Topic: Constitutional Issues
Does our Constitution protect atheists? A commentary regarding the philosophical differences between the constitution and atheism.by Lasli Sher
(libertarian)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Does our Constitution protect atheists? John Adams wrote, "The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It will not function in a society of any other."
This does not mean that atheists are not represented by the Constitution, however. It means that the framework of our society is based on principles which are viewed as flawed by the atheists. For instance, the Constitution states that the purpose of government is to secure certain rights that are endowed by "their creator." For those who do not believe in a "creator," the purpose of government cannot be defined the same. They may have a very different idea as to what the purpose of government is. Who endows them with their "inalienable" rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Rather than acknowledge a higher authority, the atheists believe that man himself is the sovereignty of the nation, and not God. In other words, man endows himself with inalienable rights. They believe that a theistic democracy actually enslaves the population that built it, because although the government is set up by the people, the people then transfer their own authority to the government, and remain subordinate to it. "The master has become the slave."
The theists believe that the government and the people are subordinate to God, who endows us with our rights, and the purpose of government is to act as the protector of those rights, while remaining subordinate to the "higher" authority of God, who defines the morals, standards, and values that regulate society. The atheists believe that the government is subordinate to the people, who endow themselves with rights. They believe that there is no higher authority than the people, and the government, if one is needed at all, should be strictly limited to carrying out the will and authority of the people. This also means that morals, standards, and values cannot be regulated by society as a whole, but by the individual conscience, or, at best, a collective agreement within pockets of society.
These views are incompatible with one another. However, the Constitution is as it is, and dissolving it in favor of a system compatible with atheism is incongruent with our society. It cannot become compatible without complete dissolution of it's founding principles. Most people believe in those principles, and prefer to keep it the way it is, accepting the limitations of our own authority in favor of the authority of God.
Unfortunately, this means that the atheists must either continue to accept these principles, believing that they are being forced to subordinate themselves to principles incompatible with their own values, or they are compelled to try to change it, so that they may exercise their own human sovereign authority. Religious principles, of course, do not authorize man to take the position of supreme authority at any time.
So, the question is which view is best for society? Almost everyone can agree that it is immoral to steal and kill, but what about abortion, stem cell research, the legality of drugs? Society is becoming more and more complicated, and we seem to be losing our ability to resolve these issues in a responsible way. Are we really so advanced that we can rely on our own authority to do what's right? Relying on our own authority means that we are using the "trial and error" method of existence, and if we are to be the judge of our accomplishments so far, I say we should humbly accept the fact that we don't really know what's best for us, and submit ourselves to a higher authority.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 14 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Lasli Sher only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Lasli Sher is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-30 16:21:07
I'm not an atheist, but I have serious concerns about leaving such decisions to God...not because I have a problem with God, but rather because I have serious problems with other people's idea of God. The interpretations I hear and read about what "God's will" and "God's law" is make me cringe most of the time. Sometimes they make me wretch, so deep is my disgust at their understanding of God.
Basing law on those notions, no matter how widely spread their popularity might be, strikes me as foolishness of the highest order.
I cannot help but notice that you completely ignored the issue of separation of church and state. Gee, I wonder why?
It should also be pointed out that many of the founders did not adhere to Christianity. Adams was a Christian, but Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and Paine (among others) were not. Deism was quite popular among leading founders, and Deism did not buy into most of junk mainstream religions promoted as "the word of God." In fact, Jefferson, at great personal risk (because heresy was still a hanging offense at that time), deliberately cut up the Bible in English, French, Latin, and Greek translations, eliminated all sections but the specific passages that dealt specifically with Jesus Christ, pasted them into a scrapbook, and called it The Life and Times of Jesus Christ. Today, we know it as the Jefferson Bible.
Also, it should be pointed out that Adams, who was in many ways quite anti-liberty in his advocacy on many issues, is an excellent example as to why we should be very wary of basing law on someone's idea of "God's law" or "God's word."
As an atheist, I would submit that we have always relied on our own authority. Nobody can prove that God exists, let alone that he ever handed down laws or moral judgments. People claimed he did, but I find it likely that the moral standards delivered by religion where in reality created by man.
So this is a moot point. You can put your future in your god's hands, but many of us believe that when "God" is making the rules, it's really his believers making the rules in his name. And what's worse? Men governing, r men pretending to govern according to some god's will?
I did not address the separation of church and state simply because the constitution doesn't address it. The constitution reads only, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." In a letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson spoke of establishing a "wall of separation" between church and state. This has been quoted in several Supreme Court decisions, and has become a popular catchphrase, but it misrepresents the scope of the constitutional prohibition. Of course, the letter does provide justification for re-interpreting the constitution to prohibit the very idea of God as the supreme authority.
In any case, I completely agree that there is a problem with submitting ourselves to someone else's idea of what God's will and law are. But, what about our own idea? Is that any more reliable? Even the so-called religious leaders are practically inventing their own versions of "God's Law's" by interpreting scripture to suit their own political agenda. Aren't we just as fallible? The point is, religious principals are universal, regardless of the system of worship. Honesty, cleanliness, non-violence, humility, responsibility, duty, compassion: These are principals that ensure the "inalienable" rights of every citizen. When we are weighing one person's right against another person's right, do we decide by consensus? Shouldn't there be an authority that isn't ambiguous or biased, or subject to human fallibility? It bothers me that what's right and wrong can be decided by a vote cast by people who consider their own morality sufficient to make decisions for others, and who often have an agenda that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Also, don't atheists also agree with the same principals? It seems that the principals of morality aren't the issue, but the origin of morality itself. I keep hearing that we should "leave God out of it," but when the principals are discussed, they are the same! What difference does it make who gets the credit? If we don't have a moral conscience as a society, all the religion in the world won't save it, but if we do live by a moral code, how can religion hurt it?
"For instance, the Constitution states that the purpose of government is to secure certain rights that are endowed by "their creator." For those who do not believe in a "creator," the purpose of government cannot be defined the same. They may have a very different idea as to what the purpose of government is. Who endows them with their "inalienable" rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"
These words you quote are from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention God, gods or creators, therefore your argument falls flat on its face from the get go.
I'm an atheist, but I'm also a grammarian. I cringe when I see repeated misspellings, particularly if I otherwise agree with the point that's being made.
"principle" and "principal" are not the same word.
"principle" - an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct (among other definitions)
"principal" - the head or director of a school
The common mnemonic to remember the difference is "the principal can be your pal".
For instance, the Constitution states that the purpose of government is to secure certain rights that are endowed by "their creator".
If you can show where the constitution states this, I'll pay you a million dollars. In fact, the Constition does NOT state this.
Instead, it is the Declaration of Independence that states this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Constitution says NOTHING about a creator, a god, Jesus, etc. The ONLY thing the Constitution says about religion in general is to prohibit a religious test for office in Article VI:
...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Do you think that your readers can take you seriously on important issues like these when you make the inexplicable mistake of confusing the Declaration of Independence with the United States Constitution?
One is a beautiful piece of writing that eloquently tells the British government to go jump in a lake. Historically? It's a great document and should be enshrined as such. Legally? Zilch. Nill. Nada. Zero.
The other is the actual legal document the guides and informs every single aspect of our legal and civil government.
Which one do you think matters more in any practical sense?
Posted By: Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-03-31 07:44:55
Dear Lasli Sher -
I think you bring up some interesting points on atheism, but I agree with the comments re Dec. of Independence.
I do not believe God exists so perhaps the label "atheist" can be applied to me as well, but if your article were true and I am at least somewhat rational, it's curious I would pick "Champion of the Constitution" as my moniker :)
And no, the constitution sure as heck ain't perfect but its a pretty decent attempt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is good enough for me, but I want to ask what you think an improved version would state?
As an atheist I can completely agree that our rights are endowed our creator. Of course, the typical translation is required. Our rights are not the mandate of a sky daddy but the moral necessity that has seen us through to present time. To respect our established inalienable rights is to respect history and learn from it. Murder isn't wrong because god says so, it's wrong because it's causationally so. Society would not function if murder were acceptable. If we want society then we agree that murder is a crime pubishable upon the mandate of society. Causation, no god required.
Until such a higher authority presents him/herself to us all (and proves to be a worthy leader), I see no reason to submit to the alleged revelations supposedly received by a handful of zealots in the form of vastly differing messages.
Our Constitution protects all. There is no mention of god(s) in it, nor is there any express or implied religious belief for application of the Bill of Rights to citizens. Freedom of Religion necessarily includes Freedom from Religion, and equivalent rights. Otherwise no true freedom actually exists.
I did in fact make a mistake in that sentence by referring to the Constitution instead of the Declaration of Independence. It should have read, "For instance, the Declaration of Independence states that the purpose of government is to secure certain rights that are endowed by "their creator." For those who do not believe in a "creator," the purpose of government cannot be defined the same."
The Declaration may not be the legal document, but it does provide the philosophical keystone of the Constitution, and can be considered the justification for the legal document.
In response to your reponse to Brent Rasmussen. Quoting the Declaration of Independence to put forward the argument that the Constitution protects or does not protect atheists does not make any sense to me.
The Constitution protects all citizens. It does not discriminate against people of faith or non believers. It protects us against a tyrannical government. The Consitution does not dictate a personal moral code. It is the framework under which our government should operate. It has nothing to do with religion or non religion as pointed out in the clause which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The legal framework of the Constitution started with the premise outlined in the Declaration. "All men are created equal." Our laws are based on that idea, that philosophy. Even the changes in our Constitution over the years refer back to that same premise. Slavery and suffrage were both issues that required that first premise to be re-evaluated, and re-interpreted. Are all men, including slaves, equal? Are women included? The first amendment includes both believers and non-believers as protected citizens under our Constitution, and it is the duty of government to ensure that protection, but what is the purpose of government, to an atheist? It cannot be the same purpose that provided the premise for our Constitution, can it?
I've seen the misattribution of the “endowed by their Creator” bit to the constitution too many times to grant it as a mistake. While the abilities of the constitutional authors to fashion a government is evident, I am unwilling to grant John Adams much authority regarding the suitability of the constitution for atheists.
What exactly is it in the constitution that you think atheists object to? I just reread the constitution (go ahead it's fairly short) and I see a very utilitarian document that describes a government and enumerates a handful of rights for citizens and states. The constitution is wholly compatible with atheism because it is a secular document already. No changes are required. There need be no revolution. Just relax...
Of course, "man" isn't the supreme authority - nature is the supreme authority. As Francis Bacon pointed out, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." Human beings can indeed be the masters of their own fate provided they acknowledge the truths of nature they cannot change and ignore at their own peril.
As for the U.S. Constitution, it isn't a sacred cow. There is much in it that remains a great achievement, however, if human beings currently living have a reasonable belief they can do better, they must do so. It is irrational and immature to continue to comply with imperfect thinking no matter where that imperfect thinking is found. We can and must build on the great work accomplished in our beginnings, otherwise, we have learned nothing from the passionate, rational and adventurous spirit of those who gave us our start. A living people MUST have a living document to govern them. If the need of such document means completely scrapping the old to suit a more mature people - so be it.
We are the living. This is OUR world. Within the framework of nature, WE determine our fate - NOT past generations.
You ask atheists what the purpose of government is.... I think the preamable to the Constitution provides a good starting point.
As for the separation of church and state, James Madison, the main author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights directly speaks in favor of the *total* separation of church and state. He speaks of the danger of religious intrusion into the affairs of the state. Separation is absolute FACT, as evidenced by Madison's words:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. " (Detached Memoranda)
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)
going in a little further into the Declaration of Independence it gose on to declare that the power of the goverment is not derived from a god anyways , but by the people it governs
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
so the laws are not based on gods word acording to the document, but on those governed
I do not understand why atheists are looking to remove God .
Do they not understand that God is what protects their rights?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights,
If there is no creator, then who has endowed men with these rights? Of course they would get them from other Men, not a higher authority than that of man.
When man is the supreme authority by which we recieve our rights, than by man can these rights also be taken from him.
It is only by having a higher authority than that of man, can our rights be protected and never taken from us. The men who wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independance were not stupid and they put this in for this very reason...so Beware all you atheists who are fighting to have it removed.
You assert that "the framework of our society is based on principles which are viewed as flawed by the atheists." Where do you get your information? How many atheists did you speak with? As an atheist, I am perfectly happy with Constitutional principles as they now stand. I do not view the principles we operate under as badly flawed. Those principles are just the product of human endeavor and humans are not perfect. The Constitution is a secular document, that is crystal clear. I like it that way. I do not want to be forced to conform to the dictates of any religion, Christian or otherwise. The Constitution is grounded in principles of civility, common sense and normal decency. I like it that way.
You also assert that "the purpose of government is to secure certain rights that are endowed by "their creator." For those who do not believe in a "creator," the purpose of government cannot be defined the same." Where on Earth did you come up with that stuff? Who gave you the authority to define things the way you do and then assert your personal definitions as gospel Cool-Aid that the rest of us must drink? Your God?
By the way, which one is your God: charismatic Catholic? Pentecostal? Mormon? Shia? Sunni? Voodoo? Wicca? Eastern Orthodox? Druid? What if some believers happen to believe that your personal God is the wrong God and you personally are therefore full of baloney? How about showing us some proof that will stand up in a court of law that you are right and the rest of us doomed fools and incorrect believers are wrong? After all, don't we decide our differences for the most part either by fighting in court or by changing laws by legal means? Who goes to religious texts to decide contract disputes? Not me, that is for sure.
How about this: My creator is my parents. When I was born, I had certain inalienable rights and any constraints on those rights flowed from civil society and nothing more (not any God). Before the American civil war, slavery was legal. Did that right flow from God or civil society? Under the original Constitution, women could not vote - did that flow from God or civil society? Before the Bell v. Buck Supreme Court decision in 1927 (citation: 274 U.S. 200, 1927), the state could sterilize you against your will - did that flow from God or civil society? By your definition of how the world works, all of these came from your personal God.
I disagree with you. In my opinion, all of this flowed from civil society at the time these things happened. No God had anything to do with it. There never was (and still is not) consensus on which God was or is the "true" God. You personally know the true God, but I suspect that lots of other religious people would vehemently disagree with you. I believe that you do not know the real and true God. That is why the founding fathers stated it this way: "rights that are endowed by "their creator." That did not mean your personal creator. It meant my creator as I see it and define it, not as you, the Pope, Martin Luther, Christ, Allah or anyone else defines it. Religious beliefs are matters of personal philosophy and the founding fathers knew that. You cleverly distorted the founding fathers when you said: "For those who do not believe in a "creator," the purpose of government cannot be defined the same." Why not? Says who and by whose authority? I, a stinking eternally damned atheist, do not believe in any creator in the sense that you believe in one but I do see the propose of government defined exactly the same. I absolutely dispute your assertions and your definitions of debate.
Your sophisticated propaganda tries to justify the insertion of God into something the founding fathers never intended God to be a bigger part of than society could handle at the time. If they had wanted God in government, don't you think they would have clearly articulated that? The founding fathers were smart and very articulate. They could have easily established a national religion, but they did not do that. All they said in the Constitution, as you pointed out yourself, government should not get involved. That's it. Nothing else.
So, why did they do that? Because they wanted to avoid civil strife and war over differing views of the "true" religion, that is why. The founding fathers themselves were all over the place in terms of their personal religious beliefs. There was no consensus in the 1700's and there is none today in 2009. If you disagree, just check out a few Al Qaeda web sites and the religious beliefs they support. If that is too disagreeable, check out a few hard core Christian Scientist web sites and the religious beliefs they support. Ditto for Roman Catholic web sites. Ditto for Pentecostal web sites. Ditto for almost all of them. Which one are you and how do you know you are right and the rest of them are wrong? Some tangible (repeat: TANGIBLE) here and now proof would be very helpful in sorting things out.
When it comes to people like you who want God in the White House, Congress and everywhere else I do not engage in the clever debates that people like you or many of your opponents use, e.g., Dawkins. My view is simple: Until proved otherwise, I am right and religious beliefs are nothing more than personal opinions. So, do not tell me I am wrong - prove that I am wrong. Show me your God, right here and right now. Your God is all powerful and all knowing, right? Your God will know exactly who I am, where I am and how to convince me of my hideous error. Until the day your God proves to me that I am full of baloney, keep your theocracy out of our Democracy.
Oh, I forgot to mention it. I accidentally clicked on you thumbs up icon thinking I would have the choice to vote thumbs down. I was wrong. The 14 thumbs up should really be 13. You just did not give me a chance to vote "no". You really are a clever person. That is fine. You will not fool me again. Chiao!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
