History can teach so many valuable lessons about the consequences of a government too closely tied to religion. In 1572, approximately 50,000 French men, women, and children were killed simply because the crown, supported by the Holy Roman Catholic Church, disdained Huguenots. In England, of course, there was the reign of Bloody Mary, and in our own country, a Congregationalist controlled government burned innocent women alive in Salem simply because they were accused of being witches.
The founders of this country knew perfectly well the futile horror religion and government wield when the two institutions are intertwined.
In “Notes on Virginia,” third President Thomas Jefferson asserted, “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”
Therefore, it’s perfectly logical the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Yet when a separation issue rears its head, as it often does, Christian conservatives almost always yell this is not what the founding fathers intended. Their argument is ludicrous-surely it’s what Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, and Madison, the father of the Constitution, wanted.
In response to the recent “under God” ruling, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, was one of many lawmakers who overreacted to garner electoral support from the Christian right come election time.
“Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok,” said Bond.
In 1954 Congress passed a law adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. In our growingly diverse society the Supreme Court must, if it is to respect the First Amendment, strike down the statute and uphold the ruling of the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth’s ruling is not just extreme form of political correctness as Bond claimed. The purpose of Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
Suppose the overwhelming majority of Christians in this country were separated and forced to live individually among peoples of different religious beliefs. Certainly, if the shoe was on the other foot, their toleration of differing beliefs and sensitivity to those who hold them would greatly increase.
But this is America. Everybody loves apple pie and Jesus here, and if we choose not to, we don’t have to even think about the people who aren’t Christian. So we can add whatever we want to our pledge and to the hell with our great constitution and the liberty it was intended to preserve.
That’s not American.
Our country is using religious hegemony in government as a conduit to governmentally condoned racism. For hundreds of years government officials accepted slavery and segregation through the auspices of Biblical teaching. God marked Ham so obviously Jesus thinks slavery is fabulous. Christianity validated the darkest and most evil practice Americans ever engaged in.
The pledge says “under God.” How offended would Christians be if they were forced to recite or even listen to “under Allah” in the United States pledge. By keeping “under God” in the pledge, the government is perpetuating the racism faced by minority races, especially Muslims, each day.
This country is not just for Christians. Emma Lazarus’ poem didn’t say “Give me your tired, your poor, your Christian/Jewish masses.” The United States wanted everybody.
Isn’t it the diversity of this country that makes it so strong? America is the melting pot of the world. September 11 made the U.S. particularly susceptible to intolerance. Why should the government want to feed this leach of social harmony with something so trivial as an 50-year-old addition to the pledge?