First, every American is certainly free to believe what you will, religious or irreligious. We respect your beliefs, as we know you respect ours. Respect does not require agreement; by the same token, neither does disagreement excuse disrespect. This is the beauty of the American system – you won’t find such freedom in many places, for instance, most Muslim countries (and we would argue that this freedom is not unconnected to the Christian presuppositions we mention below)
Second, whether you believe in Supreme Being (and its effect or non-effect on our institutions) is one thing. Whether the people who created those institutions believed in such a being is another. Georgie thinks he is in the minority when it comes to presupposition of a Divine, we personally have no way of knowing whether he is or he isn’t – polls seem to fluctuate too much based on who’s giving them and what results they want. Regardless of present polls, however, this still does not change the fact that those who created the institutions by which we govern ourselves were a religious people who did presuppose a Supreme Being.
Take for example, our beloved South Carolina, where the people presuppose a God, and assume that liberty some how flows from that God. The preamble to the Constitution begins:
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, gratefulOr Colorado, where we presently are working, which is by no means a part of the “Bible Belt”:
to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
preservation and perpetuation of the same.
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the
Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government…
Or consider the self-evident truths contained in our own Declaration of Independence, from which we glean our American notion of equality, and which declares in no uncertain terms that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These examples should suffice it to say that Justice Douglas had not misspoken when he premised his opinion upon the assumption that our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.
Third, Justice Frankfurter has frankly missed the point. At issue is whether a parent can choose to allow their child to leave school during the day to be instructed at a religious center. Frankfurter’s beef is twofold: he seems to have a problem with the fact that children are “forced” to remain in school and participate in the regularly scheduled curricular activities, and he doesn’t like the fact that religious instruction can substitute for school credit. First, the children left behind are not being required to do anything they weren’t already required to do – attendance is compulsory. They were going to be in school, like it or not. Second, if fully private and religious schooling is recognized under law as sufficient educational instruction, and it is, then supplementing a public school education with third party instruction is completely acceptable. If the left behind kids want an excuse to “get out of school,” they’re more than welcome to go the religious instruction with the rest of their classmates. And if the school already allows exceptions for students (i.e. permission to leave school for musical instruction, athletic competition, etc.), the First Amendment jurisprudence is relatively clear that to deny such an exception to a person because of the religious nature of their request is a blatant violation of the Free Exercise Clause and is subject to strict scrutiny.
To be honest, we think even Justice Douglas has some sketchy points, and our initial post was not to condone or condemn the case or the opinions. It was merely to recognize the correct usage of two phrases that we find frequently misused.
But since you brought it up…
