Thursday, March 03, 2005
Concerning references to God in public forums
Today, as I write this, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering cases about display of the ten commandments in public buildings. Obviously such cases have ramifications on other displays of "God" or "religion" such as on our money or in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Here in Colorado we have a recall election going on because one state representative refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance due to his disagreement with "under God" being in the pledge.
Now many on both sides of the issue say "What's the big deal?". From those who would like to keep such references and displays they say, "What's the big deal, those who don't like it can just ignore it." Those who want the references removed will say, "What's the big deal, if you expect people to ignore it then why not remove it?"
Those are the wrong questions.
We all know the law; the government can make no law regarding the establishment of religion. That's the law. The right questions would have to deal with this law, not personal opinion of the issue. We all have to obey the law regardless of whether we agree with it or not. If we disagree there are avenues to try to change the law, but until it is changed we have to obey it. So what questions would deal with the law?
The correct question is "Why are those displays present?".
Context is everything in life. If the context is "regarding the establishment of religion" then they must go. If the context is something else, such as the depiction of lawgivers in the chambers of the U.S. Supreme court, then it is perfectly legal.
The depiction of lawgivers includes Moses holding the ten commandments, but it is not a religious statement. It is simply a depiction of many great lawgivers throughout the history of mankind.
So what is the context of "In God We Trust" on our money and "under God" in the pledge?
To establish this context we have to look back at how they got there.
A law passed by the 84th Congress and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, declared IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. This was in the middle of the cold war era. The context of the cold war era was that we, the United States, were striving to save ourselves, our allies, and what other nations we could from the "godless" communists. In order to seperate ourselves from the communists we applied this motto to ourselves. I submit that in this context the law making such a motto is illegal. "Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion", yet here congress clearly did establish that worship of God was a requirement of every good American. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957.
What is the big deal? The context is the big deal, this was an attempt by congress to push God onto the American citizen whether they wanted it or not.
Similarly the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance during the cold war to separate us from the "godless communists". Congress inserted the words "under God" into the pledge in 1954 as a means of advancing religion at a time when the nation was engaged in a battle against the doctrines of atheistic communism. When President Eisenhower signed the bill, he stated, "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim . . . the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." The pledge, less those two words, was already in existance and use throughout the country. Those two words were not added in order to advance patriotism (a legitimate secular goal) but rather to promote religion.
The Pledge, as with the motto, was an act of congress. Again, congress shall establish no law with regards to the establishment of religion.
So the bottom line, whether you agree with it or not, is that these two items are in direct violation of U.S. constitutional law.
Now the discussion of things like displays of the ten commandments or nativities is a bit different. Those are not generally done by acts of congress. This goes to states rights issues that are much more difficult and again to context.
Foremost on the states rights issues is that state laws cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution. In this regard it has been ruled that anti-discrimination portions of the constitution be applied to states even if the original text did not specify states. In plain english, if congress can't make laws regarding the establishment of religion then no lower governmental body can either. That's the basic thing in law on this.
Context in these displays is a major factor. Is it acceptable for religious symbols, statements, etc. to be displayed in a museum or artistic environment? Of course it is, it is in context. Example, the local history museum puts up a display about the ancient middle east, that is sure to include religious undertones but it is totally in a secular context of study of history. Is it right for a courthouse to have a display of the ten commandments? That depends on context, as I said the context in the U.S. Supreme court is perfectly acceptable, but when displayed alone it becomes a religious rather than secular context which is not acceptable.
The big deal, on the displays that are of a religious context, is that they are taxpayer funded. If a law is passed to use taxpayer dollars to fund the commission and/or upkeep of such displays then that law is a law regarding the establishment of religion, which is not allowed in our democracy. Plain english: the government can't make someone pay for someone elses religion, even indirectly.
So, again, the correct question is "What is the context?". The context for the money and the pledge is clear. The other displays have to be taken on a case by case basis.
Here in Colorado we have a recall election going on because one state representative refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance due to his disagreement with "under God" being in the pledge.
Now many on both sides of the issue say "What's the big deal?". From those who would like to keep such references and displays they say, "What's the big deal, those who don't like it can just ignore it." Those who want the references removed will say, "What's the big deal, if you expect people to ignore it then why not remove it?"
Those are the wrong questions.
We all know the law; the government can make no law regarding the establishment of religion. That's the law. The right questions would have to deal with this law, not personal opinion of the issue. We all have to obey the law regardless of whether we agree with it or not. If we disagree there are avenues to try to change the law, but until it is changed we have to obey it. So what questions would deal with the law?
The correct question is "Why are those displays present?".
Context is everything in life. If the context is "regarding the establishment of religion" then they must go. If the context is something else, such as the depiction of lawgivers in the chambers of the U.S. Supreme court, then it is perfectly legal.
The depiction of lawgivers includes Moses holding the ten commandments, but it is not a religious statement. It is simply a depiction of many great lawgivers throughout the history of mankind.
So what is the context of "In God We Trust" on our money and "under God" in the pledge?
To establish this context we have to look back at how they got there.
A law passed by the 84th Congress and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, declared IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. This was in the middle of the cold war era. The context of the cold war era was that we, the United States, were striving to save ourselves, our allies, and what other nations we could from the "godless" communists. In order to seperate ourselves from the communists we applied this motto to ourselves. I submit that in this context the law making such a motto is illegal. "Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion", yet here congress clearly did establish that worship of God was a requirement of every good American. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957.
What is the big deal? The context is the big deal, this was an attempt by congress to push God onto the American citizen whether they wanted it or not.
Similarly the words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance during the cold war to separate us from the "godless communists". Congress inserted the words "under God" into the pledge in 1954 as a means of advancing religion at a time when the nation was engaged in a battle against the doctrines of atheistic communism. When President Eisenhower signed the bill, he stated, "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim . . . the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." The pledge, less those two words, was already in existance and use throughout the country. Those two words were not added in order to advance patriotism (a legitimate secular goal) but rather to promote religion.
The Pledge, as with the motto, was an act of congress. Again, congress shall establish no law with regards to the establishment of religion.
So the bottom line, whether you agree with it or not, is that these two items are in direct violation of U.S. constitutional law.
Now the discussion of things like displays of the ten commandments or nativities is a bit different. Those are not generally done by acts of congress. This goes to states rights issues that are much more difficult and again to context.
Foremost on the states rights issues is that state laws cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution. In this regard it has been ruled that anti-discrimination portions of the constitution be applied to states even if the original text did not specify states. In plain english, if congress can't make laws regarding the establishment of religion then no lower governmental body can either. That's the basic thing in law on this.
Context in these displays is a major factor. Is it acceptable for religious symbols, statements, etc. to be displayed in a museum or artistic environment? Of course it is, it is in context. Example, the local history museum puts up a display about the ancient middle east, that is sure to include religious undertones but it is totally in a secular context of study of history. Is it right for a courthouse to have a display of the ten commandments? That depends on context, as I said the context in the U.S. Supreme court is perfectly acceptable, but when displayed alone it becomes a religious rather than secular context which is not acceptable.
The big deal, on the displays that are of a religious context, is that they are taxpayer funded. If a law is passed to use taxpayer dollars to fund the commission and/or upkeep of such displays then that law is a law regarding the establishment of religion, which is not allowed in our democracy. Plain english: the government can't make someone pay for someone elses religion, even indirectly.
So, again, the correct question is "What is the context?". The context for the money and the pledge is clear. The other displays have to be taken on a case by case basis.
