So
Help Me God
By Frank Salvato
 “So
help me God.” Such are the final words of the Oath of Office
as recited by second term president George W. Bush on Inauguration
Day 2005. They concluded the oath that saw the president reaffirm
the duties he faithfully executed during his first term in office
and that he swore to perform again in his second. To President Bush
these words mean something. They are the ultimate expression of
his commitment to fulfill the promise that he has made to the American
people, himself and, so help him, to his God.
Most
people, whether religious or not, recognize that the phrase “so
help me God,” emphasizes the seriousness of the oath just
administered. They recognize them as confirmation that President
Bush has once again promised to “faithfully execute the office
of President of the United States,” and to the best of his
ability, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States." These words hurt no one but instead hold
President Bush to a commitment, and in the president’s eyes,
a solemn commitment made under the watch of the One that will ultimately
judge him. To President Bush this is more pressing than any opinion
poll or approval rating.
So,
it is stunning that words which express so much to an entire nation,
words that hurt no one, could be so vehemently opposed.
The
US Supreme Court, namely Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice
John Paul Stevens, recently refused to hear an emergency appeal
brought before them by Michael Newdow, the perennial cyst on the
buttocks of common sense, asking the court to bar any prayer or
religious content during the Presidential Inauguration. In his complaint
Newdow argued that permitting religious content in the proceedings
violated the US Constitution’s first amendment ban on government
establishment of religion. To say the least, Mr. Newdow’s
argument is such a far stretch it is reminiscent of Michael Moore
in spandex.
The
first amendment of the Bill of Rights states:
“Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
There
is no separation of church and state mentioned in the first amendment
or anywhere else in the US Constitution. To believe so is to be
mistaken. In fact, the issue of there being a separation of church
and state is based on a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to
the Baptists of the Danbury congregation in order to quell their
fears of a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another
denomination, were to become the national religion. He wrote:
“I
contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should "make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation
between Church and State.”
The
US Constitution had 55 people working on it yet the likes of Newdow
insist that the personal writings of Jefferson – although
a noted member of the Constitutional Congress – somehow afford
them validity when they insist that the US Constitution embraces
the idea of “separation of church and state.” It does
not. If anything, the intentions of Jefferson were to have the “wall
of separation” flow one way, allowing the people of the United
States to practice religion freely without interference from government.
These intentions were shattered in 1961 when the US Supreme Court,
lorded over by Chief Justice Earl Warren, removed prayer from school
without precedent in the case of Engel v. Vitale.
Jefferson’s,
“A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom,” enacted
by the Virginia legislature in 1786 has at its core the idea that
citizens may neither be obliged to worship nor prohibited from worshiping
however and whenever they wish. Jefferson is quoted as saying, “It
does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or
no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” In
this statement Jefferson illustrates the importance of tolerance.
Where one man may not recognize god he should defer to another’s
right to practice his faith. Tolerance is born of an ideal realized
through courtesy and conviction, qualities the narcissistic carbuncle
Newdow lacks completely.
Common
sense suggests that if one doesn’t share the same faith as
another one should be strong enough in their own faith to be unshaken.
If one is an Atheist and truly believes that there is no god then
how can someone who prays to a god, any god, be a threat? To be
shaken, threatened, because someone does not believe in the same
way as you is a sign of weakness and demonstrates a lack of conviction.
But in these days of Atheists wanting to ban religion (Atheism being
a recognized religion) and anarchists planning demonstrations of
defiance (anarchists planning anything – the ultimate oxymoron)
common sense doesn’t always prevail and the facts of the matter
– and their sources – seldom come to light. To that
end we can only pray that common sense re-emerges before it is too
late…so help me God.
Frank
Salvato is a political media consultant and managing editor for
TheRant.us. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He
has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor and numerous radio shows.
His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict
Prevention and are periodically featured in The Washington Times
as well as other national and international publications.
Email
the Editor |
