Yes, the “under God” portion of the Pledge of Allegiance was inserted during the Red Scare. And the origin of the rest of the pledge is suspect, too. But it’s a stretch to claim that asking schoolkids to recite the pledge (and not forcing them to say “under God”) is a “coercive requirement to affirm God,” as U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled Wednesday. Nonetheless, here is hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court — likely led by John Roberts — will resolve this dispute and not dismiss the challenge on a technicality, as it did with an earlier case.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
68 Comments
They should recite the pledge like I do. We you get to the part about “one nation, under . . .” just say in a loud and distinctive voice “under godS.”
Remove the two words and get on with it.
What a wasteful diversion of our time and resources when they are so badly needed elsewhere.
I doubt one can totally eliminate the sentiment. So, it might be better to say something like “one nation, guided by providence”…
How about this: I pledge allegiance to the flag and the big fat pork-barrel for which it stands?……Yeah, right. { We are now known as “the private sector.”……How nice of them to allow us to support all their bad habits……Get a rope. }
This is a good article:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499
‘Given this tradition, it’s not surprising that the original Pledge of Allegiance—meant as an expression of patriotism, not religious faith—also made no mention of God. The pledge was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy, a cousin of the famous radical writer Edward Bellamy. He devised it for the popular magazine Youth’s Companion on the occasion of the nation’s first celebration of Columbus Day. Its wording omitted reference not only to God but also, interestingly, to the United States:
“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”‘
I am an atheist, and I will NOT pledge to a GOD, GODS or any other deity, whether it be Catholic, Hindu, Greek, Egyptian, Pastafarian or Christian to pledge my allegiance to my country.
The pledge was written by an avowed socialist who wanted America to live up to its ideals–”liberty and justice for all.”
If “under God” is not a religious message, why do the religious people want to keep it in so badly? If it’s not religious, then they shouldn’t care, should they.
The reason they do care is because it is religious.
Ah, good post, GR. You beat me to it.
I imagine that most kids treat the pledge the same as they do any of those rote things they’re supposed to say-”I think that IShall never seeA poem lovelyAs a tree……..”I don’t really think they’re being coerced by it. It’s all the other ways that they’re being propagandized that we ought to be focussed on.
I am an atheist too and I think they should either do away with it all together or recite it as originally written. I personally am offended by any sort of public prayer and I consider this a prayer.
I don’t think the argument is about “under God” being religious or non-religious. The argument is about whether it violates the 1st amendment. simply b/c it is religious doesn’t make it violative of the first amendment.
personally, don’t care, either way its just a pledge to your country. in or out, don’t care, I’m not offended either way.
Just as a side note. The District Court Judge who issued this decision stated that he was forced to based upon the prior ruling of the 9th circuit.
The debate is still the same but let’s not pick on the judge. Had he failed to follow the law as set forth by the 9th circuit that would have made him an activist judge and we all know how bad they are.
Anon,so, if any precident is overturned that makes an activist judge?so, was brown v. board decided by an activist judge?
The Captain asks:
“so, was brown v. board decided by an activist judge?”
Welcome to the wonderful world of Republican Hypocrisy! It’s a bizarre world full of technicolor contradictions! It’s like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, only everyone’s wearing a suit, and instead of candy, it’s a world where everything is made of money and God. As you can see, everything here glistens like it’s been greased down with Crisco.
“Judicial activism” is just another attack meme of the right wing to try and control and limit the power of the one branch of government they don’t have control over right now. Believe me, if the bench was filled with conservative judges, “activism” or whatever would suit them just fine!!
GetReal, why do you suppose that you know where I stand on EVERY issue.If you notice any of my posts over the last week (since I started posting here), I never ONCE advocated for ANY judicial activism. I don’t like it by liberals, conservatives, anyone.So DON’T speak for me.
Who cares? Leave out the two offending words and move on.
and yes, I did ask that, thanks for posting my question again.
was it decided by an activist judge b/c it overturned precident?
thanks for posting my question again!
A much larger issue here is the ‘asking’ of kids to recite the pledge in the first place. Children should not be encouraged to ‘Pledge their Allegiance’ to the government by a government body, i.e. government schools.
This kind of indoctrination is far worse than the affirmation of God everyone is so worked up about.
In the midst of all the excitement, please remember one simple fact…the 9th US Court of Appeals is by far the most overturned/reversed court in the Federal system. It has a history of “precedent setting” that gets reversed on a regular basis.
I do sometimes wonder about the logic involved in requiring kids to pledge allegiance to a country that guarantees the right to dissent.
Ray–
This blog is not like listening to Rush.
You have to actually RESPOND to us liberals after you call us communists and nazis.
You don’t get to just hang up, get it?
So why don’t you quit being a chickensh*t and start responding to people’s questions.
That is, IF you can . . .
Hey Bull Cutter, Ray,
See if you can hit this slow pitch–
If you think that Iraq is a “noble cause” like your man Bush does, what are you doing to support it? Are you or any of your family going to enlist? Are you willing to pay higher taxes for the 1-2 BILLION a week the war costs?
What sacrifice are you willing to make personally?
Oh, BTW, Ray,
The 9th is more overturned because it is twice as big as the the other appeals courts. It has 50 judges compared to an average of 19 in other circuits.
Duh.
Galahad…where did I call anyone a communist or a nazi? Why are you making up this garbage?
This has degenerated from a concept of idea exchange to an infantile assortment of idiocy with made up claims and invented statements. Galahad, you are a bore, and a blowhard.
Okay, Ray, I’m publicly admitting making a mistake. There’s a website dude with your name that I thought was you.
Sorry about the mix-up. In this case, I WAS a blow hard, (but I refuse to believe I am ever boring, heh).
Welcome to the board . . .
Capt. The “judicial activist” comment was meant to be a bit tounge in cheek. I do not believe that precedent should alsways be followed (times change, hence the reason to strictly read the constitution like when it was written just does not work). My point was that here we had a judge doing exactly what the Republicans say they want – not making the law but simply following it – and they are upset by that.
Freedom of religion folks, not freedom from religion. Atheism is not a religion.
It’s a funny thing, but I consider myself a “liberal” and I just don’t mind the “God” part. If you don’t like it, you have the right not to say it. We base our political system off of “majority rules” and the majority of Americans believe in some sort of higher power, whatever that may be.But I agree with Jed and Proudman in that we should not be making our children “Pledge Allegiance” to anything but freedom of thought.This debate reminds of the the lyrics to one of my favorite Rush songs…Freewill
You can choose a ready guideIn some celestial voiceIf you choose not to decideYou still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fearsAnd kindness that can killI will choose a path that’s clearI will choose free will.
The guy who keeps bringing this lawsuit needs to be taken out and horse whipped for tying up the courts. If this thread is a microcosm of what people think, the whole thing is a non-issue except for the way-out fringes on either side. Jeez, give us a break, already!
I think Proudman has the best take on this so far. I’d like to expand a bit on it though.
First, the UNDER GOD part was, as we all know added later to the original pledge. And this WAS done with the intention of promoting religion (sort of an “in your face” response to atheist Soviet society) As such, the inclsion of the words “under God” would seem a direct violation of time honored separation of church and state.My greatest trouble with the pledge is the pledge itself and the particular audience it is targeted toward. The pledge is an oath. As young children are not legally able to independently sign even a simple legal contract, I do not believe it is right to have them swear an oath of words that they do not understand but are encouraged to utter on a daily basis.
Oaths of allegiance to abstract symbols (the flag) or more worrisome to entities that may evolve for good or bad over time but still wear the title to which the oath was sworn to (the government) are not healthy in a society that seeks liberty and justice for all. Now think about that for a minute. I said the pledge in school. Most of us did for the last 50 years. But as America becomes increasingly polarized, something like the pledge could be used very badly. I do not like or in anyway support President bush. If a tape could be produced of me saying the pledge as a child, could my dissent against bush bring on me charges of treason? Similarly, should conservatives, who routinely rail AGAINST “government”, be held accountable for the oath that they swore as a child TO government? Were those who tried so hard to destroy President Clinton in violation of their childhood oath?
America and it’s highest ideals are not made stronger by rote repetition of incomprehensible words by sleepy eyed children. True patriotism does not grow from oft repeated platitudes. True patriotism might be encouraged by returning to the ORIGINAL pledge…….which some one posted above. All the rest including the “under God” is rhetoric added to make certain people more confident in their own personal jingoism or religious dogma.
How about a new pledge?
I am extrapolating on and badly misquoting Benjamin Franklin here…….maybe someone can help me get the exact words. But here goes.
“Today, and each day, I will strive to make the world a better place.”
J.R., excellent post! I hadn’t thought of those things. I certainly will in the future.
And while we’re at it, could we make America, the Beautiful the national anthem, instead of the pro-war Star Spangled Banner? Besides, AtB is so much easier to sing. ::wink::
RD,Some few years back, it was proposed (by whom I have no idea) that the National Anthem be changed to “This Land is Your Land,” by Woody Guthrie.Actually, that makes more sense musically, since the melody “The Star Spangled Banner” was set to was an old British drinking song that was considered at the time to be unsingable by anyone who was sober.So how ’bout it, folks, a fully American song for our American Nation?
“This land is your land, this land is my land.” Good Country song. I agree, Jede.I agree also with: take the two words out and get on with it.Jr’s take on the Franklin quote opens the door to the Liberal “I feel your pain” thing. Something I find as bizarre as the “under God” inclusion in the Pledge.Taken as a whole, the pledge of alligience is fairly innocuous. I have no problem pledging to this country. While we do have our problems, we still got one of the best in the world, hated as we are. Wanna change it? Vote.Something else I find bizarre: Atheists file suit at the drop of a hat when it comes to any show of religion in government, but that appears to be related to only christian religions.For instance: There is a large cross on a mount outside San Diego, visible from 405, that has been a point of law suits for over a decade. There is a Budda on Shelter Island that has never been challanged under the second amendment. It sits on public land also. It is also a blantant religious icon. Why are the atheists not suing over that? Interesting. Might have something to do with the fact that Buddism is not Christianity?
I think atheists have unwittingly subscribed themselves to just another dogma. They have a set of rigid beliefs just like most other religions. You are right, I haven’t heard of any law suits against other religious icons. They have set their war against Christianity. And their main target is popular public icons, such as the pledge of allegiance.
The reason they go after these public icons is to get the most press. They are proselytizing. They want to spread the word of atheism.
In fact Buddhism is not a religious system, it is an ethical one. Siddhartha never claimed divinity for himself nor did his followers after the fact. Buddhism speaks of no divinity, it speaks of a “middle way” for leading an enlightened life. The “gods” and “goddesses” that appear in some Buddhist sects are allegorical representations of human power achieved with “enlightenment”. We’ve all seen the lady goddess with 8 arms. The idea behind this is that the mind of an enlightened person is not confined or constrained…thoughts are free to flow and many things can be accomplished simultaneously.
To equate ethical systems like Buddhism and Confucianism with religious one like Christianity is a mistake. There is nothing to challenge about a Buddha statue…the goal of Buddhism is for every person to become a Buddha..the ststue represents the aspirations of every man.
As far as allegorical represntations go, that is what all religious icons boil down to. Don’t all religions use a divinity (apples and oranges)as a representative of what its followers should attempt to be? Same thing. Buddism is for all intents and purposes a religion.
Except that a Buddhist will tell you not to mistake those images for something that’s “out there.” “Divinity” is entirely conceptual, thus entirely within. In Buddhism, there is no “Heaven” populated by supernatural beings, no divine intervention, no one to pray to, no judgement. Everything that happens, happens according to natural law. In other words, it lacks every feature westerners ascribe to “Religion.”
Are Budhist temples exempt from paying taxes?
NoJo, Budist temples are exempt. I read that back when Al Gore was looking for campaign contributions.
Christianity says there is a real entity out there who occasionally steps in to change the course of history.
Buddhism’s gods and goddesses aren’t the same at all. In addition, not all Buddhist sects even accept these gods and goddesses. Many (including Zen) function just fine without them, thank you very much.
That was from me..I don’t knowwhy it put up JM. I didn’t even type JM. Yesterday, it repeated half a message. Sorry, I don’t know what’s up here.
So Budhism is a tax exempt organization based on the fact that it is a religion? No?
Actually, Christians believe that God is always in control.
I just noticed Dudley’s post. You have to be kidding.
“Freedom of religion folks, not freedom from religion. Atheism is not a religion.”
So, I guess you interpret the Constitution to mean that we’re all free to choose a religion, but we MUST choose one because atheism is not guaranteed to us as a choice.
By the way, atheism comes in many flavors. You can be an atheist and still have a conception of the divine. Although this is not the best breakdown, it’s easy to understand. A “strong” atheis rejects the very idea that there is anything “out there”. A “weak” atheist could believe in “something out there” but what they believe in is NOT a THEISTIC diviniy (like what the Jews, Christians, and Muslims have). Taoists, for example, believe that “Tao” is the organizing and life giving principle of the universe – divinity in essence. But they don’t picture Tao theistically.
NoJo….don’t go there!! If you really believe that, then neither you nor God can have free will. If God wrote the book (meaning the course of the universe), and God is omniscient and infallible, then we can’t make any independent choices (because they’r not in the script).
Further, God Himself can’t make any changes to the script in response to anythin we do – like pray, go to mass, tithe, etc. – because if He did, then that would mean He changed the script..which He cannot do because He wrote it in the first place and is omniscient.
Christian thoughts like that just get you into sooooo much trouble. God cannot be all-powerful not all-good either. I can think of lots of things God cannot do. He cannot, for example, calculate the last digit in a transcendental number because a transcendental number has no last digit. If God is all-good, then that means something greater than God – an amoral something – decided what would be “good” and what would be “evil”. This greater amoral something would rightfully be “God”.
Brian,I think Ambrose Bierce said it best when he defined prayer as: “To ask that the Laws of the Universe be suspended on behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.”
I think you’re confusing control with predestination. I’m saying that God has control over the universe as it is (as in the old spiritual hymn “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands”). He holds the universe together and without Him the universe would simply be in chaos.
God did give free will. He didn’t want people to be robots. He even created angels with free will (Lucifer is the example of one who rebeled against God).
You know, I do sometimes ask why God could have created sin – since there was an option for man to choose between good and evil was given. I struggled with that for a few years.
The answer came to me in the book of Job. “Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?Brace yourself like a man;I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.”
I realize that some people don’t accept the Word of God, and that’s fine. I believe that the Word of God was directly inspired by God (many of the writers had direct contact with God when they wrote). But for me to explain what I believe, I have to provide scripture.
Jed, Thanks for the quote. I never heard it before. He’s now on my list of quotable people !!
NoJoCo, I hear ya, but I have to disagree on several point. If you ascribe to God the characteristics that most Christian denominations do…omniscient, omnipotent, etc.,…then you either run into the massive contradictions I pointed out, you have to relax the initial assumptions, or you have to live with cognitive dissonance. Further, Christianity has perverted the story. Satan was an adviser to God…He just had a bad attitude towards humanity. It was his ASSIGNMENT from the Almighty to make man look foolish and put him in disrepute. This is the source in the Roman Catholic tradition of having two attorneys at canonization hearings..an “angel’s advocate” who speaks good of the candidate and a “devil’s advocate” who points out the candidates shortcomings.
Brian,The Bible scriptures I have read speak to the fact that Lucifer (aka Satan) was cast down from Heaven because he became too proud of who he was and he thought that he should be God. God did create an incredible being in Lucifer – he is the great accuser (the devil on one shoulder, if you will). He tried to say that Job would “lose his religion” because of what God allowed Satan to do in Job’s life (kill his family, destroy his possessions, ect).
Victory!
For those of us who are atheist, agnostics, or belong to religions that are not god based, we have won a victory. They can’t use the Pledge of Allegiance as a form of religious doctrinism of small children. The “under God” portion of the pledge was instituted during the Joseph McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s and was supposed to indoctrinate our children with the idea that we are “God believing capitalists” as opposed to “Godless Marxists,” (as in the Soviet Union).This is sure to end up in the US Supreme Court, as the religious majority sees the prosthetizing of their religion as a “right” against those of us in the minority.For more details see “COURT GRANTS VICTORY OVER THE CHRISTIAN FASCISTS” the second article on my blog:http://ottoswarroom.blogspot.com/
Nojoco,
You have accepted the view of satan promulgated by Christian theology. If you read any papers or texts on Biblical criticism, or if you look at the Torah, the Talmud, or other similar Jewish commentaries on their own book, you’ll find that satan has changed his role over the centuries.
For example, the snake in the garden is never explicitly identified as satan..in fact Jews identify it as….(drum roll)..a talking snake ! If you read the beginning of the Book of Job, satan is clearly identified as acting FOR God.
It really isn’t until the New Testament that Satan tgurns into an opponent of God and just a really bad guy. But now, if you believe this, you have to ask yourself some questions. Why would satan, who presumably knew God is omniscient, make a bet with the Lord? Obviously God wouldn’t take a bet He knew He’d lose. The story is a STORY..written to illustrate the point that one should “keep the faith” through good times and bad.
But back to the pledge, I agree with all of the comments/concerns about making an oath as a child, etc.
I also wonder about the the issue of flag burning. If I burn a flag with 49 stars or 12 stripes, am I going to be subject to prosecution? Everyone KNOWS what the thing i burned represents, even though it isn’t an “official” flag. What’s the point of banning flag burning when i can make the point just as well with an unofficial flag? Are we going to define how “unofficial” a flag has to be before it can be burned in protest?
Not ruled on a technicality? Isn’t the whole of Constitutional Law simply a study of technicalities?
Brian: In reply to your post, atheism is defined as “the belief that there is no God”. Surely you aren’t arguing that the framers intended that the overwhelming majority of this country, who believe in God in one form or another, should be restrained from publicly pledging their belief because it offended an atheist. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.*
If the pledge read, “one nation under Allah”, or “one nation under Christ”, I could agree with your reasoning because that would be establishment of religion.
There is little doubt in my mind that this decision is headed for reversal.
It may get reversed, but that doesn’t make it right. The founding fathers had differing beliefs and a few were atheists. This is about the rights of minorities, not how many people agree or don’t. Even if only 5% of the population rejects pledging to god, the constitution protects our rights to do so. It doesn’t matter how many of us there are. There are more whites than blacks in America and yet we don’t allow discrimination bassed simply on numbers and what the majority think in the poles.Just remember, this country belongs to all of us, not just the majority.
Dudley..guess again..
there is no concensus on the definition of what atheism means. I would suggest you try looking at
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm
or
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
In fact Dudley, I certainly am suggesting that. One can express one’s religious beliefs in public in any way one wants…to a degree. However, the pledge of allegiance is now used as a government sanctioned declaration of one’s allegiance to the principles of the Constitution..one such principle being that a wall should separate church and state. Therefore, reference to a deity is inappropriate at best. The framers were wise enough to keep their religious beliefs separate from their political ones. One doesn’t have to look far or hard to find examples of why religion in government is a terrible idea.
Hey Brian,For lots more good quotes from Ambrose Bierce, look up his “The Devil’s Dictionary.” It’s still in print. He was a Civil War vet, also wrote some good war stories, and some horror stories that would give Steven King nightmares, was a journalist, and at the age of 95, rode off to fight with Pancho Villa, and was never heard from again. Quite a character!
Thank you RD and Brian for appreciating my post. I think it was my best ever.
Really though, this is such a non-issue and frankly a diversion.
I myself don’t believe in God. (capitilization out of respect for those who do) But for those who do believe in God, please, Jesus said “suffer the little children to come unto me” he did not say “instruct the children to affirm my father in rote recitation”
And again as to patriotism. Patriotism is love, in this case of country. But as with any other love you can’t teach it. You can’t force it. It has to just happen. You can pretend to make it so by getting little kids to mouthe an oath, that’s jingo fanaticism, not patriotism.
The “pledge” as it stands divides not unites America. Since my earlier suggestion of a pledge to “Do each day to better the world” was seen by at least one poster as “socialistic” I offer another.
Take our all the other rhetoric. Dose it down to “Liberty and justice for all”
J R,Finally, I agree whole-heartedly with you on something. Ain’t Liberty great? Now if we can only get the Justice part down right.
Jed,
Thank you for the information. I’ve located a used copy of the book on the web :)
Brian: I suppose that you can define atheism any way you want, but I will stick with the dictionary version. It does make communicating more difficult, but I suspect that we would have some difficulty under the best of circumstances.
And please show me this “wall of seperation” you mention! It is an inaccurate phrase and a mischaractarization of the language in the bill of rights. There is no evidence that the framers intended to exclude God from the public discourse. They simply wanted to prevent a counterpart instituion to the Church of England from being established here. To take it any further than that is baseless but typical of the liberal approach.
Dudley,
If you read what I said, you’ll see that I said I agree with you that you you can bring God into public discourse any time you wish. However, the government is prevented from bringing a specific God or God concept into public discourse for the very reason you cite. No government institution, government bureaucracy, law, oath, pledge, etc. can give open or tacit support to a specific deity or even to the concept of a deity. The government must remain neutral and disinterested in religion/theology.
So, go ahead, feel free to praise Hare krishna at the airport, or to handle venomous snakes at your church, or to have a carwash in your parking lot to raise money for new bibles.
You cannot, however, have a government sanctioned pledge of allegiance that violates any person’s religious (or non-religious) sensibilities.
Imagine the shoe on the opposite foot. Imagine you are a Christian in a country dominated atheists. Imagine that your children are asked every day to pledge their allegiance “to one nation, without a God….”. I certainly hope you can see the problem.
Finally, how arrogant of Congress and the American people to take the work of another and modify its wording to give to it subtleties of meaning it was never intended to have. I know I’d be pretty T’d off if someone took a poem or short story written by me and added to it text that modified the message I worked so hard to come to in the firast place.
Dudley,
While you’re at it perhaps you can explain why so many people like you want to bring religion into places it has no place being.
You can’t seem to grasp the concept that science is science and that religion has no place in it…nor does science have any place in theology except to keep its “facts” grounded in reality.
Nor can you seem to grasp the idea that religion has no place in the machinery of a republic with people of diverse religious and non-religious beliefs.
Why not just start including questions about belief in a God or in the “right” God on civil service examinations? Or adding an amendment to the constitution saying the president must be at least 35 years old AND openly express some form of religious belief every day he/she is in office. For that matter, why not “legislate” scientific results?
And Dudley,
Here you go..quotes from the founding fathers…
John Adams and Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that:
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion …”
Ulysses S. Grant State of the Union message:
“Third. Declare church and state forever separate and distinct, but each free within their proper spheres…”
The Constitution itself…
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Thomas Paine….
” I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.”
Brian: You sort of got a little off subject there, but that’s alright. I do appreciate your advocacy of your views.
Some of what you are stating as truths are merely your opinion or how you wish things were.
(ie..”No government institution, government bureaucracy, law, oath, pledge, etc. can give open or tacit support to a specific deity or even to the concept of a deity”
and “You cannot, however, have a government sanctioned pledge of allegiance that violates any person’s religious (or non-religious) sensibilities”.)
In fact most of your last two posts fall into that category.
I would submit that just because something offends a person’s sensibilities does not make it unconstitutional. I don’t think that we have a right not to be offended.
And since you asked, and this is just my opinion, I believe that when you remove God from the picture, you get a deterioration in morals that leads to the kind of societal problems that we are faced with today. That is why some of us are fighting so hard ugainst the incremental coarsening of our society.
Dudley,
I sill say this once again..simply and succinctly in the vague hope that you will understand it this time…
To neither support not to oppose religious belief is the goal of the sections of the Constitution dealing with religion/stse issues. This is called being DISINTERESTESD. It is the same DISINTEREST that an umpire should have when calling balls and strikes…even if he is secretly rooting for one team that’s playing.
Can’t forget this one…
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (q.v.) requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Religious freedom doubtless had its greatest inspiration from James Madison while he was in the Virginia Legislature. An attempt was made to levy a tax upon the people of that state “for the support of teachers of the Christian religion.” Madison wrote what he called a “Memorial and Remonstrance,” in which he appealed to the people against the evil tendency of such a precedent, and which convinced people that Madison was right. A bill was passed providing “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever * * * nor shall suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and, by argument, maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
Enough said. Later.
Typical