Religions > Atheism > Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Lord Calvert" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2004 04:09:47 PM |
| Object: |
Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
You might want to turn your irony meters off. You'll also need a registration
so I'll post the whole article here. There are so many exaggerations and
outright lies in the article that you'll probably lose your lunch. This was an
article I expected to see out of an anti-American Christian supremacist rag
like Southern Partisan, the Christian Statesman or Premise, not the Wall Street
Journal. I am highly disappointed in the WSJ's journalistic integrity.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005223
'Under God'
Michael Newdow is right. Atheists are outsiders in America.
BY SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
The battle over the Pledge of Allegiance has stimulated vigorous controversy on
an issue central to America's identity. Opponents of "under God" (which was
added to the pledge in 1954) argue that the United States is a secular country,
that the First Amendment prohibits rhetorical or material state support for
religion, and that people should be able to pledge allegiance to their country
without implicitly also affirming a belief in God. Supporters point out that
the phrase is perfectly consonant with the views of the framers of the
Constitution, that Lincoln had used these words in the Gettysburg Address, and
that the Supreme Court--which on Monday sidestepped a challenge to the Pledge
of Allegiance--has long held that no one could be compelled to say the pledge.
The atheist who brought the court challenge, Michael Newdow, asked this
question: "Why should I be made to feel like an outsider?" Earlier, the Court
of Appeals in San Francisco had agreed that the words "under God" sent "a
message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the
political community."
Although the Supreme Court did not address the question directly, Mr. Newdow
got it right: Atheists are "outsiders" in the American community. Americans are
one of the most religious people in the world, particularly compared with the
peoples of other highly industrialized democracies. But they nonetheless
tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers. Unbelievers do
not have to recite the pledge, or engage in any religiously tainted practice of
which they disapprove. They also, however, do not have the right to impose
their atheism on all those Americans whose beliefs now and historically have
defined America as a religious nation.
Statistics say America is not only a religious nation but also a Christian one.
Up to 85% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Brian Cronin, who
litigated against a cross on public land in Boise, Idaho, complained, "For
Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians in Boise, the cross only
drives home the point that they are strangers in a strange land." Like Mr.
Newdow and the Ninth Circuit judges, Mr. Cronin was on target. America is a
predominantly Christian nation with a secular government. Non-Christians may
legitimately see themselves as strangers because they or their ancestors moved
to this "strange land" founded and peopled by Christians--even as Christians
become strangers by moving to Israel, India, Thailand or Morocco.
Americans have always been extremely religious and overwhelmingly Christian.
The 17th-century settlers founded their communities in America in large part
for religious reasons. Eighteenth-century Americans saw their Revolution in
religious and largely biblical terms. The Revolution reflected their "covenant
with God" and was a war between "God's elect" and the British "Antichrist."
Jefferson, Paine and other deists and nonbelievers felt it necessary to invoke
religion to justify the Revolution. The Declaration of Independence appealed to
"Nature's God," the "Creator," "the Supreme Judge of the World," and "divine
Providence" for approval, legitimacy and protection.
The Constitution includes no such references. Yet its framers firmly believed
that the republican government they were creating could last only if it was
rooted in morality and religion. "A Republic can only be supported by pure
religion or austere morals," John Adams said. Washington agreed: "Reason and
experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in
exclusion of religious principles." Fifty years after the Constitution was
adopted, Tocqueville reported that all Americans held religion "to be
indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."
The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution,
and some people cite the absence of religious language in the Constitution and
the provisions of the First Amendment as evidence that America is fundamentally
secular. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of the 18th
century, religious establishments existed throughout Europe and in several
American states. Control of the church was a key element of state power, and
the established church, in turn, provided legitimacy to the state. The framers
of the Constitution prohibited an established national church in order to limit
the power of government and to protect and strengthen religion. The purpose of
"separation of church and state," as William McLoughlin has said, was not to
establish freedom from religion but to establish freedom for religion. As a
result, Americans have been unique among peoples in the diversity of sects,
denominations and religious movements to which they have given birth, almost
all embodying some form of Protestantism. When substantial numbers of Catholic
immigrants arrived, it was eventually possible to accept Catholicism as one
more denomination within the broad framework of Christianity. The proportion of
the population who were "religious adherents," that is church members,
increased fairly steadily through most of American history.
Today, overwhelming majorities of Americans affirm religious beliefs. When
asked in 2003 simply whether they believed in God or not, 92% said yes. In a
series of 2002-03 polls, 57% to 65% of Americans said religion was very
important in their lives, 23% to 27% said fairly important, and 12% to 18% said
not very important. Large proportions of Americans also appear to be active in
the practice of their religion. In 2002 and 2003, an average of 65% claimed
membership in a church or synagogue. About 40% said they had attended church or
synagogue in the previous seven days, and roughly 33% said they went to church
at least once a week. In the same period, about 60% of Americans said they
prayed one or more times a day, more than 20% once or more a week, about 10%
less than once a week, and 10% never. Given human nature, these claims of
religious practice may be overstated, but the extent to which Americans believe
the right response is to affirm their religiosity is itself evidence for the
centrality of religious norms in American society.
Only about 10% of Americans, however, espouse atheism, and most Americans do
not approve of it. Although the willingness of Americans to vote for a
presidential candidate from a minority group has increased dramatically--over
90% of those polled in 1999 said they would vote for a black, Jewish or female
presidential candidate, while 59% were willing to vote for a homosexual--only
49% were willing to vote for an atheist. Americans seem to agree with the
Founding Fathers that their republican government requires a religious base,
and hence find it difficult to accept the explicit rejection of God.
These high levels of religiosity would be less significant if they were the
norm for other countries. Americans differ dramatically, however, in their
religiosity from the people of other economically developed countries. This
religiosity is conclusively revealed in cross-national surveys. In general, the
level of religious commitment of countries varies inversely with their level of
economic development: People in poor countries are highly religious; those in
rich countries are not. America is the glaring exception. One analysis found
that if America were like most other countries at her level of economic
development, only 5% of Americans would think religion very important, but in
fact 51% do.
An International Social Survey Program questionnaire in 1991 asked people in 17
countries seven questions concerning their belief in God, life after death,
heaven and other religious concepts. Reporting the results, George Bishop
ranked the countries according to the percentage of their population that
affirmed these religious beliefs. The U.S. was far ahead in its overall level
of religiosity, ranking first on four questions, second on one, and third on
two, for an average ranking of 1.7. According to this poll, Americans are more
deeply religious than even the people of countries like Ireland and Poland,
where religion has been the core of national identity differentiating them from
their traditional British, German and Russian antagonists.
Along with their general religiosity, the Christianity of Americans has
impressed foreign observers and been affirmed by Americans. "We are a Christian
people," the Supreme Court declared in 1811. In the midst of the Civil War,
Lincoln also described Americans as "a Christian people." In 1892 the Supreme
Court again declared, "This is a Christian nation." In 1917 Congress passed
legislation declaring a day of prayer in support of the war effort and invoking
America's status as a Christian nation. In 1931 the Supreme Court reaffirmed
its earlier view: "We are a Christian people, according to one another the
equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of
obedience to the will of God."
While the balance between Protestants and Catholics shifted over the years, the
proportion of Americans identifying themselves as Christian has remained
relatively constant. In three surveys between 1989 and 1996, 84% to 88% of
Americans said they were Christians. The proportion of Christians in America
rivals or exceeds the proportion of Jews in Israel, of Muslims in Egypt, of
Hindus in India, and of Orthodox believers in Russia.
America's Christian identity has, nonetheless, been questioned on two grounds.
It is argued, first, that America is losing that identity because non-Christian
religions are expanding in numbers, and Americans are thus becoming a
multireligious and not simply a multidenominational people; second, that
Americans are losing their religious identity and are becoming secular,
atheistic, materialistic and indifferent to their religious heritage. Neither
of these propositions comes close to the truth.
The argument that America is losing its Christian identity due to the spread of
non-Christian religions was advanced by several scholars in the 1980s and '90s.
They pointed to the growing numbers of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists in
American society. Hindus increased from 70,000 in 1977 to 800,000 in 1997.
Muslims amounted to at least 3.5 million in 1997, while Buddhists numbered
somewhere between 750,000 and two million. From these developments, the
proponents of de-Christianization argue, in the words of Prof. Diana Eck, that
"religious diversity" has "shattered the paradigm of America" as an
overwhelmingly Christian country with a small Jewish minority.
The increases in the membership of some non-Christian religions have not, to
put it mildly, had any significant effect on America's Christian identity. As a
result of assimilation, low birth rates, and intermarriage, the proportion of
Jews dropped from 4% in the 1920s to 3% in the '50s to slightly over 2% in
1997. If the absolute numbers claimed by their spokesmen are correct, by 1997
about 1.5% of Americans were Muslim, while Hindus and Buddhists were each less
than 1%. The numbers of non-Christian, non-Jewish believers undoubtedly will
continue to grow, but for years to come they will remain extremely small. Some
increases in the membership of non-Christian religions come from conversions,
but the largest share is from immigration and high birthrates. The immigrants
of these religions, however, are far outnumbered by immigrants from Latin
America, almost all of whom are Catholic and also have high birthrates. Latin
American immigrants are also converting to evangelical Protestantism. In
addition, Christians in Asia and the Middle East have been more likely than
non-Christians to migrate to America. As of 1990, a majority of Asian-Americans
were Christian rather than Buddhist or Hindu, and about two-thirds of
Arab-Americans have been Christian rather than Muslim, although Arab Muslim
immigrants have become much more numerous. While a precise judgment is
impossible, at the start of the 21st century the U.S. was probably becoming
more rather than less Christian in its religious composition.
Americans tend to have a certain catholicity toward religion: All deserve
respect. Given this general tolerance of religious diversity, non-Christian
faiths have little alternative but to recognize and accept America as a
Christian society. "Americans have always thought of themselves as a Christian
nation," argues Jewish neoconservative Irving Kristol, "equally tolerant of all
religions so long as they were congruent with traditional Judeo-Christian
morality. But equal toleration . . . never meant perfect equality of status in
fact." Christianity is not legally established, "but it is established
informally, nevertheless."
But if increases in non-Christian membership haven't diluted Christianity in
America, hasn't it been supplanted over time by a culture that is pervasively
irreligious, if not antireligious? These terms describe segments of American
intellectual, academic and media elites, but not the bulk of the American
people. American religiosity could be high by absolute measures and high
relative to that of comparable societies, yet the secularization thesis would
still be valid if the commitment of Americans to religion declined over time.
Little or no evidence exists of such a decline. The one significant shift that
does appear to have occurred is a drop in the 1960s and '70s in the religious
commitment of Catholics. This shift, however, brought Catholic attitudes on
religion more into congruence with those of Protestants.
Over the course of American history, fluctuations did occur in levels of
American religious commitment and religious involvement. There has not,
however, been an overall downward trend in American religiosity. At the start
of the 21st century, Americans are no less committed, and are quite possibly
more committed, to their religious beliefs and their Christian identity than at
any time in their history.
Mr. Huntington, the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard,
is the author of "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World
Order" (Simon & Schuster, 1998). This is adapted from the current issue of The
American Enterprise.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
16 Jun 2004 06:10:30 PM |
|
|
In article <20040616170947.06903.00000069@mb-m13.aol.com>, Lord Calvert
<forlornh@aol.complicated> wrote:
But if increases in non-Christian membership haven't diluted Christianity in
America, hasn't it been supplanted over time by a culture that is pervasively
irreligious, if not antireligious? These terms describe segments of American
intellectual, academic and media elites, but not the bulk of the American
people.
What a load of *****. I don't think the porno industry is flying high on
the backs of an "elite" minority. The cigarette and alcohol industries
would go bust if "elites" were the only ones who smoked and drank. And
the movie industry would collapse overnight if most Americans adhered
to genuine "Christian" values and foreswore violent, sex-filled movies.
Most Christian males have gotten a ***** at some point in their
lives. Some have given one. The majority of married Christians have had
an affair.
No. While most Americans may believe in the invisible bunny in the sky,
when it comes to day-to-day life, they are as hedonistic and "sinful"
as any atheist, maybe more so. And they like their personal freedoms.
They would welcome a true Christian theocracy about as readily as they
would welcome being ruled by Iran.
Sean C
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DJ Nozem" |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
19 Jun 2004 08:40:15 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2004 21:09:47 GMT, forlornh@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Non-Christians may
legitimately see themselves as strangers because they or their ancestors moved
to this "strange land" founded and peopled by Christians--even as Christians
become strangers by moving to Israel, India, Thailand or Morocco.
What the *****? Christians invaded America, they stole the land from
its indigenous people and killed most of them in the process. That
tidbit deserves no mentioning?
The immigrants
of these religions, however, are far outnumbered by immigrants from Latin
America, almost all of whom are Catholic and also have high birthrates. Latin
American immigrants are also converting to evangelical Protestantism.
Didn't Huntington have some kind of problem with this Hispanic
invasion, the 'reconquista' of the southwest, as he termed it, not
more than a few months ago? I suppose he can just forgive and forget
when he needs the statistic to score a point in another essay?
It's sad though, that the negative qualities of this man have
seemingly taken over as he's grown old. He could still be contributing
something to the debate instead of writing untempered eulogies of the
questionable and mistaken warnings given in by xenophobia.
--
We give meaning to each other
DJ Nozem aa#1465
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
17 Jun 2004 02:52:38 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2004 21:09:47 GMT, forlornh@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
You might want to turn your irony meters off. You'll also need a registration
so I'll post the whole article here. There are so many exaggerations and
outright lies in the article that you'll probably lose your lunch. This was an
article I expected to see out of an anti-American Christian supremacist rag
like Southern Partisan, the Christian Statesman or Premise, not the Wall Street
Journal. I am highly disappointed in the WSJ's journalistic integrity.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005223
'Under God'
Michael Newdow is right. Atheists are outsiders in America.
BY SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
snip
He is more dangerous than the television preachers or "creation
scientists", because, besides being a bigot, he is very well
educated. He provides "legitamacy" to the hysteria of hate that seems
to be taking power in America at this time. His views are not,
however, new among the academic elite. Racism and religious bigotry
are well established traditions, and he represents both.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
17 Jun 2004 08:02:54 AM |
|
|
He is more dangerous than the television preachers or "creation
scientists", because, besides being a bigot, he is very well
educated. He provides "legitamacy" to the hysteria of hate that seems
to be taking power in America at this time. His views are not,
however, new among the academic elite. Racism and religious bigotry
are well established traditions, and he represents both.
Although Huntington never has, to my knowledge, been associated with any of the
Christian Reconstructionist organizations he does write for the American
Enterprise Institute, a moderate right-wing think tank. I think it is a very
disturbing trend to see just how firmly totalitarian Christian
Reconstructionist ideology has been embraced by the moderate wing of the GOP.
It used to be solely the province of the extremists. No longer. Christian
Reconstructionism and millienialism are now the core principles of the modern
GOP.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
17 Jun 2004 09:33:57 AM |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2004 13:02:54 GMT, forlornh@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
He is more dangerous than the television preachers or "creation
scientists", because, besides being a bigot, he is very well
educated. He provides "legitamacy" to the hysteria of hate that seems
to be taking power in America at this time. His views are not,
however, new among the academic elite. Racism and religious bigotry
are well established traditions, and he represents both.
Although Huntington never has, to my knowledge, been associated with any of the
Christian Reconstructionist organizations he does write for the American
Enterprise Institute, a moderate right-wing think tank. I think it is a very
disturbing trend to see just how firmly totalitarian Christian
Reconstructionist ideology has been embraced by the moderate wing of the GOP.
It used to be solely the province of the extremists. No longer. Christian
Reconstructionism and millienialism are now the core principles of the modern
GOP.
It is not just disturbing; it is terrifying. The troglodytes are
taking over, and this time they have modern technology - such irony!
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
17 Jun 2004 09:54:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:09:47 +0000 in episode
<20040616170947.06903.00000069@mb-m13.aol.com> we saw our hero
forlornh@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert):
Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism
The WSJ long ago abandoned its original mission of dealing with business
and finance to turn itself into a neo-con propaganda organ.
Of course, considering studies that showed their "experts" gave advice
that was often about as successful as random stock picks, I guess they
decided they needed something to do?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
16 Jun 2004 05:34:04 PM |
|
|
forlornh@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in
news:20040616170947.06903.00000069@mb-m13.aol.com:
You might want to turn your irony meters off. You'll also need a
registration so I'll post the whole article here. There are so many
exaggerations and outright lies in the article that you'll probably
lose your lunch. This was an article I expected to see out of an
anti-American Christian supremacist rag like Southern Partisan, the
Christian Statesman or Premise, not the Wall Street Journal. I am
highly disappointed in the WSJ's journalistic integrity.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005223
<...>
Truly, I get the WSJ myself and was *very* disappointed.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennGlenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
16 Jun 2004 06:43:47 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
forlornh@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in
news:20040616170947.06903.00000069@mb-m13.aol.com:
You might want to turn your irony meters off. You'll also need a
registration so I'll post the whole article here. There are so many
exaggerations and outright lies in the article that you'll probably
lose your lunch. This was an article I expected to see out of an
anti-American Christian supremacist rag like Southern Partisan, the
Christian Statesman or Premise, not the Wall Street Journal. I am
highly disappointed in the WSJ's journalistic integrity.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005223
<...>
Truly, I get the WSJ myself and was *very* disappointed.
....but not *surprised*, I hope. This *is* the WSJ, after all.
GlennGlenn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
17 Jun 2004 08:36:47 AM |
|
|
GlennGlenn <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:TW4Ac.72869$jd.23703@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
forlornh@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in
news:20040616170947.06903.00000069@mb-m13.aol.com:
You might want to turn your irony meters off. You'll also need a
registration so I'll post the whole article here. There are so many
exaggerations and outright lies in the article that you'll probably
lose your lunch. This was an article I expected to see out of an
anti-American Christian supremacist rag like Southern Partisan, the
Christian Statesman or Premise, not the Wall Street Journal. I am
highly disappointed in the WSJ's journalistic integrity.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005223
<...>
Truly, I get the WSJ myself and was *very* disappointed.
...but not *surprised*, I hope. This *is* the WSJ, after all.
Well, maybe a little surprised at the tone. Rather strident for them,
even for their editorial page.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
17 Jun 2004 01:20:15 PM |
|
|
forlornh@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20040616170947.06903.00000069@mb-m13.aol.com>...
Thank you forlorn for the bad article ;).
'Under God'
Michael Newdow is right. Atheists are outsiders in America.
BY SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
The battle over the Pledge of Allegiance has stimulated vigorous
controversy on an issue central to America's identity.
Opponents of "under God" (which was added to the pledge
in 1954) argue that the United States is a secular country,
that the First Amendment prohibits rhetorical or material
state support for religion, and that people should be able
to pledge allegiance to their country without implicitly
also affirming a belief in God. Supporters point out that
the phrase is perfectly consonant with the views of the
framers of the Constitution, that Lincoln had used these
words in the Gettysburg Address, and that the Supreme
Court--which on Monday sidestepped a challenge to the Pledge
of Allegiance--has long held that no one could be compelled
to say the pledge.
Funny how Samuel did not question why the supreme court
did not just rule, its OK to have *Under God* in the
pledge. Obviously they avoided this because there was
a good chance that they would have struck the phrase.
In other words, there is a very good chance that
the phrase under God is unconstitutional despite all
of Samuel's whining.
But what is meant when Christian say, This is a Christian
nation any way? It seems obvious to me that if you
go by statistics, this is a nation composed of Christians.
It is obvious that saying the United States is a
Christian nation implies more than statistics. They
are trying to imply that since they are a majority they
should get their way. This is the tyranny of the
majority which prompted the bill of rights in the
first place. Also implied is that the government
should give them special treatment, like holidays
school prayer, etc.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Wall Street Journal article supports religious totalitarianism |
17 Jun 2004 11:28:56 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jun 2004 11:20:15 -0700, (Lawrence
Seib) wrote:
forlornh@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20040616170947.06903.00000069@mb-m13.aol.com>...
Thank you forlorn for the bad article ;).
'Under God'
Michael Newdow is right. Atheists are outsiders in America.
BY SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
The battle over the Pledge of Allegiance has stimulated vigorous
controversy on an issue central to America's identity.
Opponents of "under God" (which was added to the pledge
in 1954) argue that the United States is a secular country,
that the First Amendment prohibits rhetorical or material
state support for religion, and that people should be able
to pledge allegiance to their country without implicitly
also affirming a belief in God. Supporters point out that
the phrase is perfectly consonant with the views of the
framers of the Constitution, that Lincoln had used these
words in the Gettysburg Address, and that the Supreme
Court--which on Monday sidestepped a challenge to the Pledge
of Allegiance--has long held that no one could be compelled
to say the pledge.
Funny how Samuel did not question why the supreme court
did not just rule, its OK to have *Under God* in the
pledge. Obviously they avoided this because there was
a good chance that they would have struck the phrase.
In other words, there is a very good chance that
the phrase under God is unconstitutional despite all
of Samuel's whining.
But what is meant when Christian say, This is a Christian
nation any way? It seems obvious to me that if you
go by statistics, this is a nation composed of Christians.
It is obvious that saying the United States is a
Christian nation implies more than statistics. They
are trying to imply that since they are a majority they
should get their way. This is the tyranny of the
majority which prompted the bill of rights in the
first place. Also implied is that the government
should give them special treatment, like holidays
school prayer, etc.
Larry
He is also implying that Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, atheists etc. are
not Americans, that they live in America upon the gracious sufferance
of Christians - the real Americans. There is real horror hidden under
his words.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
