"free from a coercive requirement to affirm God...."
How did this nation get to the crossroads in time where an affirmation of a God could be in any plausible way construed as 'coercive?' Most Americans, and your humble pundit is but assuming herein, but an educated guess would lend itself to inference that most Americans do not even know what the specific verbiage of the First Amendment includes, let alone any other document pertaining to these matters. Yet, most of my fellow Americans cling to the deceivingly innocuous phrase "separation of church & state," which will not be found in any particular bastion within the Constitution; lest one considers the personal correspondence of a man living in France at the time of the Constitution's drafting and passage that pertinent for discourse. Whatever ideological perspective one puts their respective jurisprudential beliefs into, cannot, with any resemblance of intellectual honesty, state that the founders of this great nation did seek resolute affirmation from their Creator.
How can this rationale, this assertion, that the simplistic phrase "under God" be construed as a "coercive requirement?" I cannot possibly begin to reconcile this simple phrase's supposed coercive nature with the words emanating from the document giving birth to this nation.
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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
This great nation was conceived under the auspice that any fundamnetal Right men cherish and enjoy is derived from our Creator. With such clear rhetoric, is this to be construed as "coercive" as well? This inquiry, notwithstanding the irreconcilable fact, that the word "coercive" has no reference or inkling within our founding documents, but it has become the determinative factor based upon the fiat of those who arrogantly assert their will before the American will. Let us live by what is said in our founding documents, let the tyranny of the judiciary cease, and be no more.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......
Combination of both the Declaration of Independence and the aforementioned Amendment to the Constitution delineates that there is no "coercive" nature by the affirmation of our God who bestowed our unalienable rights. It is merely an expression of gratitude and neutrality that the rights each citizen enjoys is not of this world, that is, it is not of man. Yet, men, in their arrogance are demanding that no intercession be made; that certain Rights we enjoy are the fruit of the government. Was this not a significant portion of the reasoning undergirding the foundational determination to fight to break those surly bounds?
What is it about the mere acknowledgement of a god? What makes this so heinous to some that others believe in something, anything? Why must the nation be subjugated to such narrow-minded ideology? Mr. New Dow and the ilk such as the ACLU will not rest until we are coerced into following their dogma. It is such a shame that this utter hypocrisy is given even an ounce of credence, but being given its day in court is patently absurd. America deserves better for we sprang forth with an ideal that was better. Our God gave us unalienable rights so that we may enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the coercion of any government.
Thank God Almighty that their are others who cherish these unalienable rights:
The Right Track
Stop the ACLU