Something to bash on

[--Pete]

Hi,

The intent of the original writing of "Separation of Church and State" was meant to protect these religious minorities from the tyranny of the majority, rather than to excoriate all religiousity from the public's view.

Say rather 'these Christian minorities". Throughout our history, right up to the present attitudes expressed about 'rag-heads', the protection received by any group that isn't based on the Christian view has been minimal to non-existent. Ask the Jews and Mormons for their opinion of equal protection for religions in the USA.

As to ". . . excoriate all religiousity from the public's view.", that's a red herring and smells of three day old fish. Nowhere did I say or imply that. There are houses of worship everywhere I go, many with sign boards proclaiming their opinions. I have no objection to that, for they are on private property. Many people display the ichthus on their automobiles. Again, no objection on my part. People place a mezuzah, a crucifix, or other symbol of their religion either outside their home or visible from the outside. Again, no problem. Note that these are all private displays of belief, and whether I agree with the belief or not, I fully support the right of the people to both hold it and to proclaim it. My objection is with a display of religious belief enacted and supported by the state, especially in a publicly owned place. To extend that as you have is to ascribe to me opinions that I find repugnant and offensive.

Next up? The final verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner";

Again, I have no problem with this. Unlike most idiotic modern day PC fools (the vast bulk of the world, it seems) I realize that with time comes understanding and change. Francis Scott Key was a product of his times, a time when the average European and American had scant knowledge of any religion other than Christianity, dismissing all others as 'heathen'. And scarcely a concept of atheism or agnosticism (it was only around the turn of the eighteenth century that the concept of a universe without a creator started to be considered).

Anyway my point is that I think it is more productive as we make new decisions to do that in sensitivity to the diversity the nation embodies. To go back and revise all the sculpture, monuments, money, national anthem is not productive even though it might offend your senses, I would hope you could see them in their historical context.

If they were indeed in a historic context, I would agree with you. But consider money. The bills have been redesigned within the past few years, well within the time that this issue has been known. And the new bills still have "In God We Trust" on them. As to sculpture and monuments, you'll have to be more specific. The plaques with the ten commandments that adorn many of the public building, especially judicial buildings, are no more difficult to remove than a painting would be, and thus your concern is moot (doubly so, I'd say since often the building itself is of no historical significance either because it is too modern or because it has no outstanding features).

What offends my senses is not what was done in the 1800s but what has been done this past half of a century:

The pledge of allegiance changed from a civic statement to include religion in 1954.

While in use for a century beforehand, In God We Trust didn't become the official motto of the USA until 1956.

The display of the ten commandments in courthouses seems to be a recent phenomenon (BTW, I used that link strictly because it has a fair summary of the time-line and not for any opinions expressed there).

So, while your point of historical context is valid in a few cases, most of the observed cases are not old enough to have any historical context.

--Pete