Uploaded September 2007 | Updated September 2026, 6 hours ago
THE RALLY KICKED ASS!
(I don't need help anymore, but thank you all who chipped in - I was able to check my comments w/my cell phone, and I made a few minor tweaks based on what some of you said.)
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of... building a wall of separation between church and State."
The United States Constitution makes no mention of 'God' or 'Christianity'. When it DOES mention religion, it is restrictive, such as:
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" in Article IV
or
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment.
Keeping government and religion isolated allows all of us to worship as we wish.
I live in the city of Houston, and I know of at least ten churches that are all within a ten minute drive from my apartment - even in bad traffic. Different denominations, different languages, presumably with different doctrines and different congregations. My family and I are free to go to any, all, or none of these, as we see fit.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. They are two sides of the same coin - you cannot have one without the other.
Yet all around us, we see - arguably subtle, but definite - violations of this - dare I say... 'sacred'... freedom.
The addition of "In God we Trust" on our coins in 1864, our dollar bills in 1957, the insertion of "under God" into the national pledge of allegiance in 1954, and our state pledge this year, are direct - if minute - infusions of religion into the public sphere. It is all too easy to dismiss this as innocuous enough - what could be more all-emcompassing and inclusively vague than simply saying 'God' and leaving it up to each individual to interpret what 'God' means to them?
The belief in a single deity is a tenet of the great Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which does include the majority of Americans. However, the idea does conflict with the beliefs of other religions: Buddhists don't all believe in a personal deity; Hindus believe in many deities. Wiccans believe in a Goddess.
Even if we acknowledge the imposition, it is easy to write it off as inconsequential.
"It's just a few words here and there - what's the big deal?"
I can see at least two ways of answering this.
Let's look at the legislation putting "under God" into the state pledge of allegiance, through the lens of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The "Lemon test" was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Lemon v Kurtzman in 1971 to discern wether or not a law complies with the First Amendment. To pass the test, a law must:
1. have a secular purpose.
2. have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The bill that added 'under God' to the state pledge clearly fails the test on at least the first two counts, and arguably the third.
Putting the legal argument aside, I can't help but ask:
"How would you feel if our pledge said 'One nation, OVER God', or our dollar bills said 'In Atheism We Trust'?"
It doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
We are all free to worship - or not worship - as we please in our private lives. Yet we are free to do so precisely because we live in a secular nation. All of us - those with faith, as well as those without - should be opposed to any intersection of church and state, no matter how small.
I'm going to close with a classic from Thomas Paine:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."
THE RALLY KICKED ASS!
(I don't need help anymore, but thank you all who chipped in - I was able to check my comments w/my cell phone, and I made a few minor tweaks based on what some of you said.)
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of... building a wall of separation between church and State."
The United States Constitution makes no mention of 'God' or 'Christianity'. When it DOES mention religion, it is restrictive, such as:
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" in Article IV
or
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment.
Keeping government and religion isolated allows all of us to worship as we wish.
I live in the city of Houston, and I know of at least ten churches that are all within a ten minute drive from my apartment - even in bad traffic. Different denominations, different languages, presumably with different doctrines and different congregations. My family and I are free to go to any, all, or none of these, as we see fit.
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. They are two sides of the same coin - you cannot have one without the other.
Yet all around us, we see - arguably subtle, but definite - violations of this - dare I say... 'sacred'... freedom.
The addition of "In God we Trust" on our coins in 1864, our dollar bills in 1957, the insertion of "under God" into the national pledge of allegiance in 1954, and our state pledge this year, are direct - if minute - infusions of religion into the public sphere. It is all too easy to dismiss this as innocuous enough - what could be more all-emcompassing and inclusively vague than simply saying 'God' and leaving it up to each individual to interpret what 'God' means to them?
The belief in a single deity is a tenet of the great Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which does include the majority of Americans. However, the idea does conflict with the beliefs of other religions: Buddhists don't all believe in a personal deity; Hindus believe in many deities. Wiccans believe in a Goddess.
Even if we acknowledge the imposition, it is easy to write it off as inconsequential.
"It's just a few words here and there - what's the big deal?"
I can see at least two ways of answering this.
Let's look at the legislation putting "under God" into the state pledge of allegiance, through the lens of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The "Lemon test" was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Lemon v Kurtzman in 1971 to discern wether or not a law complies with the First Amendment. To pass the test, a law must:
1. have a secular purpose.
2. have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The bill that added 'under God' to the state pledge clearly fails the test on at least the first two counts, and arguably the third.
Putting the legal argument aside, I can't help but ask:
"How would you feel if our pledge said 'One nation, OVER God', or our dollar bills said 'In Atheism We Trust'?"
It doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
We are all free to worship - or not worship - as we please in our private lives. Yet we are free to do so precisely because we live in a secular nation. All of us - those with faith, as well as those without - should be opposed to any intersection of church and state, no matter how small.
I'm going to close with a classic from Thomas Paine:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."
