Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Nano is wrong, the only reason people read it like he does was because truly this country was founded under the Judeo-Christian philosophy and influence. Nano has said nothing, nor shown anything that could be considered a valid argument as to why the pledge in its current state is an endorsement of the christian or Judeo God.
|
You are right, I wasn't clear in my previous post. Lets see if this is a bit clearer:
"...Opponents of the ruling may say the phrase "under God" does not specify the deity of Christianity and Judaism, but includes Allah and any other supreme being recognized by a monotheistic religion. For anyone to say this, they must ignore the cultural history of this nation. This immediately ostracizes atheists, polytheists, animists and Shintoists. It is fine to say the phrase does not cause government to discriminate among monotheistic religions, but if you believe in no god, more than one god, or engage in ancestor or spirit worship, then you are left out in the cold. If the argument is made that the phrase does not endorse a specific religion, it still endorses a type of religion, and the very fact that it endorses any kind of religion violates the separation.
Failing that argument, other detractors have claimed the ruling flies in the face of American tradition. God was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. America grew out of puritanical English colonies. We always have been a Christian nation. So goes the argument.
While mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, God was never actually mentioned in the Constitution itself. The Pledge of Allegiance did not even contain the words "under God" until 1954. They were added during the Cold War to help set America apart from the "godless communists" it was opposing. This was the same reason the words "In God We Trust" were added to the dollar bill at roughly the same time. Those two phrases in those two conspicuous places have little to do with American tradition. They are less than 50 years old.
As far as breaking from American traditions goes, the Declaration and the Constitution were written by slave owners. Slavery was an integral part of the American culture and economy by the time of the Civil War, and it is likely the "American tradition" argument was used against abolitionists. The habits of founders and years of accepted activity do not make something right, nor do they excuse activists from changing things.
The final argument is that this is an unpatriotic act in the middle of trying times. With our soldiers fighting abroad and our citizens in danger at home, this is not the time to attack American traditions. There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. Attacking, suing, and protesting are American traditions. Whether right or wrong, protesting the activity of the government is not un-American. It is decidedly patriotic because it is an exercise of the very rights that make our country great. Taking these freedoms for granted and never exercising them is the quickest way to lose them, especially in times like these when the natural inclination is to crack down on certain liberties in the interest of securities.
More than anything though, all of these are ideological, not legal, arguments. The pledge, an official government activity, endorses religion. Therefore, it violates the Constitution.
For the ruling to be overturned, the justification is going to be flawed because it is going to draw on those ideological principles that have no bearing on a judge's job. They are going to have their minds made up about what they want to do, and then figure out how to go about doing it. ..."
http://www.thebatt.com/news/2002/07/...t-518162.shtml
Does that make it clear? If not, I will dive into my collection, and see if I can find my Golden Book series on Constitutional Law. The topical book in the series is entitled "Eisenhower and The Lemon Test". I swear; I don't know how I made it this far without those Golden Books.