Will the Supreme Court stop public debate on the origin of human rights?

By Mary Mostert

The debate over the Ten Commandments and even the Declaration of Independence being displayed on public property is not really a new argument. God's role, or lack of role, in government was hotly debated in the 1700s during Washington's administration. It was also debated when the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 and when he and his friend Lafayette wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man in Paris when he was Ambassador to France and Lafayette was a member of the French Assembly during the French Revolution.

The issue being debated in the U.S. Supreme Court actually is directly related to what happened in June of 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was written by Jefferson, then modified by the Declaration Committee composed of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston. It was further modified debate in the Continental Congress. The phrase in the Declaration that announces the very reason for proclaiming Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness..." was not written by Jefferson.

Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson, a deist, did not credit the "Creator" for granting unalienable rights, because he didn't believe there was a God interested and involved in the affairs of man.

So, what, actually IS an "inalienable" or an "unalienable" right? According to my 1848 dictionary there were several meanings for the word "alienate." The first was "to convey or transfer property or a title to another." The second meaning was to "withdraw from or be estranged from God." Jefferson's "inalienable" right was a right that was human in origin, such as a title or an inherited property. An "unalienable right" was a right that bound human beings to God. One cannot transfer either life or liberty to another person, therefore it is an unalienable right. A title or property CAN be transferred and is an inalienable right..

Therefore, while murder is a crime punishable by death in most cultures, including America's, killing another in self-defense is not even a crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which meets in chambers with a granite frieze of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, is currently considering whether any such display is permissible on public property. On May 5, 2000 Judge Jennifer Coffman ruled that a display in a rural Kentucky school consisting of excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, Ronald Reagan's 1983 proclamation of the "Year of the Bible," our national motto "In God We Trust and the Kentucky state constitution was a violation of the Constitution that had to be removed from the building.

Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution merely bars the U.S. Congress from establishing a national church, today we seem to be moving towards keeping our founding documents that mention "our Creator" out of local public schools. The First Amendment which prohibits CONGRESS from passing laws establishing a religion is being used by the Courts to create deism or atheism as America's only STATE religion.

Originally I hoped the books I have been writing the past two years, A Hunger for Liberty Leads to the Declaration of Independence and The Threat of Anarchy Leads to the U.S. Constitution would be used in public schools. Now it appears that they may very well be kept out of public schools by Court ordered censorship because they do deal with the debate between founding fathers like Washington who believed and spoke often about this nation being protected by providence and those like Jefferson who thought revelation had ceased to exist

The Bastille in Paris was stormed and destroyed by mob action in Paris on July 14, 1789, which, according to the French Embassy's website "was proof that power no longer resided in the king or in God, but in the people, in accordance with the theories developed by the Philosophies of the 18th century." The Declaration of the Rights of Man was approved by the French Assembly on August 26, 1789, declaring "Law is the expression of the general will." Basically France declared mob action" to be "law." Their "rights" did not come from God or a "Creator" but from nature or from the French people via the National Assembly or, in the case of storming the Bastille, from the "expression of the general will" of a bloodthirsty mob.

That set in motion the Reign of Terror by the Jacobins that led to the beheading of 17,000 French men, women and children, starting with the king and queen of France. The churches were closed down and hundreds of the clergy were executed. In 1794, France declared the end of the Christian era and atheism was adopted as France's state religion.

On the other hand, America's document enshrined the Creator and George Washington's first Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1789 began: "Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor..." Will the Supreme Court forbid prohibit teaching children in public schools the origin of their liberties by forbidding displays or discussion of the Declaration of Independence in public places and the reading of Washington's proclamations.

Has there been and is there now any connection between a nation's destiny and the spiritual direction taken by its leaders and citizens?

I believe that there is. However, it appears, there is a concentrated effort being made today to make sure none of the younger generation ever get a chance to debate the issue in school.

© Mary Mostert