In the Court Of Secular Fanaticism

Newsday ^ | 7-6-02 | Rabbi Marc Gellman & Msgr. Thomas Hartman

[paul in cape]

Since Sept. 11, we've been living with the specter of religious fanaticism. So it's grimly refreshing that two judges from the Ninth Circuit on the Left Coast have now offered us a glimpse of secular fanaticism.

Unless you've been living in a potato sack, you know the court ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance (because it includes the words "under God

[paul in cape]

These two are on the radio frequently, and make much sense.

Link HERE

[Kerberos]

"What is true is that the ruling violates both common sense "

I am always leery when a writer starts off with the common sense argument. That's another way of saying, "I don't have an argument."

[concerned about politics]

I like "under God" being there. I'm for it 100%.
Our forefathers were Godly men, so why not keep history alive?
The liberals have rewritten history so badly, anything truthfull is a blessing!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

What is true is that the ruling violates both common sense . . .

I am always leery when a writer starts off with the common sense argument. That's another way of saying, "I don't have an argument."

. . . and the foundations of our country's deepest political and religious identity.

Yeah, you have a point. But

"A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still."

Which just warns you that if someone says "common sense", what he really means it that you aren't about to convince him no matter how cogent you think your argument is. IOW, if you hope ever to persuade, you will have to tread very softly. You want a "yes, yes" response as you develop your argument. If someone says what you say "violates common sense" that is headed in the wrong direction very fast.