This is a series of three posting that I recommend to read as a whole.
It is in the bona fide exchange where we can find common ground to stand up and upon so we face the vicissitudes of the day.
We are obliged to do so by and because of the experienced years already past and gone, trying to leave behind a legacy of lessons learned, pains endured, failures faced and confronted and hopes fulfilled and still waiting to be, for the benefit of our owns and the rest of the people who care, or dare to stop and think about not only what is going on, but why and how we can change for the better.
Mister Doug Indeap, be truly sure I appreciate your comments that I transcribe down here, to base my subsequent comments, reflections and beliefs, in order to enrich this exchanges of ideas, concepts and beliefs.
Mr. Indeap wrote: Doug Indeap has left a new comment on your post "Seeking again God’s face!
Feel free to enjoy your religion to your heart's content--but why attack the constitutional principle of separation of church and state?
The legislative history of the First Amendment belies the narrow scope you would give it. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (actually several) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment.
It is in the bona fide exchange where we can find common ground to stand up and upon so we face the vicissitudes of the day.
We are obliged to do so by and because of the experienced years already past and gone, trying to leave behind a legacy of lessons learned, pains endured, failures faced and confronted and hopes fulfilled and still waiting to be, for the benefit of our owns and the rest of the people who care, or dare to stop and think about not only what is going on, but why and how we can change for the better.
Mister Doug Indeap, be truly sure I appreciate your comments that I transcribe down here, to base my subsequent comments, reflections and beliefs, in order to enrich this exchanges of ideas, concepts and beliefs.
Mr. Indeap wrote: Doug Indeap has left a new comment on your post "Seeking again God’s face!
Feel free to enjoy your religion to your heart's content--but why attack the constitutional principle of separation of church and state?
The legislative history of the First Amendment belies the narrow scope you would give it. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (actually several) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment.
In keeping with the Amendment's terms, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude Congress from enacting a statute formally establishing a national church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by Congress and/or the Executive doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion--stopping just short of formally establishing a church.
Moreover, such an interpretation would do violence to the free exercise clause of the Amendment as well. If the term "religion" in the establishment clause is read to mean only "national church" or some such, then "the free exercise thereof" protected in the following clause would not amount to much.
The government's religious proclamations you mention are relatively new. Congress voted in 1954 to add the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance and voted in 1956 to adopt the phrase "In God we trust" as a national motto. Both were mistakes, which should be corrected. Under the First Amendment, our government has no business promoting or otherwise taking steps to establish religion.
The government certainly shouldn't be proclaiming in a motto on the money it prints for us that it--or we--trust in god. That's just not the government's role.
The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the very pledge that our government calls on its citizens to recite in affirmation of their allegiance to our republic puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds.
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion.
Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
Moreover, such an interpretation would do violence to the free exercise clause of the Amendment as well. If the term "religion" in the establishment clause is read to mean only "national church" or some such, then "the free exercise thereof" protected in the following clause would not amount to much.
The government's religious proclamations you mention are relatively new. Congress voted in 1954 to add the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance and voted in 1956 to adopt the phrase "In God we trust" as a national motto. Both were mistakes, which should be corrected. Under the First Amendment, our government has no business promoting or otherwise taking steps to establish religion.
The government certainly shouldn't be proclaiming in a motto on the money it prints for us that it--or we--trust in god. That's just not the government's role.
The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the very pledge that our government calls on its citizens to recite in affirmation of their allegiance to our republic puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds.
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion.
Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
No comments:
Post a Comment