Allow me to begin by lobbing a grenade into the mine field.
I believe our country's founding is inseparable from Judeo-Christian philosophies.
However, it is also an American's right to hold himself to the tenets, philosophies and practices of any religion, spirituality or non-religion he deems appropriate.
Recently, the "Restoring Honor" rally was hosted in Washington, D.C., with reports of more than 100,000 people from all demographics and backgrounds attending. The speakers reminded those listening to rely on God for relief from the burdens of life and associated hardships.
However, the fiery debate still rages between those who seek to eradicate all traces of Judeo-Christian philosophy from our government and those who seek to preserve those principles.
To separate the idea of civil rights from the Judeo-Christian principle of moral obligation and the idea of a higher power is to devalue our liberty as Americans. As Alexander Hamilton argued, to separate the two concepts is "the most manifest violation of justice." Espoused by Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke and as stated in the Declaration of Independence, the rights to life and liberty are ordained from no less a power than God.
A 2007 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life study found that about 75 percent of Americans are either religious or take no offense to public mentions of God on currency, monuments, etc. However, we still find our legal system entangled in cases to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and to ban Bible study clubs from public high schools.
Yes, the classic separation-of-church-and-state argument has to come into play somewhere. Let's deconstruct this argument. The exact term "separation of church and state" is found nowhere within America's founding documents. Instead, Thomas Jefferson used the phrase to alleviate the concerns of a Baptist ministry that America would be prone to adopt a specific Christian denomination. Jefferson makes the same point I would advocate by using that phrase. Essentially, he points out there is to be no specified or accepted practice of religion by the government.
This does not mean, however, our government cannot adhere to the Judeo-Christian philosophy in its operation. The wording of the First Amendment supports such an idea, as well. The establishment and freedom of exercise clauses prevent specification on the part of the government.
At this point, I must caution us to the danger of separating God from government. If the secularist movement prevails and the idea of "inalienable natural rights as granted by God" is defeated, then what is to prevent the reinstitution of slavery or discrimination at the behest of a majority? When men are left to determine the rights of one another, those rights are in serious jeopardy.
In summation, this issue is of paramount importance to each of us, and at such a tumultuous point in American history we should all be standing up for the continued recognition of our inalienable natural rights, as endowed by God.
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., in his famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," referred to "our constitutional and God-given rights." In that same letter, he also said those engaged in the civil rights movement were "standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage."
If we continue to diminish the role of religion in our political dialogue and exclude its manifestations from our public affairs, we will lose the essential foundation of our American rights and freedoms. Our natural rights are our foundation, our backbone, our promise and our future.
Bryan Griffin is a first-year law student. His column appears every Thursday.
