one nation under god
i recited the pledge of allegiance, and i never gave it a second thought. that was the environment i was subjected to.
some kids arent raised in that way. most children go to public school, if they go to school. a large majority of all private schools in my area were christian, and of course, catholic high. some parents are atheists, deists, agnostics, other formalized religions.
almost all of america was christian at the founding. a lot of the founding fathers were as well. some of them were not. the fact that 52 out of 55 constitutional delegates were evangelical christians is mentioned quite often. the term separation of church and state originates in a letter from jefferson to a baptist minister, not the constitution. ive heard all the arguments, i know them intimately; i had them force fed to me during 13 long years of christian school.
well, on wednesday this week, a 26yr senior us district judge followed 9th circuit precedent and ruled that reciting the phrase "under god" has a coercive effect on children of atheistic parents. he barred recital of the pledge of allegiance in three school districts, pending removal of the phrase. an immediate appeal was promised; it will return to the 9th circuit and new panels may be drawn up to hear the case.
now let's step back to 2004, when the supreme court reversed the 9th circuit 5-3 in elk grove school district v newdow. since scotus did not vacate the case, it looks like they upheld the 9th's reasoning, but instead reversed simply on procedural grounds. they declined to even address the constitutionality of the phrase "under god." why open that can of warms?
well, because, you get rulings like this. it gets people fired up over non-issues. narrow minded fundies get this obscene idea their religion is under attack by hippies and heretics. consider the outrage and hatred shown over gays in scouts. it comes down to the relevant text: congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
here's my translation: the government may not abridge the free practice of any religion.
how then, can the government exert coercive forces on atheists?
why do we not swear "one nation under the constitution?" see also, James 5:12 - "above all, my brothers, do not swear - not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. let your yes be yes and your no, no or you will be condemned."
if the government governed instead of legislating morality, this and gay marriage, along with many other issues, would simply disappear. the clear fact of the matter is that government funds cannot be used to push any form of religion; it would violate the first amendment right of a non believer, whatever the contrasting religion may be. this is not open to debate, this is subject to logic, not faith.
some kids arent raised in that way. most children go to public school, if they go to school. a large majority of all private schools in my area were christian, and of course, catholic high. some parents are atheists, deists, agnostics, other formalized religions.
almost all of america was christian at the founding. a lot of the founding fathers were as well. some of them were not. the fact that 52 out of 55 constitutional delegates were evangelical christians is mentioned quite often. the term separation of church and state originates in a letter from jefferson to a baptist minister, not the constitution. ive heard all the arguments, i know them intimately; i had them force fed to me during 13 long years of christian school.
well, on wednesday this week, a 26yr senior us district judge followed 9th circuit precedent and ruled that reciting the phrase "under god" has a coercive effect on children of atheistic parents. he barred recital of the pledge of allegiance in three school districts, pending removal of the phrase. an immediate appeal was promised; it will return to the 9th circuit and new panels may be drawn up to hear the case.
now let's step back to 2004, when the supreme court reversed the 9th circuit 5-3 in elk grove school district v newdow. since scotus did not vacate the case, it looks like they upheld the 9th's reasoning, but instead reversed simply on procedural grounds. they declined to even address the constitutionality of the phrase "under god." why open that can of warms?
well, because, you get rulings like this. it gets people fired up over non-issues. narrow minded fundies get this obscene idea their religion is under attack by hippies and heretics. consider the outrage and hatred shown over gays in scouts. it comes down to the relevant text: congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
here's my translation: the government may not abridge the free practice of any religion.
how then, can the government exert coercive forces on atheists?
why do we not swear "one nation under the constitution?" see also, James 5:12 - "above all, my brothers, do not swear - not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. let your yes be yes and your no, no or you will be condemned."
if the government governed instead of legislating morality, this and gay marriage, along with many other issues, would simply disappear. the clear fact of the matter is that government funds cannot be used to push any form of religion; it would violate the first amendment right of a non believer, whatever the contrasting religion may be. this is not open to debate, this is subject to logic, not faith.
posted by keylaeris at 04:02
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home