OK, so there is a U.S. Federal
Court in California that says the 'Pledge of Allegiance' is
unconstitutional. Or, I guess to be more precise, it violate the
establishment of religion clause if the words, "under
God" are used in it.
Of course, the outrage over this decision came quick and
almost in total unanimity against the court, from both liberals
and conservatives. The only people who seemed pleased and happy
were atheists and agnostics.
A few days after as things cooled down a bit, more people
started to agree with the decision. They read the ruling a
little more carefully and saw that the court didn't say the
Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, but only the words
"under God". I don't know about you, but I find change
of heart of many people to be interesting.
What bothers me more in all this is the
fact that there is this one atheist who believes this violates
his daughter's rights because she has to hear the word God
spoken. Now we can have a sensible discussion about this but it
still doesn't make any clearer or answer this question.
This 'gentleman' is in a minority view (a
view I am sure he would not hold had he been on flight 93 in
September of 2001). Why is it that the minority view always
seems to take precedent over the view of the majority? I
don't get it and I am sure many other people don't get it
either.
There are many examples of this including a court battle going on in
Florida over a driver's license picture. It seems there is a Muslim
woman who feels her religious freedom is being violated because the state
of Florida insists her picture be taken without her wearing her veil. She
insists on wearing the veil that reveals only her eyes. I am sure someone
who has a few more IQ points than me can explain what getting a drivers
license has to do with religious freedom. Once again, I don't get it. If
it weren't for the events of September 11, 2001 this would be comical.
Have we become a nation en mass of " A Party Of Ones"? Is
the only thing we care about today our individual and personal
rights and to hell with those that disagree? Have we lost all touch and
connection with the concept of community and understanding of the thought
that, "the right for you to wave your arms wildly ends where my nose
begins"? Has our national motto, E Pluribus Unum, out of many one,
been superseded and replaced by, "I'll see you in court"?
I don't know. I do know, though, that we all need to remember the
greatest charge freedom asks of all of us. That is we must act with
responsibility and consideration for those around us. For, as has been said
by wiser people than me, "freedom without responsibility leads to
anarchy."
I wonder. What do you think the outcome
would be if the gentleman who brought this case in California went to court to have the president, and all
politicians, prohibited from saying, "God bless
America" at the end of all political speeches? He probably
would gain the support of the ACLU and have the courts rule that
politicians can not say "God bless
America." It would after all, follow the same logic as the Pledge
of Allegiance case.
Yes, I know what you are thinking. What
about free speech? Is that not also a constitutional right and
do not politicians have that right? Well, yeah, it is and they do,
except that politicians are in a position of influence and power
just like teachers are. They are acting as agents of the state
and thus must be Godless, less they imply we must only be blessed
by their God and . . . well, you can see where we are
going.
So here is my my challenge to the ACLU and
all others who believe this ruling by this court
is correct. I challenge you to use this ruling as a jumping off
point to have "In God We Trust" abolished as our pseudo
national motto and to have it removed from our money. In
addition Congress must fire their chaplains and abolish the
office and bibles can no longer brought into court rooms. All oaths of
office must be taken with a hand on the Constitution, be it local, state,
or federal. Witnesses must be sworn in with their hand on the state
statutes.
You should get the courts to rule that church bells can no longer
ring out breaking the still and quiet of the moment, less those ringing
them be charged
with disturbing the peace. Also, local police officials can no longer be
used to lead funeral processions or stop traffic on crowded city streets
to give preferential
treatment to this religious ceremony.
In addition I want you to go for the jugular.
I want you to go to court to have Thanksgiving and Christmas
abolished as NATIONAL HOLIDAYS!! Because, if uttering the words
"Under God" in the generic manor in which they are in
the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, then there is no
way in hell that Christmas and Thanksgiving can remain national
holidays giving the reasons for their celebration.
The firsts asks us not to just pledge our allegiance under God but to also
give thanks to God in organized fashion. The second is without question an
establishment of religion as the government is shutting down in
observation of a specific religion's holy day.
So, do I have any takers for my challenge to take this argument to
its ultimate and final conclusion? If not, your fifteen minutes are up.
|
