IT'S ABOUT POWER:
(1)
(a) [EMPHASIS (VIA CAPS) ADDED]]
.. . . Wherever one stands with respect to belief in God, it can hardly give
comfort or satisfaction to have the Deity subjected to empty, nonreligious
uses "of a patriotic or ceremonial character." The bland amalgamation of
God and the state, while it may meet the test of the Establishment Clause,
leads at best to a kind of cant that all of us may find embarrassing.
In the same class, though perhaps more debatably, I'd put the
improvement on the Pledge of Allegiance fashioned by Congress in 1954. That
was a year, it will be recalled, when Senator Joseph McCarthy was still
exploring how low we might be sunk in his ersatz but grimly destructive
crusade against "subversives." It was also a year McCarthy's colleagues
found it meet to insert the words "under God" after the reference to this
"one nation" in the pledge. The House Report on the bill that became this
law said that "it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic
concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.
"17 Some very brief remarks on the floor reaffirmed that inserting the
words "under God" would "strengthen the national resistance to
communism."18 The only cerebration manifested on the subject of the bill
had to do with the number and placement of commas in the revised pledge
-i.e., whether it should be simply "one nation under God" or "one Nation,
under God," as the legislative judgment finally determined. The short
debate on this subject was suitably placid. There was no debate at all on
the merits of the revision and no vote against it. Who, after all, would be
caught in the open excluding God?
The uses of God as a "ceremonial and patriotic" implement go
forward steadily in more obtrusive and questionable forms. The insistent
demand to have creches and menorahs in public sites continues to present
tough questions leading to the varieties of intricate and disputed answers
mentioned in Chapter i. The legal issues are tricky enough to promise a
continued supply of test cases. To oversimplify a lot, the hardest cases
-where private groups want to put their creches or menorahs in the public
park or on City Hall plaza-pit the First Amendment free-speech rights of
those groups against the claim of the objectors that this placement of the
symbols indicates government endorsement of the religion symbolized.
Without questioning the difficulty of these cases, it is fair to conjure
with the question why they keep happening. The answer lies, I think, in the
very nature of hostile and competitive patriotism out of which one might
wish that God could have been kept. The creche on the public square--to
"put Christ back into Christmas," as its sponsors say--plants the religious
flag of the angry nativists winning theirs back from the alien, infidel
intruders. (Who do they think they are?) The menorah sponsors are a
kindred but more pathetic story. (If the goyim can do it, so can we.) Both
are joined together as enemies of the mutual forbearance that is at the
heart of religious freedom in a pluralist society.
The gist of the demand is that THE MUSCLE OF YOUR RELIGION be
displayed in the public space. THE SUBJECT as is usual with facile shows of
patriotism, IS POWER. It is put, to be sure, as a matter of free expression
by the creche and menorah advocates, but that is largely fraud or
self-delusion.. There are ample private spaces in every community, amply
visible, for displaying religious icons. The insistence on the public
space, the space that belongs to all of us, is to show those others, the
nonadherents. The distinction is readily, if not always malevolently,
blurred. . .
Whatever misunderstandings may beset a recent refugee from Soviet
atheism, there is no ground for similar confusion, and probably no similar
confusion, among most people who want their religious symbols standing on
public property. The symbols make a statement-not of religious faith. They
are not needed for that. They assert simply and starkly, as I've said,
POWER OVER the nonbelievers. This was underscored fot me in a fleeting
moment of a case that ended 4-4 in the Supreme Court, the equal division
(Justice Powell was ill and absent) resulting in a defeat for the village
of Scarsdale (with me as unsuccessful counsel) when it sought to deny a
place for a creche in a public circle.20 In the course of that proceeding,
one of the sponsors of the creche was asked about his interest in viewing
it while it stood on Scarsdale's Boniface Circle during the Christmas
season. TO MY SURPRISE AS THE QUESTIONER, IT TURNED OUT
THAT HE NEVER BOTHERED TO GO LOOK AT THE CRECHE
AT ALL LET ALONE TO ADMIRE OR DRAW INSPIRATION FROM
ITt. BUT ON REFLECTION THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO
SURPRISING. THE CRECHE WAS NOT THERE FOR HIM TO SEE
OR APPRECIATE FOR ITS INSTRINSIC SPIRITUAL VALUE IN HIS
RELIGIOUS UNIVERSE. IT WAS THERE FOR OTHERS, WHO
PROFESSED OTHER RELIGIONS OR NONE, SO THAT THE CLOUT
OF HIS RELIGIOUS GROUP SHOULD BE MADE MANIFEST ABOVE
ALL TO ANY IN THE SHARPLY DIVIDED VILLAGE WHO WOULD HAVE
PREFERRED THAT IT NOT BE THERE. This is the low road., followed by at least
a good number of those who seek for their religion and its symbols the
imprimatur of government. If it is religious at all, this stance betokens a
weak and self-doubting species of faith.
SOURCE: Excerpts from FAITH AND FREEDOM, religious libeerty in America,
Marvin E. Frankel (retired U S Federal District Court judge) Hill and Wang,
N Y (1994) pp. 55-64
*******************************************************************
If anyone thinks that this case is not about the power of the entrenched
religious versus the powerlessness of nonbelievers in this society, today's
oral argument proves them wrong. Chief Justice Rehnquist floated several
proposals to defend "under God." First, he stated that the two words were
not really a "prayer," a distinction without a difference.
But his second point led to the most enlightening moment of the day. The
Chief noted that Congress unanimously added the two words "under God" in
1954, implying that no one found it offensive then so how could it be
offensive now, or perhaps worrying that the Court was in no position to
quibble with Congress when it acted with such unity.
But Newdow responded with the undoubtedly true statement, "That's only
because no atheists can be elected to office." And when he did, other
atheists in the audience began to clap.
They immediately proved his point. As atheist, he is disenfranchised
precisely because of his beliefs. He cannot be secure in knowing the school
district will not try to inculcate his daughter in the majority religion,
he cannot be elected to office, but more importantly, he cannot even argue
a case at the Supreme Court--that most hallowed of courtrooms--without
being reminded that he is not in the majority. The preference for "under
God" cannot be separated from the desire to suppress conflicting beliefs.
The Court Hears Oral Argument in the "Under God" Pledge of Allegiance Case:
Why the Court Should Reject This Pledge, and Why the Department of Justice
Is Wrong To Support It
By MARCI HAMILTON
hamilto...@aol.com
Thursday, Mar. 25, 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040325.html
********************************************************************
The entire argument rests on wanting the govt. to acknowledge God
in various forms and fashions. To create at the very least perceived unions
between church (religion) and state (govt.) It's about power, in some
instances money, politics, and in your face to all non-believers and/or
"incorrect" believers.
Let's look at that word:
ACKNOWLEDGE: (ak not/ij), vt., -edged -edg-ing.
1. to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact
of; confess to: to acknowledge belief in God.
2. to show or express recognition or realization of: to
an acknowledge an acquaintance by bowing.
3. to recognize the authority, validity, or claims of: The member nations
acknowledged the powers of the President.
4. to show or express appreciation or gratitude for: to acknowledge a
favor
5. to indicate or make known the receipt of: to acknowledge a letter
6. to take notice of or reply to: to acknowledge a greeting
7. Law. to confirm as binding or of legal force: to acknowledge a deed.
[late :NlE acknow- leche, equiv. to acknow (OE acndwan to recognize; see
A-3,
Ib acid!- -ac-
-Syn. 1. concede, grant. ACKNOWLEDGE, ADMIT, CONFESS agree in the idea of
declaring something to be true. ACKNOWLEDGE implies making a statement
reluctantly, often about something previously denied: to acknowledge a
fault. ADMIT especially implies acknowledging something under pressure: to
admit a charge. CONFESS usually means stating somewhat formally an
admission of wrongdoing, crime, or shortcoming: to confess guilt; to
confess an inability to understand. -Ant. 1. deny.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT (ak no1Hj mant), n.
1. act of and an acknowledging or admitting.
2. recognition of the existence or truth of anything: the acknowledgment of
a sovereign power.
3. an expression of appreciation.
4. a . a thing done or given in appreciation or gratitude.
5.Law:
a. declaration by a person before an official that be executed a legal
document.
b. an official certificate of a formal acknowledging.
c. public recognition by a man of an illegitimate child as his own. Also.
esp. Brit. wteria) ac•knowliedge•ment. [ACKNOWLEDGE + -MENT]
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary,
Barnes & Noble Books, (1994) p. 12
The above defines what those who want that public religion really seek
DIFFRENT TOPIC SAME PRINCIPLE
AND FINALLY
Thoughts on Power,
Ceremonial Deism & Public Religion
From a Variety of Sources
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/c-deism.htm
Barack Obama Steps in It Email Print
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/7/2/54051/90858
By Frederick Clarkson
07/02/2006 05:40:51 AM EST
[excerpt]
This effort to drive Christians out of the public square has been led by
the rightwing foundation-funded Institute on Religion and Democracy and
their henchmen, who have disrupted and sought to divide the mainline
Christian denominations affiliated with the National Council of Churches
for a quarter century. Those who founded, funded, staffed, and promoted
this agency are responsible for the greatest stifling of the expression of
mainstream Christianity in the public square in American history.
************************************************
SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
The Founders approved a secular national motto
The Founders never put "in God we trust" on anything
The Founders never wrote or added "under God" to any documents.
The Founders never approved a Pledge but that is another story for
another day.
The Founders never posted the Ten Commandments, Jefferson and Adams
even questioned where they even came from. The Rev. John Leland stated
they applied only to ancient Israel, Thomas Paine was unimpressed by them.
The Founders framed a secular Constitution for a secular nation
The Founders separated religion and government in that document
The Founders rejected a oath of office that contained the word God.
The Founders gave a choice to affirm instead of swear.
SEE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meetup/Congremv.pdf
and
(1) The original national motto was and is completely constitutional.
(2) The repressed 50s replacement "national motto" is unconstitutional and
will in time be so ruled.
(3) There have not been several cases where the unconstitutional repressed
50s replacement "national motto" was determined or ruled as mere ceremonial
deism
(4) There is no such thing as "mere" ceremonial deism. Ceremonial deism was
a escape the courts created so they could continue to allow things that
were unconstitutional, but which would be unpopular if so declared to exist
and continue. Ceremonial deism is the result of chicken-***** judges and
justices afraid to do their jobs.
The idea that something has lost it's religious meaning over time or
repeated use was and is totally exposed for the joke and fallacy is was and
is but the reactions to the "under God" ruling, and by your own position
and continual posting over and over and over again about it.
If one item that has been for years avoided by hiding under the 'ceremonial
deism" label gets ruled by any court unconstitutional, like "under God" has
just been that can open the floodgates to all sorts of cases challenging
"In God we trust" especially since it WAS NOT the original motto of this
nation. Chaplains in Congress paid for with public funds, under God, that
so called cryer's call to begin the sessions of the USSC, etc.
The courts have said that these items are so familiar to everyday life that
they have lost any and all religious meaning and significance. If that is
true, why do we need them? if that is true why the huge ourcry when Newdow
won? if that is true, why did Congress act they way they did. Gee,
Congress, by its actions is calling the courts liars.
BTW There is no valid historical documentation showing that Washington
or any other President ever said "so help me God" when being sworn in,
at least not prior to the 1880s
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
