Post by AuntieSocial on Nov 20, 2003 19:05:52 GMT -5
Pious and atheists, take note
Click here to read the article on the original page
Published: November 4, 2003
Publication: USA Today . com
The U.S. Supreme Court long has been a choice destination for those looking for official validation of their particular beliefs.
On Monday, the high court rejected efforts by religious activists to get the court's sanction for advancing one religion over others by posting the Ten Commandments on public property.
Early next year, the Supreme Court will hear the arguments of a California atheist with a clashing agenda. He is upset that the phrase "under God" is used when the Pledge of Allegiance is said at his daughter's school.
While the legal relief sought by each couldn't be more different, the methods are the same: using the legal system to impose a personal conviction on all of society. Regardless of the professed motivations, the tactic ill-serves a nation committed to respecting a range of faiths by keeping the government out of religious matters.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had asked the Supreme Court to reconsider a lower-court order to remove a 2½-ton monument to the Ten Commandments that he had installed in the state court building two years ago. In refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court made clear that the law on this topic long has been settled.
In a religiously diverse nation, using the power of government to promote the symbols or beliefs of one faith poses an affront to the rights of everyone else. The court first made that clear with regard to the Ten Commandments in a 1980 case involving Kentucky schools.
Protests by Moore's supporters have focused more on claiming a right to impose state-sponsored religious gestures than on commemorating the Ten Commandments as one of many ancient sources of civil law. The distinction is made clear right in the décor of the Supreme Court building in Washington: Moses and an image of the commandments are there but with other historic figures associated with the law, including Confucius, King Solomon, Napoleon and the prophet Mohammed.
The difference between promoting one brand of theology and recognizing history also is missed by those who protest the casual references to the deity that are scattered widely across the nation's civic life. The father challenging "under God" in the Pledge ignores the long acceptance of what the Supreme Court has called "ceremonial deism."
Imposing one's view, whether in the name of religion or atheism, undermines respect for diversity in a nation of nearly 2,000 faiths, denominations, traditions and sects.
Maverick: Added to the news page. Message icon updated.
Click here to read the article on the original page
Published: November 4, 2003
Publication: USA Today . com
The U.S. Supreme Court long has been a choice destination for those looking for official validation of their particular beliefs.
On Monday, the high court rejected efforts by religious activists to get the court's sanction for advancing one religion over others by posting the Ten Commandments on public property.
Early next year, the Supreme Court will hear the arguments of a California atheist with a clashing agenda. He is upset that the phrase "under God" is used when the Pledge of Allegiance is said at his daughter's school.
While the legal relief sought by each couldn't be more different, the methods are the same: using the legal system to impose a personal conviction on all of society. Regardless of the professed motivations, the tactic ill-serves a nation committed to respecting a range of faiths by keeping the government out of religious matters.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore had asked the Supreme Court to reconsider a lower-court order to remove a 2½-ton monument to the Ten Commandments that he had installed in the state court building two years ago. In refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court made clear that the law on this topic long has been settled.
In a religiously diverse nation, using the power of government to promote the symbols or beliefs of one faith poses an affront to the rights of everyone else. The court first made that clear with regard to the Ten Commandments in a 1980 case involving Kentucky schools.
Protests by Moore's supporters have focused more on claiming a right to impose state-sponsored religious gestures than on commemorating the Ten Commandments as one of many ancient sources of civil law. The distinction is made clear right in the décor of the Supreme Court building in Washington: Moses and an image of the commandments are there but with other historic figures associated with the law, including Confucius, King Solomon, Napoleon and the prophet Mohammed.
The difference between promoting one brand of theology and recognizing history also is missed by those who protest the casual references to the deity that are scattered widely across the nation's civic life. The father challenging "under God" in the Pledge ignores the long acceptance of what the Supreme Court has called "ceremonial deism."
Imposing one's view, whether in the name of religion or atheism, undermines respect for diversity in a nation of nearly 2,000 faiths, denominations, traditions and sects.
Maverick: Added to the news page. Message icon updated.
