The ACLU (predictably) reacts to the Ninth Circuit Court’s Pledge decision this way:
As today’s decision recognizes, the United States, with more than 1,500 different religious bodies and 360,000 churches, mosques, and synagogues, is the most religiously diverse nation in the world because of, not in spite of, the fact that we do not allow government to become entangled in religion.
Great argument, guys. Now, would you mind explaining to me just how we came to be so diverse when for the last half-century we’ve been forced to recite a proscriptive, coercive, injurious, and indoctrinating oath that insidiously establishes a state-sanctioned monotheism?
Could it be that (as dissenting Justice Fernandez argued) the tendency of the phrase ‘under God’ “to establish religion in this country or to interfere with the free exercise (or non-exercise) of religion is de minimis“?
Just asking.
[via my main Lib, Brian Linse]
Hey man, if it’s just a minor pause in school day to recite this pledge, surely you wouldn’t object to a way to get <a href=”http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/blog/zimblog.html”>web-surfing adults</a> to reflect on its fine sentiments as well…
Y’know, I’ve written about <a href=”http://www.creatical.com/weblog/archives/00001048.shtml”>7000 words</a> about this case <a href=”http://www.creatical.com/weblog/archives/00001051.shtml”>to this point.</a> As I’ve said over (and over and over and over and over and over and over) again, I could care less either way about the phrase itself.
I don’t, however, think inclusion of the phrase violates the establishment clause, is coercive, or is injurious. I likewise worry that straining the establishment clause to such a degree (and this battle does so) will lead to a backlash from the right that will pressure for the insertion of even more religion into the public arena. Likewise, I think tangential first amendment cases that rely on similar complaints as to the injurious nature of overheard speech will be emboldened by this decision.
Those arguments are all over this site. And your piece doesn’t address a single one of them. So I’m speechless.
Now I’m gonna go have a bourbon, if you don’t mind. Friday is no time for thinking.
Pop quiz, hotshots:
The words in the Pledge of Allegiance “under God” are a) vital to the survival of the Republic; or b) a de minimus expression of our “civic” religion.
If a), then the majority on the 9th Circuit should be impeached for treason.
If b), which most center-to-right folks seem to agree on, then, what’s the big deal??
We will muddle along with or without those pesky words, just as we did, very nicely I might add, for the first 178 years.
Jeff, two words you’re familiar with, I’m sure, from basic logic: excluded middle.