In God do you trust?

Let's take a look at what "establishment" means, courtesy of Dictionary.com:

You missed one definition:

3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.

At least you can be thorough.

You claim that the Constitution uses it to mean something like definition 2. Does it not make sense if we use definition 1?

By definition 1, the government would be prohibited from having any laws that even define what a church is. For example, in New York, in order to be legally recognized as a church in the 1800s you had to have at least 6 members and then you could receive a charter from the state showing you were recognized as a church. (Historical side note: That's why the LDS Church can state it was founded April 6, 1830 with 6 members and quickly grew larger. Six members organizaed the Church at a meeting of about 60 people who all joined the Church after its formation.) Even the act of providing a legal definition for what constitutes a religion could violate definition 1.

Definition 2 makes much more logical sense, especially considering the historical documents we have from that time period. Which option makes more sense:

Congress shall make no law respecting [the act of establishing a] religion or the free exercise thereof

or

Congress shall make no law respecting [an established] religion or the free exercise thereof

Neither of those definitions requires any sort of removal of religion as a whole from government in all forms.

The Supreme Court has already clearly ruled that no person can be required by the state to profess any religious beliefs (including "Under God" in the pledge), because of the "free exercise" portion of the 1st. However, it is not a wall of separation (i.e. no interaction whatsoever), but a wall of impartiality (i.e. not supporting any particular establishment of religion) that is required by the Establishment clause.

Kimball Kinnison

 

At least you can be thorough.

Sorry; I didn't think it really applied to the discussion, and I didn't want my post to be any longer than necessary.


By definition 1, the government would be prohibited from having any laws that even define what a church is.

And definition 2 wouldn't prohibit that?

Let's read it that way:

"Congress shall make no law respecting [a church], or prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"

So how can Congress even define what makes a church?


Neither of those definitions requires any sort of removal of religion as a whole from government in all forms.

I disagree; by acknowledging a God, the government establishes a basic religion.


The Supreme Court has already clearly ruled that no person can be required by the state to profess any religious beliefs (including "Under God" in the pledge)

Excellent.

And stating "In God We Trust" is not making me profess a religious belief? It's making that profession on my behalf; that makes it hard for me to merely abstain, when it's doing all the talking.


1st. However, it is not a wall of separation (i.e. no interaction whatsoever), but a wall of impartiality (i.e. not supporting any particular establishment of religion)

Acknowledging a "God" may not support a particular church or religion (i.e. one specifically), but it does support some religions over others. It supports monotheistic religions, especially Judaism and Christianity, over polytheistic religions and atheism.

 

By the same logic, why would they use "establishment of religion" if what they meant was "church"?

Let's take a look at what "establishment" means, courtesy of Dictionary.com:

1.
a. The act of establishing.
b.The condition or fact of being established.

2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.


You claim that the Constitution uses it to mean something like definition 2. Does it not make sense if we use definition 1?

Let's say that we use definition 1: we still have to answer what it means to establish a religion. It helps not a whit.

But to answer your question, they use "establishment of religion" instead of "church" because churches aren't the only establishments of religion.

(Similarly, Amendment II protects the right to bear "arms" and not "rifles" or "pistols" specifically. It allows for flexibility.)

What, you ask, are the other establishments of religion are there? Freemasonry, a long established fraternal organization. Consider:

- Membership requirements for Freemasonry require a belief in a Supreme Being: God.

- The organization is most certainly not a church, as members attend churches of their own choosing. (It doesn't compete with churches for membership.)

- The organization was in America at the time of the writing of the Constitution: George Washington and other Founders were themselves Freemasons.

One could imagine Congress passing a law giving preferential treatment to Freemasons - such as funding their campaigns if they ran for Congress. Such a law wouldn't respect a CHURCH, since Freemasonry isn't a CHURCH. But it would respect an establishment of religion, since Freemasonry doesn't allow atheists to become members.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was written to prevent an analogue to the Church of England - be it church OR some other organization. They did not want Americans to be treated differently on the basis of their religious beliefs or their membership in religious organizations.

Or do you have any actual evidence that the Founding Fathers changed their minds in that span of thirteen years - that they eventually concluded that the declaration went too far in acknowledging God?

It was certainly long enough for them to author and then throw out the Articles of Confederation - a document which refers to "the Great Governor of the World", which is a much clearer acknowlegement of a superior being than "Blessings of Liberty."

I find it hard to believe that the omission of any reference to an Almighty, Creator, or other deity from the Constitution is purely coincidental.

In other words, you have no actual evidence.

Look at the actual phrase from the Articles of Confederation: "Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union."

Look again at what I just quoted, Washington invoking the name of God within the Constitutional Convention itself: "If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!"

God, if not explicitly present in the Constitution itself, was present in the convention. But that doesn't matter?

I wonder: do you actually want to find out what the authors intended the Constitution to say, or are you too driven by your own agenda to care?

I do want to know who chose the wording for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because I get the distinct impression that he or t

 

And stating "In God We Trust" is not making me profess a religious belief? It's making that profession on my behalf; that makes it hard for me to merely abstain, when it's doing all the talking.

And again - by this flawed logic - every proclamation of the government, including the non-religious "E Pluribus Unum," tramples over your right to free speech.

Why aren't you complaining about THAT?

 

God, if not explicitly present in the Constitution itself, was present in the convention. But that doesn't matter?

Then why did they not bother to mention him in the document?

It is precisely because of all the other references to God - in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, and the proclamations of the first Congress and our first President - that the absence of God from the Constitution stands out.


Answer the question: do you actually care about what the document says and what its authors intended? This answer seems to clearly be, no.

I care to know what the author(s) - but not necessarily the Congress that merely approved it - meant it to say.


"The Year of Our Lord" is a mere convention, like "Saturday" - despite the personal nature of the prounoun "our."

Well, given the alternatives of anno domini or A.D., they chose the common English equivalent. Every time I hear the English version of "A.D." it is said "In the year of our Lord", so it is perfectly natural that they would have worded it in that manner.


Further, the "blessings of liberty" is a figure of speech in which liberty blesses - despite the fact that no other part of the Constitution (Preamble OR otherwise) uses any such figurative language.

At the time, it was not uncommon to speak of things like Justice and Liberty almost as beings. Justice is personified as the blinfolded woman holding a scale; Liberty is personified as the goddess etched into our early currency.

Besides that, why does "blessing" have to mean that there is a being that blesses? Cannot "blessing" be used in the same manner as "benefit", without having to imply that some superior being was bestowing its benevolence?

If anything, the Preamble is the one place where I would have expected a mention of an Almighty, a Creator, or a great Governor that gave us the rights we possess. Instead, it offers only the authority of "We the People."


And again - by this flawed logic - every proclamation of the government, including the non-religious "E Pluribus Unum," tramples over your right to free speech.

Why aren't you complaining about THAT?

For one thing, "E Pluribus Unum" is not prefessing a religious belief on my behalf.

For another, if anyone believes that the statement that our nation is "one from many" violates their free speech, I would love to see them take it to court.

 

The principles on which this government was founded are equality under the law and the individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You have yet to convince me that these principles spring from Christianity.

Womberty - You were right to call me on this, I think - the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness certainly belong more to the Enlightenment (Locke and Rousseau influencing Jefferson, I believe) than necessarily Christianity. I suppose I was describing principles of Christianity that I see as particularly American virtues and characteristics, which do inspire some pride in our country.


And I think it's clear we should try to seek their intent. Otherwise, we would be tempted to twist the Constitution to what we want it to say rather than what the authors meant for it to say. And a document that can mean anything ceases to mean anything in particular. [...] Certainly, intent cannot be known in an absolute sense, but we can do a fair job at approximating the authors' intent by looking at documents and actions outside the Constitution: the Federalist papers, Congressional acts, etc.

I think Bubba is absolutely right on this -- there are normative methods to interpret what the Constitution means. Yes, there are loose constructionists who read into language things that are self-evidently not there (the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights, to take the most infamous example from Griswold v. Conn.) but strict construction is a much more justifiable method for statutory and constitutional interpretation. First, examine the plain meaning of the phrase, to look at what words, connectors, and references are used ("thereof" referring to "establishment of religion," for example). If the meaning is ambiguous by the language (though in this case of the establishment clause, it isn't really), it is proper to look to the history of the statute or amendment for clues as to the legislature's (or framers') intent. In the case of the establishment clause, we can look to other documents produced at the time relevant to the drafting of the Constitution, and other writings by the same people on similar topics. These tend to reveal that the Founders were not opposed to the mention of God by the federal government, or even (in the case of the Northwest Ordinance) necessarily religion.

For those who are trying to argue that "In God we trust" is unconstitutional by the plain meaning of the Constitution, that argument doesn't hold up (as has been demonstrated thoroughly by Bubba and Kimball) but it certainly does not hold up when examining the supporting documents that speak to the framers' intentions (the Federalist Papers, for instance, are an extremely helpful explication of the reasoning behind many of the provisions of the Constitution, and were written to be such). Again, a debate may be had as to whether we should keep "In God we trust" on money, but it isn't unconstitutional.

 

What? No response to my comments about Freemasonry?


Then why did they not bother to mention him in the document?

It is precisely because of all the other references to God - in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, and the proclamations of the first Congress and our first President - that the absence of God from the Constitution stands out.

It stands out? Perhaps.

(All this assumes you're correct in your odd understanding of "blessings of Liberty".)

The question is, can we ASSUME that they then meant the govenment to be secular? No: evidence is required, and you have yet to present any such evidence.


I care to know what the author(s) - but not necessarily the Congress that merely approved it - meant it to say.

Okay, but do you have any evidence that they meant what you want them to mean? And if we cannot find what the author meant, what other choice do we have but look at the intent of the Congress that approved it?


At the time, it was not uncommon to speak of things like Justice and Liberty almost as beings. Justice is personified as the blinfolded woman holding a scale; Liberty is personified as the goddess etched into our early currency.

Justice is also mentioned in the Preamble: "establish Justice." Is it personified? No.


Besides that, why does "blessing" have to mean that there is a being that blesses? Cannot "blessing" be used in the same manner as "benefit", without having to imply that some superior being was bestowing its benevolence?

If they meant "benefit," why didn't they write "benefit"? Your arguments cut both ways.


If anything, the Preamble is the one place where I would have expected a mention of an Almighty, a Creator, or a great Governor that gave us the rights we possess. Instead, it offers only the authority of "We the People."

And it mentions the "blessings of liberty:" only in your twisted, unfounded interpretation does that prove nothing.


For one thing, "E Pluribus Unum" is not prefessing a religious belief on my behalf.

For another, if anyone believes that the statement that our nation is "one from many" violates their free speech, I would love to see them take it to court.

Right, it doesn't express a religious belief: but it DOES express a political belief, one with which some people (militia members, etc.) might take some issue.

You seem to concede my point: it doesn't violate free speech. Obviously. So why does "In God We Trust" violate freedom to worship?

 

One note because I have a big program to finish by tomorrow at midnight:

I care to know what the author(s) - but not necessarily the Congress that merely approved it - meant it to say.

The Bill of Rights was originally a series of 14 amendments submitted by James Madison to the Congress. The Congress debated them (rejecting two amendments) and extensively reworded them. Finally, they submitted 12 amendments to the states for ratification. 10 were ratified relatively quickly (the Bill of Rights), one took about 200 years to be ratified (the 27th Amendment) and one has not yet been ratified. While James Madison was the principle author, we need to consider the intent of Congress as a whole (in large part because of the extensive rewrites).

As an analogy, in 1998 the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act was passed (unanimously) by the Senate without any written changes or additions. It is currently under review by the Supreme Court. When reviewing this law for its intent, do you think they will look only at Bono's intent (considering he expressed many intents to make copyrights last forever, which is unconstitutional) or at the Congress's intent as a whole?

It is not just the intent of the author of a bill that is considered, but the intent and purpose for which the Congress passed the bill that is always considered.

Kimball Kinnison

 

It is not just the intent of the author of a bill that is considered, but the intent and purpose for which the Congress passed the bill that is always considered.

I can see that; however, I find the wording of the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution as well) so devoid of religious references that I have a hard time seeing the overtly religious First Congress as the appropriate source for its interpretation.


The Bill of Rights was originally a series of 14 amendments submitted by James Madison to the Congress. The Congress debated them (rejecting two amendments) and extensively reworded them.

Thank you for the info. I think, then, that it is important to examine what Madison intended the First Amendment to say.

Madison's original wording, which I found here, says:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

The key phrase to me is "nor shall any national religion be established" - I think that shows what is meant by the word "establishment" in the final version of the First Amendment.

The question, then, is whether the Congress proclaiming that God exists establishes a national religion.

In the same way that many denominations such as Catholicism, Baptism, and Methodism can be collectively referred to as the religion "Christianity", many other "denominations", if you will, can be grouped under the religion "monotheism."

The denominations of Christianity have significant differences, but all hold the same basic belief that Christ exists and is the son of God.

The denominations of monotheism vary even more, but they still hold the basic belief that there is one God.

Monotheism is a religion. By proclaiming that the people of the United States trust in God, the Congress has established monotheism as our national religion.

 

"It is not just the intent of the author of a bill that is considered, but the intent and purpose for which the Congress passed the bill that is always considered."

I can see that; however, I find the wording of the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution as well) so devoid of religious references that I have a hard time seeing the overtly religious First Congress as the appropriate source for its interpretation.

Why do you have such a hard time seeing this? You concede that Congress' origninal intent should be considered, but you reject the First Congress because they're "overtly religious"?

Is it because your argument falls apart if you do so?

Aren't you basing whose intent matters on the outcome you want to see, letting the tail wag the dog? Aren't you discriminating against the First Congress because of their religious beliefs?


Another question, while I'm here:

You clearly think "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional, as is the "Under God" clause in the pledge. Likewise, I imagine you object to Congress opening its sessions with prayer.

What about the so-called "blue laws," laws that regulate "work, commerce, and amusements on Sundays"?

Let's say, for instance, that Congress passed a law making some special provision for Sunday, the day traditionally observed by Christians for worship in commemoration of the Ressurection of Jesus Christ.

Would that law be unconstitutional?

 

The key phrase to me is "nor shall any national religion be established" - I think that shows what is meant by the word "establishment" in the final version of the First Amendment.

Take a look at the definition of religion for a moment. (To save room, I won't quote the definition. Follow the link.) It looks like definition 1b would be the most applicable. "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."

The question, then, is whether the Congress proclaiming that God exists establishes a national religion.

In the same way that many denominations such as Catholicism, Baptism, and Methodism can be collectively referred to as the religion "Christianity", many other "denominations", if you will, can be grouped under the religion "monotheism."

Let's look at the definition of monotheism, why don't we? "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God." I have news for you, but one belief does not a religion make.

Go back and look at the definition of religion. 1b and 3 both require a system of beliefs (note the plural usage). Only in the broadest possible interpretation of the word "religion" does the mention of God constitute religion.

Monotheism is a religion. By proclaiming that the people of the United States trust in God, the Congress has established monotheism as our national religion.

Monotheism is a belief, not a religion. It is a belief held and shared by many religions. It is a category of religions.

Go back and compare those definitions with the usage of the time and you will see that the more general form is not what he meant.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Why do you have such a hard time seeing this? You concede that Congress' origninal intent should be considered, but you reject the First Congress because they're "overtly religious"?

*Ahem* Perhaps I should have said "most appropriate."

For one thing, I was trying to determine what was meant by "establishment of religion." Madison is a much better source for that because he was the one who put "establish" in there in the first place.

Second, the Congress passed the Bill of Rights because Madison wanted it, and had convinced the people they wanted it. Whose idea, do you suppose, was it to ask for a day of thanksgiving? Probably some representative who wanted to look pious for his constituents.


What about the so-called "blue laws," laws that regulate "work, commerce, and amusements on Sundays"?

Weren't those typically passed by local governments? The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a national religion. It doesn't necessarily prohibit a state from having an official religion.


Let's say, for instance, that Congress passed a law making some special provision for Sunday, the day traditionally observed by Christians for worship in commemoration of the Ressurection of Jesus Christ.

Would that law be unconstitutional?

I would think it violates the spirit of the Constitution, by infringing on my liberty and my right to pursue happiness, but it would not specifically violate the establishment clause. Unless Congress legislated that every citizen must attend church on Sunday, it wouldn't conflict with that part of the Constitution.

 

Let's look at the definition of monotheism, why don't we? "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God." I have news for you, but one belief does not a religion make.

Funny; I always considered atheism a religion.


Monotheism is a belief, not a religion. It is a belief held and shared by many religions. It is a category of religions.

And is Christianity a religion or a category of religions?

If it is just a category, could we also stamp "In Christ We Trust" on our coins?

 

"temperance (read Madison's and Jefferson's discussions of the nature of government), humility (expressing thanksgiving to God), service (of country and of others), integrity, philanthropy, and acceptance of others (freedoms of speech, assembly, press, worship)."

First off, those are not exclusivly Christian values, they're present in most religions. Also, as has been pointed out, our government was not founded on those principles.

"Besides, let's look at the current state of the government: it asserts that rights are God-given, and it has "In God We Trust" on the money.

How does this infringe on one's right to worship? How does this make worship (or abstaining from worship) any more difficult?
"

I'm reminded of a young child annoying their older sibling by waving his hands in her face, but asserting that he's doing nothing wrong because "I'm not touching you!".

 

I'm reminded of a young child annoying their older sibling by waving his hands in her face, but asserting that he's doing nothing wrong because "I'm not touching you!".



And as for the endorsement of one religion not giving preferential treatment, well - ask anyone with a sibling whether Mom saying "Your [brother/sister] is right" or "Let [him/her] have [his/her] way" doesn't seem like preferential treatment.

 

"Let's say, for instance, that Congress passed a law making some special provision for Sunday, the day traditionally observed by Christians for worship in commemoration of the Ressurection of Jesus Christ.

"Would that law be unconstitutional?"

I would think it violates the spirit of the Constitution, by infringing on my liberty and my right to pursue happiness, but it would not specifically violate the establishment clause. Unless Congress legislated that every citizen must attend church on Sunday, it wouldn't conflict with that part of the Constitution.

The spirit of the Constitution, eh?

Well, let's look at the Constitution, Article I, Section 7, paragraph 2:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

"Sundays excepted."

The U.S. Constitution itself has a blue law. It was written in that primary document, the document that (supposedly) goes out of its way to eschew God and religion. The First Amendment didn't remove that blue law; that would have required a more explicit change like the ones found in Amendments XIV, XVII, and XX. And good old James Madison didn't propose its removal, either.

Permit me a moment to gloat.

 

Having Sundays off my have started as a religious practice(and not a Christian one), but it's now more cultural than religious.

 

Does that matter? The fact is, the Constitution makes a special provision for Sunday because of its importance to Christians. If you secularists were right, that would be considered establishing Christianity as an official religion which would render the Constitution itself unconstitutional.

EDIT: While I'm here, let me re-address another of Womberty's observations:

I would think it violates the spirit of the Constitution, by infringing on my liberty and my right to pursue happiness, but it would not specifically violate the establishment clause. Unless Congress legislated that every citizen must attend church on Sunday, it wouldn't conflict with that part of the Constitution. [emphasis mine]

Likewise, Congress doesn't mandate people to believe "In God We Trust," nor does it reward those who do and punish those who don't.

Thus, it doesn't conflict with Amendment I, either.

 

"Sundays excepted."

The U.S. Constitution itself has a blue law.

I'm confused; that bit of the Constitution doesn't prohibit me from working on Sundays. It simply means that the President is allowed to have Sundays free. Give 'im a break, he's the leader of the free world.


If you secularists were right, that would be considered establishing Christianity as an official religion which would render the Constitution itself unconstitutional.

As it doesn't mention Christ or even God, it can safely be defended as a non-religious provision of the Constitution.

 

I'm confused; that bit of the Constitution doesn't prohibit me from working on Sundays. It simply means that the President is allowed to have Sundays free. Give 'im a break, he's the leader of the free world.

Again, you're not required to adhere to "In God We Trust," and yet you insist that it's unconstitutional, regardless. That's inconsistent.


As it doesn't mention Christ or even God, it can safely be defended as a non-religious provision of the Constitution.

But look at what I asked:

Let's say, for instance, that Congress passed a law making some special provision for Sunday, the day traditionally observed by Christians for worship in commemoration of the Ressurection of Jesus Christ.

Would that law be unconstitutional?

I never said that law had to mention Jesus Christ or God: all the law had to do was make "some special provision for Sunday." Your response?

"I would think it violates the spirit of the Constitution."

Tell me, if Sunday wasn't picked for religious reasons, what other reasons were there? Was it picked at random? Were they anticipating the NFL?

 

I never said that law had to mention Jesus Christ or God: all the law had to do was make "some special provision for Sunday." Your response?

"I would think it violates the spirit of the Constitution."

I was thinking of the laws that actually prohibited people from working on Sundays, which is what I said would violate the spirit of the Constitution. Not because it involved Sundays, but because it prohibited people from having their business open and working on a particular day, and that would impede their pursuit of happiness.

 

Well, that's a bit different: Congress doesn't have the right to enforce a no-work policy on private business, and people have tried to make the case that Amendment XIV extends that restriction to state and local government, but might be a bit of a stretch.

The fact remains: the Constitution is not a rigidly secular document. It takes a GREAT deal of linguistic gymnastics to conclude that the document prohibits "In God We Trust" on the money, so much bending of what the document says that the document ceases to be meaningful.

If we want to discuss whether the motto should be on the money, GREAT! But the Constitution says nothing on the matter either way.

 

It certainly is different.

When I think of "blue laws", I think of something like this:

CONCERNING THE SABBATH:
No one shall cross a river on the Sabbath but authorized clergymen.

No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep houses, cut hair, or shave on the Sabbath Day.

No one shall kiss his or her children on the Sabbath or feasting days.

The Sabbath Day shall begin at sunset Saturday.

...so you can see what I meant about it violating the spirit of the Constitution (and Declaration of Independence), not because it is religious, but because it is unnecessarily prohibitive.


It takes a GREAT deal of linguistic gymnastics to conclude that the document prohibits "In God We Trust" on the money, so much bending of what the document says that the document ceases to be meaningful.

I don't entirely agree with you yet.

First: What was meant by "establishment" in the First Amendment? From Madison's wording ("nor shall any national religion be established"), would you agree that it most likely meant definition 1 from Dictionary.com, as opposed to definition 2?

If so, then the First Amendment prohibits the establishing of a national religion.

Second: Is monotheism a religion? I say it is, in the way that Christianity is a religion with many denominations but the same basic belief, and in the same way that atheism is a religion even if it has no organized denominations (no "establishments", if you will ).

Third: Does stating "In God We Trust" on behalf of the people of the United States establish monotheism as our national religion? I say it does, in the same way that stating "We Have No God" would establish atheism as our religion.

Do you agree? (I'm sure you don't, but I want to know why. )

 

Bubba_the_Genius,
I thank you for your many observations and for heading this thread in their discussions. I like the response I have gotten in less then three days, but I still stick to my beliefs. And it is good to see also though how others feel...
I look forward that this discussion continue...as I come back and check on those replies...

 

Just one question: Why do you care so much? Honestly, if it said "People are stupid" I wouldn't care. It seems to me you have too much time on your hands, and you should be making money instead of reading it.

A good case has been made for why it isn't unconstituional, but I don't blame you, I blame the stupid founding fathers for making such a confusing statement. Why they changed it at the last minute to what they did is beyond me, but it certainly wasn't in a spur of radical secularism. If you think this is a big deal, I suggest that you move to Turkey, I am sure you would be overjoyed with that system.