2002-06-26 4:28 p.m. Say it with me people, there may just be a quiz later - "There is no such thing as 'the separation of church and state.' Yeah, you heard me right. It simply does not exist. "Buuut Mike, I'm sure it exists. Why else would people refer to it all the time?" Well, I'll tell you. It's because people are underinformed and tend to cling to sound bites as opposed to, say, learning how things really are. The text of the First Ammendment, from which the 'church and state' disagreement stems reads as such: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion. That's it. That's all. If Congress put out a press statement that said "Yup. Catholicism is where it's at. And if you don't agree with us, than no tax refund for you!", well, that would be wrong. That's what the ammendment is against. But a Christmas Tree or a Menorah in a courthouse loby, or letting state employees observe Ramadan, does not the First Ammendment violate. It does not favor one religion over another. It allows religions to be respected by the State, but it does not endorse them. It's like the horrible clothes your Mom buys you for your birthday. The fact that youwear it once out of respect for her doesn't necessarily mean you like said orange and brown plaid sweater. Now - if you wear it all the time, that's a different matter. What I'm trying to say is that there's a fundamental difference between govnmental respect for a set of beliefs and an endorsement of those beliefs. And what scares me (and, yes, what makes me feel like a crumudgeon) is that I don't think the courts understand this. Take this article for example. "One nation under God." Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm not sensitive enough, but I've never read it as "One nation under my Judeo-Christian God whose only son Jesus died for my sins and left his Church in the hands of his main men the Popes." But that's just me. I've always understood it to mean that we're one nation under a god, and if you don't happen to believe in a god or if you believe in many equal gods, cool - rock on, substitute your own words or reserve your right to not say anything. And if the loud kids from the back make fun of you - fuck 'em. They'll be digging ditches when you're running a multinational corporation. '"A profession that we are a nation `under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation `under Jesus,' a nation `under Vishnu,' a nation `under Zeus,' or a nation `under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel. ' Well, no, not exactly. The 'under god' line simply means that we, as a nation, recognize that there is a higer power than us. If we had meant 'one nation under Christ,' we would have said so. Likewise for Vishnu, Zeus, Zoaraster, or whomever your deity of choice is. And, if you're an athiest, it's cool, brutha, you may just be right. Just say nothing when that part of the Pledge comes around. Or say something like "one nation under nothing at all". You can. Know why? You're an American. It's a bonus feature. Ahhh, but wait, it was Ye Olde Athiest Michael A. Nedow who started this entire brouhaha. "I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with." Yeah, and I don't like it when grammer is butchered, but apparently that's not going to happen either. Dude, relax, your rights would be infringed (note the lack of the word 'upon' - that's how it should be done) if you were forced to attend a religious service. Your daughter's class reciting the plege pre-sans-'under god' when she can, if desired, opt out of the whole thing? Not so much with the egregious oppression. But, if you make a big deal about it, I'm sure you'll get on local news. And if the right station does the right kind of story, I'm sure the boys up at network will pick up on it. Then you've got CNN, Fox News, and Time muthafucking Magazine. And then everyone will know the name of Michael A. Nedow. And then the talkshow interviews, and the book deal, and the lecture circuit - the cash is gonna roll in! Ahhhhhh. That, my friends, is the American Way downtown----uptown leave me a note, fool!

designed by mocksie. brought to you by diaryland.