While George Washington and George W. Bush both have expressed the view that God has an important role to play in the creation of good government, not everyone agrees. It was an issue that was hotly debated when the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 and in 1789 when Jefferson, as Ambassador to France, and Lafayette, and a member of the French Assembly during the French Revolution, collaborated in writing the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens..

It is again being debated in 2005, this time at the U.S. Supreme Court and worldwide in the media. The American Civil Liberties Union in a press release on March 2, 2005 stated that “The relationship between individuals and their God, which is at the core of the Ten Commandments, is and should remain a private matter. It is not the government's business." The group claims that freedom of speech is upheld by prohibiting any reference to the Ten Commandments on public property. However, the issue had to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court which meets in a building where representatives of Moses and the Ten Commandments are everywhere – as the litigants enter the building, as they walk through the doors inside the building and as they argue their case beneath a frieze of Moses holding the tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were written, according to the Bible.

The debate over the role of a “Creator” or “God” began with the writing of the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776, when Thomas Jefferson’s rough draft was presented to the Declaration Committee composed of Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston. It was further modified during 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. He believed in God, but did not believe in revelation – that God was interested in or involved with or talked to man.

So, what, actually IS an “inalienable” or an “unalienable” right? According to the 1848 Webster unabridged 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..

Murder, which is defined as the “unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought” is a crime punishable by death in most cultures. However, if the intended victim of murder kills his attacker first, that is self-defense that PREVENTS a murder. That is why killing in self-defense is not even a crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court meets in chambers with a marble frieze of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. However, 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 banning our founding documents that mention “our Creator” and editing presidential messages that mention “God.” The First Amendment prohibits CONGRESS from passing laws establishing a religion. However, it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in such a way that it has limited free speech in public buildings such as school and courthouses.

The French embassy website in describing the storming of the Bastille by angry mobs in Paris on July 14, 1789, calls it “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.” A month later, on August 26, 1789, The Declaration of the Rights of Man was introduced into the French Assembly by Lafayette and approved.

The Declaration declared in part: “Law is the expression of the general will” and, therefore, the mob action in destroying the Bastille became “law.” Inalienable rights where not endowed by our Creator, but from nature or the French people via the National Assembly or, in the case of storming the Bastille, from the “expression of the general will” of a mob. The mob storming the Bastille set in motion the Reign of Terror by the Jacobins who had seized control of the Assembly. By 1794, France declared the “end of the Christian era,” atheism was adopted as the State Religion, churches were closed down and hundreds of priests were beheaded. During the Reign of Terror, more than 17,000 French men, women and children, starting with the king and queen of France, were publicly beheaded by the guillotine.

In America the Continental Congress unanimously voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence in which “our Creator” is designated as the source of our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the early days of the Republic, that connection was repeatedly recognized. 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…”

The issue today is, in effect: Can the origin of our liberties even be debated in the 21st century in public schools? Can a public school teacher today allow students to read and discuss the meaning of the Declaration of Independence or Washington’s First Thanksgiving proclamation?

The multi-million dollar World War II National memorial that opened in April 2004 edits God out of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s December 8, 1941, speech to Congress and the nation. Called the “day of infamy” speech ,it began:

“Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”

Roosevelt informed the people about Japan’s attack and warned the nation of the dangers ahead and concluded his talk with:

“Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

“With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

“I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December seventh, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."

However, the engraving on the World War II monument alters Roosevelt’s words by leaving “so help us God” off the quote. It is left as if Roosevelt had total confidence in human efforts to solve the problems ahead. It reads: “With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph.”

Has there been and is there now any connection between a nation’s destiny and what its leaders believe about the origin of law and rights? Would the beheading of thousands in the French Revolution been avoided if its Declaration had recognized the unalienable right to life endowed by “our Creator?” The Declaration of Rights described the “natural and imprescriptible” rights of man, which were recognized by the National Assembly as “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.” There is no mention of life or the pursuit of happiness.

“Liberty” was defined as consisting of “the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.” The definition did not include any limitation on the government from declaring the nation’s religion and on July 12, 1790, France’s National Assembly adopted the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. That bill seized total control of the Church in France. All Church property was confiscated and the National Assembly reorganized the selection process of the priests, bishops and curates of the Church. On September 22, 1792, the Assembly wiped out the “Christian Era” and replaced it with the new “French Era.”

As 19th historian John Clark Ridpath put it,

“A decree was passed against the Christian Religion and it was sought to obliterate the last vestige of the ancient system of belief. The doctrines which men had accepted for centuries were formally abrogated. Atheism was declared to be the faith of France. Immortality was denied. On all public cemeteries was placed this inscription: Death is an Eternal Sleep.” The age was proclaimed the Age of Reason. Reason was deified. All the ceremonies of Catholicism were turned into ridicule and mockery. The churches were rifled and the treasures of silver and gold were carried with laughter and song to the bar of the Convention.”

To a lesser degree, the 2004 presidential campaign also divided the American people into two groups based on their faith. A poll taken prior to the election showed 70% of Kerry’s supporters were more worried about candidates who “are too close to religion and religious leaders” and 52% of Bush’s supporters were more worried about public officials who “don’t pay enough attention to religion and religious leaders.” In the same poll 70% of the respondents expressed concern over “television, movies and popular music were lowering moral standards in this country.”

However, recognizing the faith-based motivation of those who wrote and voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States is slowly being abandoned in the United States as others throughout the world seem increasingly interested in those very faith-based ideals.

On March 2, 2005 in an address at Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland, President George W. Bush made headlines in Middle Eastern Arab newspapers, by stating::

“The world is speaking with one voice when it comes to making sure that democracy has a chance to flourish in Lebanon and throughout the greater Middle East. Freedom is on the march. It’s a profound period of time.”

“So I look forward to continuing to work with friends and allies to advance freedom — not America’s freedom, but universal freedom, freedom granted by a Higher Being.”

President Bush’s comment about freedom being granted by a “Higher Being” was not widely reported in the United States, but the Arab News headlined it and interviewed Shireen Hunter, director of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies Islam Program about it. She responded: “I admire his faith, and the fact that he didn’t give himself credit shows his humility which I find rather endearing.”

In this brief comment, President Bush referenced the founding principle about freedom that is a major source of resentment in the Arab world. It does not come from America. It comes from “a Higher Being” or “our Creator, or “God” or – in Arabic – Allah. It caught the attention of the Arab media because, as Shireen Hunter observed, President Bush “didn’t give himself credit” for Iraq’s freedom.

The entire world seems to be dividing rapidly into two camps, regardless of their numerous differences in religious doctrine: between those who believe human rights are founded on inalienable rights arising from nature or the law of the jungle and unalienable rights that are endowed by their mindful and caring Creator. Rights given by man, by law, or custom, can be taken away or altered or transferred by law and custom. They also can be advanced or withheld by organized political, social or religious groups using persuasion, .or force, including terrorism.

On the other hand, unalienable rights given to mankind by “our Creator” cannot be transferred, even if we want to.

We cannot transfer our life, our liberty or our happiness to another.

This dichotomy is best expressed in the words of two international leaders of the two sides on the issue – George W. Bush and Musab al-Zarqawi, the "prince" of Al-Qaida in Iraq, who was appointed by Osama Bin Laden. A week before Iraq’s first free elections on January 30, 2005, Zarqawi released a tape in which he pinpointed this issue:

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion and that is against the rule of God."

Two days later, on February 2, 2005, President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address articulated an opposite view:

“We are all part of a great venture: To extend the promise of freedom in our country, to renew the values that sustain our liberty, and to spread the peace that freedom brings.

“As Franklin Roosevelt once reminded Americans, ‘Each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth.’ And we live in the country where the biggest dreams are born. The abolition of slavery was only a dream -- until it was fulfilled. The liberation of Europe from fascism was only a dream -- until it was achieved. The fall of imperial communism was only a dream -- until, one day, it was accomplished. Our generation has dreams of its own, and we also go forward with confidence. The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable -- yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom.

“Thank you, and may God bless America.”

The bottom line on this issue IS freedom. That is why the First Amendment to the Constitution was written and adopted on September 28, 1789, by the first Congress under the new constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The French Assembly under the Jacobins in France in the 1790s, in the name of Freedom, seized the property of the nation’s churches, took control of appointing the clergy priests and declared the end of the Christian era – all in the name of “freedom.” Two hundred years later, in the name of Freedom, we are debating in the United States whether people, even presidents, should be allowed to talk about any role for Providence, a Creator or God on public property while terrorists, in the name of God, are equally determined to stop the spread of freedom, to choose one’s belief in or even their definition of God.

President Bush concluded his second Inaugural address by reminding Americans of the founding principles of this nation. He said:

“When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, ‘It rang as if it meant something.’ In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

“May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America”

What DOES freedom mean? What does the Constitution really say? Does it really say that no public discussion or prayer or religious symbols such as crosses can occur on tax supported property such as school and courthouses and perhaps one day even tax-supported cemeteries? Should that last sentence have been edited out of President Bush’s speech on tax-supported Internet sites, such as the White House website?

To be able to sort through these many conflicting voices, it is imperative that Americans really understand the freedoms guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and be able to choose local, state, and national leaders and policies that will determine the course of and perhaps the very survival of our nation in the coming years.