"The Separation of Church and State "
By Ron Marr
Posted on 10/31/2003 2:00:48 PM PST by Bob J
"The Separation of Church and State "
By Ron Marr
Here's a note to Michael Newdow, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and all the other humor-impaired individuals whose time is spent obsessing on such Earth-shaking issues as the total elimination of religious references from the public venue. God just called...and he says you should get a life.
Newdow, as you might recall, is the Sacramento atheist who instigated the 2000 court case that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because the words "under God" amounted to a government endorsement of Christianity. The 9th Circuit, known for dedication to all things politically correct, agreed with him. Because of that decision, the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. I suspect they know it's a total waste of time, but want to euthanize the question once and for all.
Then again, The Supremes may just want to slap Newdow around a bit. The man claimed he brought the suit on behalf of his daughter, who was forced to listen to the Pledge (students do not have to recite it) and as a result suffered the potential of indoctrination and perhaps a degree of adolescent angst. However, since Newdow does not have legal custody of his daughter the court may well find that he had no legal standing to bring suit in the first place, thus dismissing both him personally and the argument itself.
But really, I can't repeat this enough. Get a life. The separation between church and state is well defined. What the First Amendment bans are "laws respecting an establishment of religion." That means the feds can't mandate that you worship under the auspices of Baptist, Catholic, Buddhist or Methodist. It means the government is prohibited from building a giant reptile and insisting, under penalty of law, that you bow down to it as the creator of all life and head honcho of the deity brigade.
For awhile I thought that might have been happening during the Clinton years, but then I realized that Janet Reno couldn't help the way she looked. My mistake. Sorry. Those shiny scales and razor sharp talons confused me.
Look, I'm not even a religious guy. I don't partake of organized religion and don't plan on joining up with a church anytime in the near future. I've actually got nothing against religion, however I do have something against stupidity. This debate is stupid. Prior court rulings have determined that phrases such as "under God" or "in God we trust" (as seen on the back of that green stuff in your wallet) are acceptable due to the fact that they are primarily ceremonial.
People might often view money as their religion, but I seriously doubt anyone has fallen to their knees, spoken in tongues or experienced a life-altering religious conversion after looking at the backside of a dollar bill.
I tend to believe that people who bring suits of this nature are simply bored, that they are so unsatisfied with their own lives that they want to throw a monkey wrench into the lives of others. They like seeing folks get all shaken up, but more than that, they like the attention. I suppose that's fine - getting people to look at you by filing nuisance suits is a much better way to gain recognition than by going on a tri-state killing spree. But for crying out loud, couldn't these people just avoid binding up the court system with worthless lunacy? Couldn't they gain fame by wearing a chicken suit in public or by shooting for a Guinness Record in hot dog consumption?
But the world is a weird place these days. Should the Supreme Court decide in favor of Newdow's view we will see a change in the landscape...literally. If that decision should come to pass I advise young entrepreneurs to run out and purchase sand-blasting equipment, as almost all public buildings have religious references carved into them. Some major bucks could be had by grinding them off and replacing with giant Smiley Faces.
And that would be but the start. George Bush would no longer be able to end his speeches with "God Bless America." In fact, he would be prohibited from saying "God Bless You" to Tom Daschle should the SD Senator happen to sneeze while pontificating on the Senate floor. The back of our currency would read "have a nice day," and court testimony would begin with "put your right hand on this Spiderman comic book and repeat after me."
I suppose that the swearing in ceremony at the Presidential inauguration would as well need to be changed so the ending reads "so help me God, Zeus, Shiva the Destroyer, Eric Clapton or any other potential supreme being which may or may not exist, up to and including Fred, the guy who fixed my wife's 2003 Mercedes Turbo with such alacrity and care that he surely must be divinely inspired...though I could be wrong about that."
Lets just hope the Congressional lunchroom doesn't offer Godiva chocolate on the menu.
The litigation could last for decades.
(c) 2003 Ron Marr.
My concern is that when a real and valid issue on the 'separation of church and state' happens (and it will), we will be desynthisized to the danger and miss it completely.
And I don't intend to argue the point that the term "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. It is a phrase regarding a concept. The term "Trinity" is not in the Bible either along with many other conceptual terms that we as Christians use.
So, we need to back up and seek to understand the danger that this Amendment is guarding against. Congress must not stick it's nose into matters of religion, period. In matters of faith, the majority have no say.
Even the issue of school prayer, the government should never have taken the matter up. But now the camel's nose is in the tent door. May God help us to be clear on the principles and guard against the inroads of religious intolerance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.