|
Ok, for accuracy's sake (ahem, Mojo...), here's the relevant quote from the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
It says nothing about "freedom of religion." This clause has been open (and how!) to interpretation, but it's pretty clear, looking at historical documents not limited to the constitution but including letters and essays of the founding fathers, that they wished to avoid the kind of "state religion" that they found so odious back in jolly old England.
I personally think the "under God" should be stricken for a number of reasons:
1. you can argue about "deism" all you want, but the fact is that the people who are so adamant about keeping the "under God" phrase in the pledge have a very particular and narrow definition of God that they want to shove down everyone else's throats. What's the difference between establishing a state religion, and establishing laws based on very particular religious precepts (e.g., the "immorality" of homosexuality?)
2. Leaving it in is a no-win situation: either "under God" is an empty "deist" phrase that doesn't really mean anything, or it's a blatant insinuation that to be loyal to this country you must believe in God. Bzzt, separation of church and state, thank you for playing.
3. Since when is having government involved in religion in any way a good idea? Its sole role should be the protection of religious liberty and expression of religious freedom, not the espousing or establishment of any kind of state-sanctioned religious beliefs.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
|