Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_5.0
There is seperation of church and state for a reason. If you let church and state intermingle before you know it 10% will be garnished from your paycheck.
|
That statement is ridiculous and I'll return to it in a moment but first I'll address the larger issue.
There is a 'separation 'of Church and State in order to allow religious freedom, not to make the mere mention of God's name illegal (unconstitutional).
Saying
'under God' during a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance does no one any harm, even an atheist child who probably has little understanding of what 'God' really means, anyway.
Under the law, no child - atheist, Muslim or otherwise - is required to say the Pledge. conversely, they should have no right to force the rest of the class to
refrain from saying it, as it's written, 'Under God' included.
This is simply PC gone insane, using 'separation of Church and State' as a cover when in fact, that vaunted 'Wall of Separation' atheists always shout about is firmly entrenched in American law and culture.
The reason for the huge outcry over this stupid ruling by a Federal Circuit Court was that average Americans have had enough of a tiny, vocal minority deciding what the vast majority may say and do in a school or public arena, including the mere mention of the name; 'God'. They are sick and tired of having the constitution used as a weapon to make simple, traditional, very American things such as the Pledge of Allegiance 'illegal' and mentioning the name 'God' as some sort of 'offense' that must be ceased.
Sorry, atheist or not, this is a religious country and our people, diverse as they may be, choose to have a God in our lives. We don't all believe the same and we don't all share the same God but to say that the mention of His name is now 'offensive' and 'unconstitutional' is going too far, even for normally ultra-tolerant Americans.
I predict that this ruling will be overturned by the Supreme Court, as it should be.
As for the comment
'If you let church and state intermingle before you know it 10% will be garnished from your paycheck...as I said, it's absurd on it's face.
Reminds me of the line used against John F. Kennedy when he ran for President in 1960; the 'religious right' claimed that if JFK were elected, the Pope would be 'running America''. Well, Kennedy was elected and we never saw a sign of the Pope in the Oval Office.
The charge was absurd as is the comment that if we let church and state intermingle we'll see 10% of of paychecks garnished.
This reflects a longstanding atheist canard that we're just a few steps away from an American theocracy. Please. That is palpable nonsense and those who spout this line are parroting what they've heard elsewhere, not really examining the empty charge.
Thats what the
Establishment Clause in the constitution is all about. No establishment of state-sponsored religion. It's
not about taking God out of the schoolroom Pledge of Allegiance or forbidding the mention of His name in public gatherings in Federal buildings. That's a crazy stretch of the clause and a very bad one.
Sensible, tolerant, reasonable people understand this simple fact. Some atheist activists apparently do not. Now, we have a court battle ahead and fortunately, the outcome is pretty apparent.
Using the name of God in a simple little Pledge recited in school is about a million miles away from setting up a state-sponsored 'religion'.
Your paycheck is still safe.