I really hate double posting, but i just want to point out the delicious irony of citing Torcaso v. Watkins in a polemic attempting to deny the seperation of church and state.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=367&invol=488
Quote:
|
Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496.
|
He was denied a commision because he wouldn't declare an oath of monotheism. The courts said that denying him his commision solely because he wouldn't declare an oath of monotheism was a
violation of his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the constitution. I doubt there is a more appropriate case to cite in an argument about the constitutionality of the phrase "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. I just think it was cited by the wrong side.
It makes me wonder, who are the fact checkers at noapathy.org?
What, no responses? I at least try to admit when i lack and argument to complement my positions.