Church and state

[mdlbear]

I note with considerable approval that a federal judge in Sacramento ruled Wednesday that requiring children to recite a Pledge of Allegiance that contains the phrase "under God" in public schools is unconstitutional.

I remember distinctly when that phrase was first inserted into the Pledge; I was in second grade at the time (1954). I felt it was an imposition at the time, and simply stood silently when the phrase was said -- as I do to this day when the occasion calls for it. Given the current administration and the likely makeup of the Supreme Court when the case finally reaches them, I have little doubt that the justices will find some way to weasel out of the fact that "under God" is clearly a government endorsement of a particular family of religions. But a temporary, local victory is all we're likely to get, so I'll enjoy it while I can.

Comments

[animekid.livejournal.com]

*nods*
Albeit being raised as a Roman Catholic...
I've always found it very odd when I was still in elementary school when they had us do it in the morning.

Course the teachers and own parents shrug it off when I asked "such silly" questions ^^;;;

[jilara.livejournal.com]

It should have been challenged when it was first inserted, but that was a dangerous thing to do in the McCarthy era. The biggest problem with that clause in the pledge is it really links god and the state.

California

[tagryn]

Whereas I see it as just the flip side of the same coin with the judge who wanted to place a sculpture of the 10 Commandments in his courthouse. They're both actions of people who are at extreme ends of the church-state debate, as I see it.

Things like this, and others like the legal intimidation used to get a tiny cross removed from the L.A. county seal, seem to me foolish battles to pick over relatively insignificant things. They may be sensational & rally the "true believers," but at the same time it irritates and pushes away many moderate folks who would be more sympathetic to supporting church-state separation were it not for these kind of petty lawsuits. Suing over manger scenes, same thing. And without public support it will be increasingly difficult to maintain that separation, regardless of how right that position may be or how stubborn the remaining supporters are. It reminds me of the old gravestone poem:
"Here lies the body of William Jay,
Who died maintaining his right of way,
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong."

So, no, I don't see this ruling as a good thing for church-state separation.

Re: California

[mdlbear]

There's a big difference between putting a religious symbol on display among other symbols where people are free to walk by and ignore it, and forcing little kids to say a prayer they -- or their parents -- don't believe in. When I was a kid we all said the Lord's Prayer every morning in school. It was horrible, and isolating, and baffling to a kid like me with non-practicing Jewish parents and no religious beliefs whatever. "Under God" was more of the same.

And these days it's not an empty symbol, but the thin edge of a wedge (along with "faith-based" charities and school voucher programs) that's going to progress to "intelligent design", and then more and more religion snuck in under the wall, until we have an education system befitting the theocracy the US is rapidly becoming.

[tagryn]

If you'll indulge another quote, Sun Tzu said he who tries to be strong everywhere will be strong nowhere. I'd rather see activists spend effort and credibility on holding the line against new inroads weakening church-state separation, as they happen, rather than trying to take down long standing examples like the county seal, the Pledge, public manger scenes, etc. I just don't see the tactic of indulging every lawsuit and fighting every battle that comes along as a successful one, especially in the public relations arena. The perception given to folks with only a passing interest is "first it was the manger thing, now its the seal and the Pledge. What's next on the hit list after that?" And that impression is a damaging one when it comes time to rally wider support for more important issues, like taxpayer $$$ going to churches.