|
This is about being exposed to religions. His daughter was not forced to say "under God", she was exposed to other people saying it. Just like we are all exposed to religion. Whenever you see someone make the sign of the cross - forehead,down to the chest, side to side - we are exposed. Are people so weak that they cannot even be exposed to religion without being troubled to the point of lawsuit?
The puritanical people left England because they were not allowed to worship the way they wanted to. England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes. This was the government trying to control where religion is okay or not okay. The same is the case here. If you are bothered by my praying or saying the word God, that's just too bad. No where in the Constisution does it say "You cannot speak of religion if it bugs people".
This is an argument based on a misunderstanding, and even without the misunderstanding, it still doesn't make sense. "Seperation of chusch and state" (as I stated above in my post that was aparently too long for some to read) is actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", which is something completly different. It was a rule of law to prevent a theocracy. It was not to prevent little Miss Newdow from hearing the words "under God" in her classroom. She and her father will just have to deal with living in a diverse world.
|