the US Constitution. It does not exist. Recent rulings based in wildly stretched interpretations of the First Amendment are horrifying. The first amendment merely states that: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” That’s a far cry from what secular zealots and atheist activists would have us believe. Say what you want but the LORD was/is legally and officially invoked in the US Constitution. For all the reactionary ballyhoo we here from zealots of all types on this matter (Christians included) I am surprised that we rarely ever hear about it. I wonder why.
Comment by Michael S. Chacon — June 27, 2005 @ 9:32 pm
I have just reviewed the U.S. Constitution. There is NO invocation of “The LORD.” The word “Lord” only appears in the following procedural language that is NOT part of the Constitution, but merely gives the date the delegates signed the document: “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,” and then the signatures follow, starting with George Washington.
Comment by Micheal McLoughlin — June 27, 2005 @ 10:08 pm
“In the Year of Our Lord” is nothing more than the English translation of “Anno Domini.” It is a reference to the calendar adopted by the Roman Catholic church c. AD 522. “Anno Domini” or ‘A.D.’ is the complement of “Ante Christi” or ‘A.C.’ — in English, ‘B.C.’ or “Before Christ.” Even the most elastic imagination cannot sensibly interpret A.D./In the Year of Our Lord or B.C./Before Christ as any kind of religious expression or religious endorsement. If *that* were true, merely looking at a calendar could be construed an act of religious worship.
Comment by Micheal McLoughlin — June 27, 2005 @ 10:17 pm
In response to Robert C’s post: I am always amazed when people use the “what about other diverse religions” argument. The fact is that freedoms of all types are slowly and steadily being encroached on by political zealots frequently disguised as Christians. As it stands now, all religions including Christianity are hard pressed to avoid having to bow to the gods of the justice system and the priests of capitalism. That fact not withstanding, the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion is guaranteed. (At least on paper anyway and I don’t dispute that) The guarantee does not however diminish in the least who the LORD invoked in the US Constitution is. If the constitution had been signed “In the Year of the Honorable Buddha, I would be fighting just as hard to insure that any promises made in the mysterious name of the people were faithfully kept. My concern here is that the history of US Officers faithfully keeping sworn oaths and political promises is wholly unacceptable. In this matter I need to make myself clear – I am not acting as a pro-Christian activist rather I am adamant about calling sworn officers to pay attention to the fine print in a contract they aggresively pursued making. Their oath was not made under duress which is a far cry from the way they impose law on citizens who have taken no such oath to keep the religion of laws that sworn officers have taken. Talk about involutary servitude!!! It is possible to have a good LORD in law and still preserve the freedom of religion isn’t it? It won’t happen with secular zealots calling the shots. I will reiterate a thought I asserted in an earlier post: Secularized government is nothing more than a form of religion that deifies its laws and officers rather than a typically mysterious deity normally associated with “religion”. Either way it seems that eventually great encroaching impositions are made upon people who would otherwise prefer to be left alone by oppressive agents illictly operating in either type of organization. In short, the very same variety of zealots who were calling themselves Christians when it was politically advantages to do so are now moving into the secular territory.
Comment by Michael S. Chacon — June 27, 2005 @ 10:20 pm
Bill is incorrect when he says our judicial system is based upon specific commandments. The immediate bases of our judicial system are the U.S. Constitution and the common law of England. The substantive traditions of both trace to Classical Greece and Rome, especially to the Roman Republic of Virtue.
As to the Ten Commandments, readers may wish to know there are AT LEAST FIVE different versions:
1. The original Jewish “Ten Utterances,” constituting the first 15 of the total 613 Commandments.
2. The Samaritan Ten Commandments, some of which differ markedly from the Jewish originals (e.g., the Samaritan Tenth Commandment concerns the sanctity of Mount Gezerim).
3. The Eastern Orthodox Ten Commandments, which are slightly different from …
4. The Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Ten Commandments, which are slightly different from
5. The Standard Protestant Ten Commandments.
I have not examined whether any of the Eastern Independent Churches (Syrian, Armenian, Iraqi, Ethiopian, Egyptian, etc.) or the Celtic Indepent Church use versions of the Ten Commandments that are different from any of the above.
At any rate, the right to free exercise of religion applies to *individual persons,* not to governments or corporations. A government does not have a constitutional right to express religion – in fact, is forbidden from doing so, because a government expression of religion cannot help but be an endorsement of religion.
A *person* working for a government, by contrast, has a right to express her/his religion without impediment, provided s/he is not doing so as a representative of a government.
In any display of the Ten Commandments on public land that might amount to religious expression by a government, thus amounting to an establishment of religion – the question must arise as to which religion or class of religious denominations the government is operating to establish, based upon which of the five or more distinctly different versions of the Ten Commandments are being displayed.
For example, if the first commandment reads:
“1. I am Ha-Shem, who is your G-d.”
That would be an endorsement of either Judaism or Samaritanism, presumably at the expense of various Christian denominations.
Comment by Micheal McLoughlin — June 27, 2005 @ 10:46 pm
In response to Michael Chacon’s post, yes the 1st Amendment to the Constitution makes a prohibition on an “establishment of religion”. It also prohibits interfering with the free exercise thereof. That means free exercise of any religion or no religion. So Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, believers in Native American spritiual beliefs, and yes, atheists get to freely practice their beliefs or non-beliefs.
The phrase “wall of separation” goes all the way back to the 1790s. It was written in a letter to a Baptist church by one of the framers of the Constitution. It is NOT some recent development.
As far as I’m concerned, in these and previous cases, like the Nativity scenme cases, the “In God We Trust” currency cases, the Supreme Court has basicly held that if you surround religious displays with secular ones, or print a phrase so often it merely becomes part of the background, then Poof! those displays or phrases lose their religiosity. The Nativity scene becomes a homey picture of a bunch of people standing around a baby, for example. To devout Christians, that ought to be insulting. The justices are destroying the true nature of religious images in order to save them.
Comment by Peter — June 28, 2005 @ 2:32 am
Mr. McLoughlin wrote: “There is NO invocation of “The LORD.” The word “Lord” only appears in the following procedural language that is NOT part of the Constitution, but merely gives the date the delegates signed the document.”
I’ve heard it all before. First opponents boldly declare that there is no invocation, then there is a humbled concession that yes, the word LORD does appear in the US Constitution BUTTTTTTT!!!!!…
.it really isn’t an invocation at all but a way of dating.
I’ll give Mr. McLoughlin credit. He has used the best argument to support his position and he supports his objection with some information that rarely accompanies this particular “defense” but as anyone can see, it falls short. The LORD is invoked.
The Framers signed this document into law by invoking “their LORD” and that invocation is just as much a part of the US Constitution as Article III, Article VI, The Bill Of Rights, the subsequent Amendments or the legal signatures of the framers that occur immediately after the invocation in question. The US Constitution begins with the first letter of the first word and ends with the last letter of the last word. From the title and preamble to the very last signature, these are the fixed components of the US Constitution. Sworn officers freely take a solemn oath to uphold and defend that constitution in service of the people, not pick and choose which parts they like and which parts they don’t. Though Mr. McLoughlin seems to make reasonable objections, his argument does a better job of confirming what I have asserted rather than refuting it.
We may for a time disagree about the significance of that invocation but it is most certainly there and no amount of clever rationalization or denial will change that. For some people including many under-informed Christians, this is the first time that they are learning of it.
Comment by Michael S. Chacon — June 28, 2005 @ 11:12 am
Peter wrote: “…yes the 1st Amendment to the Constitution makes a prohibition on an “establishment of religion”…
That doesn’t sound exactly right Peter. I think I know what you meant but let’s be careful about how we present this.
Here is the 1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
There is no prohibition on “establishments of religion” There is however, a Constitutional prohibition imposed upon Congress against making any “laws “respecting” establishments of religion”
Because Congress is clearly prohibited from making laws respecting establishments of religion, I think that the people should be demanding an explanation as to exactly where The Justices believe they are deriving the LAWFUL authority to make rulings such as the one issued this week. It would appear that there is a major lack of jurisdiction because this issue most certainly concerns an establishment of religion (The Ten Commandments) that dates back about 4000 years. If no laws can be made respecting establishments of religion, what laws exactly are the Justices upholding?
At the time the 1st amendment was adopted, it is certain that the intent was to prevent Congress from dictating policy and practice to any one or all Christian Churches long “established” in the Colonies, the Confederation and eventually the US States. It was not English bureaucrats but English Christians who took the leap of faith to cross the treacherous Atlantic to successfully colonize and build a homeland with the intent to worship as Christians absent the tyrannous religious persecution of the King of England.
What brutal, murderous, capitalist, political zealots falsely claiming to be Christians did subsequently cannot be blamed on GOD, Christ, good Christians, their good religions or the US Constitution. History proves that tyrants and zealots will say and do anything to impose their oppressive rule upon others and US history proves conclusively that powerful men claiming to be Christians have done little more than behave treacherously and defiant of all that the Commandments command and all that good Christianity stands for.
Poor interpretations of Biblical Law have led to atrocities now unfairly blamed on good Christians. Poor interpretations of Constitutional law will surely be blamed inappropriately on good patriots. Most good Christians do not support the war in Iraq but high ranking political zealots exceeding their authority in both Biblical and Constitutional law have cursed the people of this nation with yet one more abomination to shoulder.
It is also certain but rarely even considered that the original intent of the 1st amendment clause against “prohibiting free exercise” (of religion) was adopted to prevent one Christian church from imposing their brand Christianity upon another. Buddhism, Judaism etc… were not likely even considerations at the time of adoption but have rightly been accepted as falling under the parameters of religious expression.
We all know that freedom of religion under the declared authority of the US Constitution is a myth. You can thank tyrannous political zealots for that. Good examples of this might be the Mormons who continue to be unlawfully prohibited from engaging in polygamy or perhaps those who were persecuted to death for allegedly cavorting with Satan during “the witch-hunts” and let’s not forget the communist witch hunts of the 1950’s.
At the time the US Constitution was adopted, all men were presumed to be “created equal”(at least in legal documents) Clearly drafted constitutional legislation declared equality for “all people” in rights, privileges, protections and immunities yet it is well known that many of “the framers” owned slaves and women were in no way considered equals, politically or otherwise. Go figure!
Now if interpreters of the US Constitution want to “get cute” about what the words in the 1st amendment really mean, I suppose it could be argued that there is no prohibition imposed on Congress against making laws that “disrespect” establishments of religion. Obviously plenty of laws and orders have been made and enforced in the last 227 years that do just that.
Comment by Michael S. Chacon — June 28, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
**I’ll give Mr. McLoughlin credit. He has used the best argument to support his position and he supports his objection with some information that rarely accompanies this particular “defense” but as anyone can see, it falls short.**
The first amendment article does not do anything but prevent the congress or any other legislature from making gods or religions. Therefore the legislators cannot create corporate entities or deem “government” to be divine.
Comment by James — June 28, 2005 @ 6:43 pm
Peter wrote: “The phrase “wall of separation” goes all the way back to the 1790s. It was written in a letter to a Baptist church by one of the framers of the Constitution”
I believe that Jefferson wrote this letter but was in Paris when the constitution was written and therefore was not a “framer of the Constitution”.
Comment by RC — June 28, 2005 @ 11:59 pm
Chacon said, “Secularized government is nothing more than a form of religion that deifies its laws and officers rather than a typically mysterious deity normally associated with “religion”. Not so much. When an authority is “deified” it’s authority cannot be questioned because its power is not of this world. At various times in history, politicians recognized and tried to piggyback on to this and thought up doctrines like the “Divine Right of Kings” to justify what was really secular authority. A secular democracy such as ours, far from deifying either the laws or those who make and enforce them, leaves itself free to change the law and get rid of elected officials though something called “elections.” As of yet, I have never seen Jesus at the New Hampshire primary. He does not need to run for office, because when you are God’s son, no one can dispute your authority. The Constitution and Bill of Rights set the only real limits on the laws that can be made, and the people who can be elected. Therefore, as of right now, the Governor of California can’t be president (foreign born), and the State of Maryland can’t require membership in the Catholic church to run for office (religious requirements for office holders). That leaves a lot up for grabs, doesn’t it? And the system of sorting out what’s remains up for grabs is very rough and tumble, way beneath the behavior in which any diety would engage.
I’d be interested to hear about how the United States should look on the ground from your perspective. I can’t be a public school teacher unless I’m Christian because then I can’t lead mandated school prayers. The army will be used to conquor and take the resources of non-Christians if necessary (oops – already happening). And Jews and Muslims will meet in city catacombs, I mean sewers, to hold worship services because many local governments have banned non-Christian religous uses under their local zoning codes. Sounds like a blast.
Comment by kim — June 29, 2005 @ 11:36 am
Kim wrote: “I have never seen Jesus at the New Hampshire primary. He does not need to run for office, because when you are God’s son, no one can dispute your authority”
You raise an interesting point Kim. How is it that you know what “Jesus” looks like to be able to positively identify him? How does anyone? I get the impression that most Christians just assume that if he appeared they would recognize him.
Perhaps now you may get a sense of why it is so important that sworn constitutional officers be required to officially recognize who exactly the LORD invoked in the US Constitution is before they swear an oath to uphold and defend that constitution.
If members of Congress, The Senate, CIA agents etc. were unable or unwilling to recognize the US President, George W. Bush would just be another Texas businessman.
If it is as you say, that the authority of Christ cannot be disputed, those wishing to avoid or remove themselves from the lawful scope of that authority might opt to dispute his identity instead.
There are certain logistical considerations to a legitimate “second coming” that clergy and congregations (both secular and liturgical) might want to seriously consider.
It would be a darn shame if shortsighted zealots aided in prosecuting and crucifying the wrong guy… again.
Comment by Michael S. Chacon — July 1, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
GEORGE WASHINGTON
George Washington was a surveyor, farmer and soldier who became the first president of the United States of America. After commanding the colonial forces in the Revolutionary War, he retired to his farm in 1783. A popular general in the war, in 1789 W…
Comment by The Biography Place — July 15, 2005 @ 12:45 pm
Michael S. Chacon writes:
“I’ve heard it all before. First opponents boldly declare that there is no invocation, then there is a humbled concession that yes, the word LORD does appear in the US Constitution BUTTTTTTT!!!!!… .it really isn’t an invocation at all but a way of dating.
“I’ll give Mr. McLoughlin credit. He has used the best argument to support his position and he supports his objection with some information that rarely accompanies this particular “defense” but as anyone can see, it falls short. The LORD is invoked.”
———-
I have the following objections to what Mr. Chacon implicitly writes about me:
First, I dislike his implicit categorisation of me as an opponent. Precisely of *what* I am supposed to be an opponent he does not say, but I am offended by his presumption in any case.
Second, Mr. Chacon apparently does not understand what I wrote. There is NO “humbled concession” in anything I said.
On the contrary, I simply point out the obvious – that the phrase “In the Year of our Lord” is NOT an invocation; it’s just the English for ‘Anno Domini.’
More fundamentally – and I say this with no intent to be rude – there are some people who do not seem to comprehend what an invocation is.
By definition, an invocation INVOKES. “Invoke” is from the Latin “invocare,” meaning “to call upon. (Root infinitive, “vocare” meaning “to call” — hence the priesthood is a “vocation,” because you are “called” to it).
So, THIS is an invocation: “Our father which art in heaven …” because you’re calling upon the person known as “our father”
And THIS is an invocation: “Baal! We cry to thee!” because you’re calling upon Baal, or whichever god or goddess you might worship (or not).
And THIS is an invocation: “Holy Mary, Mother of G-d! Pray for us sinners, now and in the hour of our death.” You’re calling upon Mary to actually do something for you.
The foregoing are DIRECT invocations, because they are directly address to the pertinent deity, saint, etc. Invocations can also be indirect:
This is an INDIRECT invocation: “Vaya con Dios!” (May G-d go with you.) It’s an indirect invocation of G-d’s protection.
And THIS is an indirect invocation: “May the Great Mother watch over your going out and your coming in, from this day until forever.”
And THIS is an indirect invocation: “I swear on my mother’s grave, I did not make Mrs. O’Leary’s cow kick over that lantern.” This illustrates a common type of invocation than spiritual invocations.
THIS, however, is NOT an invocation: “Jesu Maria! WHAT’s your problem NOW?”
And THIS is NOT an invocation: “Land o’ Goshen! What was that noise?”
And THIS is NOT an invocation: “A.D. 2005.” Even if you spell out the abbreviation, “Anno Domini 2005″; and even if you translate it to English “In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five” — it is NOT an invocation.
In all three cases, there is no intent to directly or indirectly invoke anything. The first two are examples of interjections that follow the form of an invocation. The third one does not even do that, but there is no direct or indirect invocation at all.
That is not to say the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not have certain religious principles in mind when they produced the document. But to say there is any invocation of any deity or religious principle within the document is non sens – it just isn’t there in the language.
And I can give you two very good reasons why the framers of the Constitution did NOT invoke “the LORD” – blasphemy and states’ rights.
Prior to the late twentieth century, and especially before the Civil War, American national values were very firmly rooted in Calvinist theology (typically called “Puritan” in English tradition). The U.S. Constitution was written in the days when the vast majority of Americans still considered it a Papist blasphemy to celebrate Christmas (Massachusetts even made it a criminal offence to celebrate Christmas for a while). An actual invocation of G-d in the U.S. Constitution would not have been wise, because many Americans of the day would have considered it a blasphemy.
More importantly, the states that got together and wrote the Constitution would have been *very* leery of any invocation of G-d in the federal constitution out of fear that doing so might set a precedent for a federally established religion that might displace the rights of states to establish their own official religions.
At the time the Constitution was produced, many states had their own official religions. The last thing they wanted was for the federal government to usurp their authority on religious matters. Thus, the First Amendment was adopted to prevent the federal government from doing that.
In the 1930’s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the several states. So, as of the 1930’s, not *state* government has been able to establish an official religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. It was something of a moot point. By that time, the few states that had ever established religions had long since disestablished them.
In any case, the basic purpose of the religion clauses of the First Amendment is to keep religion out of the business of government in order to ensure that government stays out of the business of religion.
Otherwise, I noticed Mr. Chacon uses a phrase – “clearly drafted constitutional legislation.” “Constitutional legislation” is an inherently conflictory term. Constitutions are not legislation; they are the legal authority for legislation. As such, in Anglophone tradition, constitutions operate as replacements of the monarch.
For example, the British Constitution is only partly written; most of it is oral. The Queen is the personal representative of the British Constitution, especially that part of it which is oral tradition (which is *very* firmly established in Britain, or it wouldn’t work). In that capacity, the Queen represents the legal authority for the existence of Tony Blair’s government; and, indeed, for Parliament’s right to pass legislation. Note this important distinction: The Queen *represents* the legal authority, but she herself is NOT the authority; the abstract concept known as “The Crown” *is* the actual authority which the Queen personally represents.
In America, we do not have personal monarchs –though some presidents and governors occasionally try to claim otherwise, as when the Truman administration argued in the Steel Company Seizure Cases that the President had the same powers that King George III had, except for those powers that had been taken away by the U.S. Constitution. (Truman lost that argument – quelle surprise!) Instead of personal monarchs, we have paper monarchs in the form of state and federal constitutions. They are the legal authorities for the existence of any legislation. For that reason, constitutions themselves cannot be “legislation” so a term like “constitutional legislation” meaning “constitutional provision” is inappropriate.
-Dr. Micheal McLoughlin, San Francisco
Comment by Dr. Micheal McLoughlin — August 30, 2005 @ 1:28 am