|
On Faith by Rev. Ron Arnold, Honolulu Star Bulletin - Saturday, September 14, 2002 Separation of church and state is a myth "Myth: A belief, opinion or theory that is not based on fact or reality." (World Book Dic-tionary) Separation of church and state, as popularly understood today, is a myth. Worse yet, this myth is being exploited by a few to weaken the foundations that have made this nation so great. Michael Newdow, a California atheist activist, recently sued Congress and his 8-year-old daughter's local school district because she was being injured by having to say the words "under God" in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in June, upheld this on the grounds of "separation of church and state." (It has since come to light that Mr. Newdow is separated from his wife and daughter and has been fighting for custody. Additionally, not only does his daughter not object to saying "under God" -- she and Mom are Christians! Confronted with this, Mr. Newdow says, "This is more about me than her. I'd like to keep her out of this." I'm sure he would at this point.) Our president and members of Congress went ballistic when the 9th Circuit Court announced its verdict on the Pledge of Allegiance. Even Sen. Daschle declared, "This decision is just nuts." They should not have been surprised, given the track record of that court and the direction our courts have taken in the past 40 years. Congress never intended such a separation between church and state. It's nowhere to be found in our Constitution. Our founders began the first Continental Congress with a three-hour prayer meeting! They approved the Declaration of Independence, which has four mentions of God within it! (I'm waiting for someone to sue the United States to have our Declaration of Independence set aside for mentioning God.) What happened? How did this myth come to be? The clause "separation of church and state" occurred in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Conn. They were concerned that the government might establish one Christian denomination as the state religion, as had been the case in Europe. Jefferson shared their concern and stated that there was necessarily "a wall of separation of church and state" insuring that no single denomination became the state-supported religion of our nation. Jefferson in no way imagined or intended, nor did his peers, that religion was to be kept out of government or public life. On the contrary, their writings show that they believed religion, specifically the Christian religion, to be the necessary foundation for a stable society. For 150 years our courts sustained this. Then, in 1962, an activist court ruled against prayer in the public schools using Jefferson's phrase, out of context and contrary to Jefferson's intent, as their justification. They had also expanded the meaning of "church" to "any religious activity." They offered no precedents for their action, because there were none! Used again and again, people have come to believe this phrase is in our Constitution. Welcome to 2002. Mr. Newdow has now filed suit against the U.S. government to remove chaplains from the Senate. He will continue until we become informed, outraged and involved. Let's not allow a few individuals armed with a vendetta and a myth to erode the foundations of our nation. Let's arm ourselves with truth and become myth-busters. Check out David Barton's well-researched material at www.wallbuilders.com. God, bless America! The Rev. Ron Arnold is pastor of Kaimuki Christian Church. |
Mitch Kahle's Reply Letter to Rev. Ron Arnold - Saturday, September 14, 2002 Constitutional Myth Aloha Reverend Arnold: I read your "On Faith" article in today's Star-Bulletin wherein you asserted that the "separation of church and state...is a myth...exploited by a few to weaken the foundations that have made this nation so great." Your argument, which is flawed to its core, relies upon the illogical conclusions espoused by David Barton. While it is true that the Constitution does not include the phrase "separation of church and state," the document is also absent other explicit references to rights and freedoms enjoyed by Americans. You will not find the phrase "privacy rights" in the Constitution, nor any direct references to "women's rights," "gay rights," or "atheist's rights." But nonetheless, even without explicit provisions, the Courts have repeatedly "interpreted" the Constitution to protect these rights and others not specially enumerated. The "separation of state and church" (I put state first because it is more important than the church) derives principally from the following three constitutional doctrines.
In deciding most state-church cases, the Supreme Court uses the "Lemon test," Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), which requires that all government activity must:
The "separation of state and church" has been repeatedly, although somewhat inconsistently, upheld by more than 50 years of affirmative jurisprudence. Constitutional law is based not on the actual wording of the Constitution but through the process of common law. The separation of state and church prohibits government-sponsored prayer in public school classrooms, at sporting events, graduation ceremonies, or other official school functions. Government officials and employees must not engage in activity which would promote any specific religion or religion generally. This is why government must never allow the erection of crosses or the posting of religious materials on public property. Government policies must remain neutral and the enforcement of laws must be without bias or discrimination. Of course the separation of state and church does not prevent any individual from praying, reflecting, or otherwise exercising their chosen religious practices at any time or any place they choose. Your article failed to address the truth about how the Constitution actually works; nor did it mention the fact that many of the founders -- Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Madison, Franklin, and others -- rejected Christianity. In fact, your article failed to address the greatest myth of them all -- the myth of Jesus Christ. Sincerely, |
|
|
|
||
|
Honolulu Advertiser Letters -- Saturday, August 24, 2002 It's time to fight back against Mitch Kahle Let me get this straight — the U.S. Navy rolled over on an issue in which: • Membership in the
Boys & Girls Club is voluntary. Where is the unconstitutionality issue, and why did the U.S. Navy allow Kahle to threaten it to get his way? Enough is enough. Until the majority stands up and says to these people who are trying (and succeeding) in ruining our way of life, this country and all that it stands for is doomed. Good God-fearing men and women have fought and died for this country. We are a country of majority rule, but we are going to allow a person or organization with an agenda to force its way of life and belief system (atheism) on us. It is time for a change. This country was not founded on Allah, Mohammed, Buddha or any other prophet or person. It was founded on Christian principles, and it is those principles that have allowed this country to exist for 227 years. We won't see another 50 years if we allow people such as Kahle to continue to bully and demolish the American way of life. James Roller |
Mitch Kahle's Reply Letter to the Editor (submitted 8-24-02) Separation is principle worth fighting for Poor James Roller and his anti-freedom crusaders; they fear their Christian religion and country are poised to fall whenever crosses, the Ten Commandments, or the words “God Bless America” are removed from public property. (HA Letters 8-24-02) The Buddhists, whom Roller so easily dismisses, seem far more confident and secure in their belief system. In fact, I've never seen a single instance where the US government has endorsed Buddha, yet the Buddhists don’t worry that their religion will collapse. Roller claims “this country was founded on Christian principles” yet the Bible is not mentioned in any founding document. Nor is there a single local, state, or federal law which could be traced to Christianity. With regard to our laws, Christianity is irrelevant. Roller is paranoid when he claims that our country is "doomed" and that “we won't see another 50 years” just because “I believe in God” is erased from the Navy’s youth cards. The large crosses at Camp Smith and Schofield Barracks were removed years ago but the US military did not fall into disarray. The best policy is, and will continue to be, the absolute separation of state and church. Government neutrality on matters of religion and other belief systems is the only way to guarantee freedom of conscience for all Americans. And this, Mr. Roller, is a principle worth fighting for. Mitchell Kahle is the president of Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church |
|
|
|
||
|
Honolulu Advertiser Letters -- Monday, July 15, 2002 We should be pledging to the U.S. Constitution The June 28 editorial "Pledge ruling adds up to a big distraction" and accompanying letters to the editor all missed the central issue: The pledge itself is a major problem. Each of us should be pledging a personal commitment to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, rather than to a flag. And, the Declaration of Independence, which outlines the essential vision for the creation of our nation, has on its foundation a belief in a supreme being to which all persons are accountable (nobility, presidents, supreme court justices, you and me). That concept, called "Nature's God," "Divine Providence" or "Laws of Nature," was conceived by the Jews and absorbed by Christianity. John Locke, whose philosophy undergirds our entire system, relied upon a supreme being as central to his thinking. Thus, our entire system of government is dependent upon recognition of the fact that we all function under cognizance of a supreme being, for convenience called "God." To call such into question is to undermine our entire government structure. That's the central issue — an attack on the concept of God is an attack on the essence of the United States of America, the impetus for our individual creativity, liberty and prosperity. Richard O. Rowland |
Honolulu Advertiser Letters - Thursday, July 18, 2002 Government is not dependent on God Richard Rowland, in this July 15 letter, claims "our entire system of government is dependent upon recognition of the fact that we all function under cognizance of God." Like all arguments of this type, Mr. Rowland begins with an unjustifiable and unsubstantiated presumption that "God" actually exists outside the imagination of believers. Rowland further claims that " ... an attack on the concept of God is an attack on the essence of the United States of America." Like me, more than 30 million Americans have explicitly chosen to reject religion in favor of a secular "impetus for our individual creativity, liberty and prosperity." We do not believe in Rowland's concept of God; to us Christianity is a delusionary fantasy. Yet we, the millions of nonreligious Americans and majority of Hawai'i residents, are citizens, too. We are also guaranteed due process and the equal protection of laws under the Constitution. Rowland implies that doubt, skepticism and criticism of religion and religious ideas are somehow un-American, when in fact such questioning of authority is the cornerstone of democracy. Mitchell
Kahle |
|