"under God" reaches the Supreme Court

[javasaurus]

I do not think government money should be used for ten commandment monuments, and I don't think the government should in any other way endorse Christianity, or any other religion. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should necessarily keep our beliefs behind church doors, either. I'm very much in favor of making spirituality and religion part of life, and I'm in favor of embracing ideas such as the Golden Rule, and I would be more afraid of the senator that casts votes based on his purse-strings rather than his morals. But a government is not a person, or even a majority of people, but all of the people, and when the government promotes any kind of religious doctrine, no matter how popular and well-accepted, it step on the rights of all of us.

The use of "under God" in the Pledge is now going to the Supreme Court. I cannot imagine that a fair court would find it constitutional. If the court rules against "under God" however, I must admit to some fear of the repurcussions--there will be large groups of people, in and out of schools, loudly shouting "under God" at the "appropriate" place in the pledge, and chastising, ostracizing, or even persecuting any who don't, or who speak out against it. Oh, the irony of such a situation, that while pledging allegience to a coutry's laws, they will be at the same time violating those same laws.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out...


Supreme Court article

Comments

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

It really depends on the court and the justices thereon. If it is already wrong to require the recitation of the pledge (according to the courts), why did it make it this far?

If the court does rule (as it should) that "Under God" added in 1954 under the McCarthy era (if you aren't Christian you are a Communist and should be arrested); then will the "In God We Trust" be removed from our coinage? I personally find that more offensive (it is easier to not say those words than to not use money).

However, no matter which way the court goes, there will probably be some outcry. I hope that they follow the quote that dglenn posted

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

"
-- James Madison, fourth president of the U.S.

[dacuteturtle.livejournal.com]

I am honestly torn about this, in a free-speech sort of way. I really do see and sympathise with both sides of the issue.

I see two approaches to religion.

1. The government (at any level) turns a blind eye to the expression of religion. Any ruling by the government over the will of the people is a violation of the seperation of church and state. Example: If people want to put up a monument in a park, it's not the government's place to tell them "no". The park is for the public's use, and the public says what that use is.

2. Tacid approval is the same as government support religion. Any intersection of religion and any publicly owned institution or land is a violation the the seperation of church as state. Example: The government blocks the erection of a popularly paid for monument on public land.

I don't know how to resolve that. This stems from a fundamental belief, different from any legal ruling, about what the rights that we believe that we have. So far, the courts have upheld the second view, which makes that view legal. However, it doesn't make that view "right" in the eyes of the first group.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Here's an article I just found (though it's been around for a couple of years). Related to the whole religion/government thing. Enjoy!

"In God We Trust - A First Amendment Bust?
"