Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Marvin Olasky :: Townhall.com Columnist
Flag Day Principles of State Constitutions
by Marvin Olasky
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


When Stanley Hauerwas, the Duke University professor dubbed by Time magazine as "America's best theologian," gave a commencement speech at a Mennonite college a while back, he said he was glad that no American flag was in evidence, for "the power of the flag is, by necessity, violent."

Hauerwas added, "Because there is no flag here, Goshen College is potentially a more truthful, and thus academically interesting, educational institution than those that serve such flags." But here's a question to ask next week on June 14, Flag Day: Is a flagless institution likely to be more academically interesting than one that displays a flag?

I don't doubt that Goshen is a fine college, and that its reasons for not showing a flag, couched as they are in Mennonite tradition, are far deeper than the anti-flag sentiments of the secular campus left. But even though flags may be on display in front of college administration buildings and at football stadiums, most major American universities these days are essentially flagless.

These days many professors sneer at patriotism. Many don't want students to become defenders of the flag, so they kick ROTC off campus. Some prefer the president of Iran to the president of the United States. Does such conduct make a flagless institution potentially more truthful and interesting than one that displays a flag?

I suspect not. At some intellectually flagless institutions masses of individualists line up and take orders from the Noam Chomskys of the world. Flag-flying institutions are likely to have a broader diversity of thought. They may even welcome some professors who are neither liberal nor radical.

And some Mennonites ask a second question: Does allegiance to the United States detract from allegiance to God? Sure, the Declaration of Independence displays faith in God, and the Constitution assumes God, but since it's not constitutionally explicit, is this a godless America?

Well, surprise: It is explicit in U.S. constitutions -- not once but 50 times. State constitutions repeatedly refer to God. Here are five examples from the preambles of Revolutionary War constitutions:

-- Georgia: "We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ... "

-- Massachusetts: "We ... the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with

grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... " -- Pennsylvania: "We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance ... "

-- South Carolina: "We, the people of the State of South Carolina, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution."

-- Maryland: "We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty ... "

And here are five later examples:

-- Minnesota, 1857: "We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings ... "

-- West Virginia, 1872: "Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ... "

-- Idaho, 1889: "We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ... "

-- Oklahoma, 1907: "Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... "

-- Arizona, 1911: "We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ... "

Notice how often the state constitution writers link God and liberty.

They did not equate expressions of biblical faith with graspings for theocracy. They knew that an understanding that all have sinned and fall short of God's glory leads to a separation-of-powers system of checks and balances, the opposite of a dictatorship.

They also knew that if we stopped invoking God's guidance we would look to our own wisdom or to that of a Supreme Court grasping for supremacy, and we'd be in trouble -- as we now are.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Marvin Olasky is editor-in-chief of the national news magazine World, provost of The King's College, and a professor of journalism at The University of Texas at Austin. For additional commentary by Marvin Olasky, visit www.worldmag.com.
 
Be the first to read Marvin Olasky's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Mention of God in state constitutions
Herer's hoping the ANTI-CHRISTIANITY LOSERS
UNION remains totally brain dead and doesn't
figure this out. If they do, it will be
something else for them to do in their
campaign to rid the United States of anything
and everything religious.

Start the meat grinder...
Olasky buggers up history a few times here.

First, the reference to the Declaration of Independence. In it's historical context, he should have noted the founders actual belief systems before tryimg to give the impression that it declares faith in Nature's God. Not man's god per se, but Nature's God, and the reference is actually to the laws of nature, and the creator that made those laws. The reference to the Supreme Ruler, again a God with vaghue identity which was more a deist cast than nominal Christian, wasn't in the Jefferson draft. That can be found in Jefferson's Autobiography.

The Constitution assumes God? Where? What kind of nonsense is that assertion?

Olasky then fails to mention that shortly after the Constituion was ratified, all the early examples of state constitutions he mentioned were re-written with the references to God left out. You can access the state web sites and verify that.

And he completely ignores the reality today of the religious rights desire for theocracy. Please refer to Coral Ridge progrmas to "reclaim" America, and Pat Robertson's book titled New World order. Which incidentlly, he lied to George Stephanpoulos about when George interviewed him on his show last year. Add to that Rick Scarborough's book Enough is Enough, which is complete with Dave Bartons fabricated quotes of the founding fathers. So whether or not the early Chrisitians were looking for a theocracy is irrelevant in light of the fact that today's saints will stopp as low as lying to force something onto our country that was never intended by it's founders and writers of the founding documents.

And in true either/or thinking, Olasky states, "...is this a godless America?"

It wasn't meant to be. But Olasky is implying an assertion here that secualrists think it should be and are forcing that agenda, which of course is a lie.

It flies in the face of Jefferson's writings and the First Amendment. Jefferson had room for all faiths: "The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67

The insertion that was rejected? The words "Jesus Christ." Which was the Christian effort to establish their religion as the supreme one, as Russel Kirk claimed it was, and clear thinking Americans rejected it because they knew America was bigger than that.

Olasky joins the likes of acknowledged liar David Barton is posting this kind of garbage in an effort to brainwash simple minded sheep. And sadly, there will likely be many who will post in praise of his words.

"Like sheep to the slaughter...."

Bill is the first fish
to suck down the bait, hook, line, and sinker.


No reason applied
"They also knew that if we stopped invoking God's guidance we would look to our own wisdom" -- it seems the author has done this; instead of reasoning, he just hopes the gods will make his text come true...

Curious
Gonzo, why is it important to you to label those with whom you disagree, or with whom you find fault, "liars"?

Perhaps they are simply... wrong?

There is a difference.

Unlike Gonzo
and those like him, those he calls liars actually cite direct quotes as well as contextual references in their proofs.

Jefferson was a very complex man who was by no stretch a "Deist" in the common sense nor an orthodox Christian. However, his most prized accomplishments include the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that is soaked with reference and respect to the Christian God.

For further reference, almost all the founders were professing and practicing Christians. That is a simple, verifiable, historical fact.

Yes the Constitution "assumes" God as is clearly evident from the writings of Jefferson and others who openly declare that rights are inalienable because they come from God and not man.

Finally, "natural law" in the context that they used it wasn't referencing "mother nature" but rather the Law mentioned in Romans 2 that has been written on the conscience of man... the law that man "naturally" knows in his "heart"... that common sense of right and wrong amongst just people.

Liberal accusations of "liars"
Liberals tend to think that anyone who says something inconvenient to them are "liars" regardless of how well documented or reasoned their arguments are.

God and liberty…

Thanks for reminding us that our forefathers understood that the source of liberty was not in autonomous man. Consistent with the first amendment, the state constitutions are more explicit in their acknowledgement of the Creator, since matters of religion were seen as a state issue rather than federal.

We take your last statement to refer to the Scriptures as the only sufficient basis for law and morality.

This Will Rile Them Up!
Wait A Minute!
Didn't all The Demoronocrats recently get together and talk about their faith on Communist News Network. Then why are college professors, most of who belong to 'The Party of Tolerance', so worried about faith in God and/or Patriotism!

Hitlery, Osama Obama, Breck Girl, What a Bunch of Liars!

The Constitution assumes God? Where? Wha
Gonzo states: "The Constitution assumes God? Where? What kind of nonsense is that assertion?"

The answer is found not only impliedly, but just before the signatures with this statement:

"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"

Gonzo
Befitting name really. You are misintepreting history here as chronicled by true scholars such Brinkley, McCullough, Bennett, Gingrich and many others. You also negate the personal writings of the Founding Fathers including Jefferson. I will give you a crumb however. Our founding documents were written in deist form since many different forms of Christianity had already sprung up, that and the total distaste for the Anglican Church of which the monarchy is the head of and the Pope.

Tim
I think he missed that 'year of our Lord' thing.

Time and Truth
Melvin, I find your few first words very interesting... If Time elevates folks, that's the final word regardless of what they say or do.
The day will come when Gonzo has respect for Marvin Olasky---that is when the high potentates at Time grant Olasky scholary respect. Don't hold your breath. Keep it up Melvin, I love to watch little things come out from under their big rocks. By the way if Time places honor upon your work, I'm running for the hills.

Wow.
A universal refernece to a dating system in the Consitution assumes faith in God. Now I know that you so called saints are really stretching to establish a fable.

As for calling folk liars, as opposed to wrong, when George Staphanopolous quotes from a guys book, and the guy states it isn't what he said, that's not being wrong. I'll caveat that Robertson was also the ding bat that claimed he never used the word assassinate when he used it twice. Maybe the old goat is loosing his marbles.

However, David Barton admitted fabricating quotes. And that is a lie. So wrong isn't the issue. And Barton hasn't quit using the fabrications, and they continue to be published.

As for Looloo, I'll say this. I quote directly from Jefferson. And Gingrich and Bennet scholars?! Oh my. I'd hate to see the outcome of that education. Barton is hailed as a scholar as well, and he never went to college. That sort of "scholarship" is what makes right wing revisionism the claptrap it is.

For sjt18, I noticed you asserted verifiable fact, and didn't post any, as opposed to the direct quotes I posted from Jefferson. The supposed Christian who thought it necessary to cut all the miracles from the New Testament. Which the Congress then published and handed out to freshman Congressmen for a long time. I also suggest you read the inscription on the Jefferson memorial in it's full context. It will prove, just like the deletion of "Jesus Christ" that I referred to earlier, that there was no implied Christianity in our founding, as was later substantiated by the Barbary treaty, Section 11, wghich was ratified by Congress and signed by the President.

Considering Olasky's convenient use of facts as well reasoned or documented is only considered such by those who don't read. Which is essentially what church father Origen said, when he stated, " Let no one educated, no one wise, no one sensible draw near. For these abilities are thought by us to be evils. But as for anyone ignorant, anyone stupid, anyone uneducated, anyone who is a child, let him come boldly." Thats in his writing Against Celsus 3.44.

Quite obviously believer's haven't changed in all these centuries.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.