Excerpt from “God in the Constitution”
April 26th, 2006 | by Paul Merda |“All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
We have tried the government of priests, and we know that such governments are without mercy. In the administration of theocracy, all the instruments of torture have been invented. If any man wishes to have God recognized in the Constitution of our country, let him read the history of the Inquisition, and let him remember that hundreds of millions of men, women and children have been sacrificed to placate the wrath, or win the approbation of this God.
There has been in our country a divorce of church and state. This follows as a natural sequence of the declaration that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The priest was no longer a necessity. His presence was a contradiction of the principle on which the Republic was founded. He represented, not the authority of the people, but of some “Power from on High,” and to recognize this other Power was inconsistent with free government. The founders of the Republic at that time parted company with the priests, and said to them: “You may turn your attention to the other world — we will attend to the affairs of this.” Equal liberty was given to all. But the ultra theologian is not satisfied with this — he wishes to destroy the liberty of the people — he wishes a recognition of his God as the source of authority, to the end that the church may become the supreme power. But the sun will not be turned backward. The people of the United States are intelligent. They no longer believe implicitly in supernatural religion. They are losing confidence in the miracles and marvels of the Dark Ages. They know the value of the free school. They appreciate the benefits of science. They are believers in education, in the free play of thought, and there is a suspicion that the priest, the theologian, is destined to take his place with the necromancer, the astrologer, the worker of magic, and the professor of the black art.
We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins — they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day — of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars — neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience - - and for them all, man is indebted to man.
Let us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us insist that this, the Republic, is “A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
God in the Constitution by Col. Robert Ingersoll
2 Responses to “Excerpt from “God in the Constitution””
By ken grandlund on Apr 26, 2006 | Reply
Interesting. Just the other day I was pondering the ‘miracle of resurrection’ accompanying the Easter holiday. What was once the provenance of Gods, the ability to ‘raise from the dead’ is now common place in hospitals throughout the modern world. Does that mean that doctors and scientists have usurped this miracle, making it somewhat common place today for a clinically dead person to regain physical life? Does it mean that the miracle of bringing someone back to life isn’t really a miracle at all? Or is it something else altogether?
My own father has been ‘dead’ several times, each time brought back to life by skilled surgeons. (Most recently in December 2006 during a heart valve replacement surgery.) Never once did I or my family equate the surgical resurrection to the benign will of some diety. We understood that advances in medicine and years of training by the doctors and their staff were responsible for ‘bringing him back from the dead.”
This got me to thinking about all sorts of common day occurrences that were once ascribed to priests, holymen, and gods. In ages past, what could not be described or understood was dealt to the realm of gods. Today, what is still unknown is ascribed to science to learn. And what once was miraculous is no more so.
Sorry to go off topic here, but your references to the evolving mental capabilities of humanity and their correlation to a free, secular government reminded me of these thoughts of mine from the other day. Too true to say that under strict theocracies, societies do not progress. And without progress, none of us would be bitching about high gas prices or worrying about nuclear warfare. We’d be too busy plowing the fields for the master landowners, scraping hides for apparell, and waiting for the preists to tell us which way the wind will blow tomorrow.
By LiberPaul on Apr 27, 2006 | Reply
Absolutely Ken. That;s exactly why I posted that tidbit….