Namor the Winged

<earlier> ^| upward |^ <later>


This is a scholarship essay I sent this morning. The contest is over, but you can see the topic (404). It is to the theme "Why the founders got it right when they made a godless constitution."

Parted Waters

It is inconceivable that our "founding fathers" would have allowed a religious based constitution cripple America"s future. Our thanks arise from explicit division between the two in both the Sixth Article and First Amendment of the Constitution. The incompatibility of goals between the two reveals the philosophical necessity that our government"s neutrality continue. As incredible as it may be that States merge their interests with those of clerics, any interaction between both inevitably has resulted in danger to some degree continuing even today. Finally, it will be shown that to insert "god" will necessitate a degree of irrationality dooming subsequent citizens. Pardon the pun - thank god that religion gained no toehold in the United States Constitution.

The very purposes of realm are incompatible. Governments were and are established for the protection of the governed. Such is the necessity of police and armies: to erase the need for a mob to maintain societal security. Religions have no connection with that purpose. Religions originated in a desire to explain the phenomena of the world. Such is the spring of countless ancient Greek myths. Religions also dictate guidelines for behavior whether for "Enlightenment" or some benefit after death. A cult"s history is of no importance to a governing body"s operation, thus the only fusion is the imposition of its ethical system. As Government"s only tool is force, an imposed behavior is the stamp of tyranny in any of its diluted degrees. Rational beings are ultimately responsible for their thoughts and accepted worldview. To mandate a system of belief is to pretend that choice, even the choices leading to destitution of that individual, is impotent for the individual. Any intelligent person will recognize such an attempt as personal threat to one"s livelihood and happiness. Those drafting the Constitution recognized the danger and forebode it forever from the Federal Structure.

Historical track records of meshes displays that an atheist government is not only sound, but a requirement. One of the very reasons for emigration to the Colonies was escape from religious persecution. Of the first thirteen, only Maryland declared itself a haven for Catholics. Had British citizens done so, immediate punitive actions would be taken. Those people would be barred from public or military office. And where did this division come from? An older chafing relationship between churches and states. The English King Henry VIII disliked another, religious, leader -the Pope- with sway over his serfs and established the above-described tradition along with the Church of England. A government mating with religion is not the only manner that interaction results in woe: explicit rejection is equally unjust. China"s Communist government repeated King Henry"s sentiment in a different style. To remove a competitor for loyalty to the Party, religion was outlawed in China. No foreign missionary is allowed to set up shop, possibly to issue counter-propaganda. Thus, one billion people had an ideology imposed upon them once again by a system paranoid, yet in the thrall of gods. Whether a government takes an affirmative or negative stance regarding religion, its touch is of no benefit to the governed.

Only the neutral path set in Article six of the Constitution and the First Amendment is acceptable; consider the alternative. If Article Six were changed, if a religious test were allowable for election of public officials, the perversion is immediately apparent. The first choice is which religion will constitute the test. All religions contain some postulate that it is the one true representation of our universe. Regardless of the decision, such would be an unconscionable breach of injustice. As many Atheists complain, acceptance of a religion does not ensure virtue and its use as such is horrific in consequence. Some denominations would hold a murderer who professes belief is superior to another living embodiment of its principles, less affirmation of that god"s sovereignty. Further, consider the sovereignty of the Constitution if Article Six. Its very supremacy could be contested based on a religion"s text. In the case of a law, which is to be followed? The Bible sets forth barbaric punishments like stoning, are these to be supported as well if a god is given entry to the federal system? To preserve sanity, the American demarcation between church and state is essential.

Simply stated, our progenitors upheld the concept that each rational being may choose his own system of belief when god was kept from the Constitution. The philosophical split between government and theology is evident in their purposes. And, as successful practice is impossible with flawed theory, attempts at interaction result in discrimination and abuses of power. To change the American system introduces consequences both deleterious and illogical. Thus, the drafting of the Constitution upheld the ideals it recognized: man as a free being.

© Nicholas Prado <earlier> ^| upward |^ <later> category: