[Steve] We could have been Muslims, Hindus, or Wiccans for all they knew. [Frank] The soap-on-a-rope must have tipped them off.
[Senator Al Franken] OUCH! ________________________________ From: Steven Peterson <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 8:59:48 PM Subject: [MD] Freedom From Religion Hi all, Given the establishment clause, the Constitution should perhaps be used to ensure not only freedom of religion but also a freedom from religion by insisting that a Bible may not be used in the Presidential inauguration ceremony, the Pledge of Allegiance may not include "under God," our currency may not not bear the words "In God We Trust," the President and other elected officials ought not indicate the end of their speeches with the words "God bless America," there ought to be no public displays which may in any way be interpreted as referencing something religious around the winter holidays. Most if not all of this surely does not pass strict Constitutional muster, but I agree with Senator Al Franken who said, "I think, for example, 'under God' probably shouldn't be in the Pledge of Allegiance, it wasn't put in there since, like the 50's, but it's not that big a deal to me." Franken, a secularist, but perhaps not a very militant one, does not see his freedom as threatened by such things. References to God on our currency and in the Pledge were enacted into law early in the God war to distinguish us from those "godless commies" ("So help me God" is not actually part of the oath of office but has been a tradition since Washington himself through in the extra tag line at the first Presidential inauguration.), but I am content to let them stand for the time being. I tend to agree with Franken as far as those examples go that they shouldn't be there in our secular government, but I don't see such issues as terribly important or nearly so important as some others so long as members of all religions as well as the nonreligious are given equal consideration in presenting their own holiday displays at city hall and so long as politicians and citizens are never required to make certain declarations and swear on Bibles for the purposes of conducting civil business. My wife and I were actually caught off guard in being asked to do just that at the Delaware County Courthouse in Pennsylvania last fall while applying for a marriage license. We were asked to attest to certain facts by swearing on a Bible without first even being asked if we were adherents to a Bible-believing religion. It was apparently taken for granted that America itself is a Bible-beileving nation. We could have been Muslims, Hindus, or Wiccans for all they knew. Swearing an oath with a hand on the Bible is supposed to make us reluctant to lie, but ironically the book itself contains some obvious untruths. Still more ironic is the fact that the Bible itself tells us not to swear on the Bible since we aren't to swear oaths at all--Matthew 5:34 and James 5:12, "But above all things, brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." Then again, it also says that we should so swear--Isaiah 65:16 and Numbers 30:2, "If a man vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." At any rate, the government has no business trying to settle this theological debate. No one ought to be asked to swear on a Bible or any other book. Because of the Quaker tradition in Pennsylvania where weddings are conducted by the bride and groom and not performed by any celebrant, it was eventually possible for us under Pennsylvania law to have a beautiful, meaningful, yet secular ceremony in the venue of our choice without needing to appeal to sanction from any ecclesiastical organization. However, at that time a self-uniting license was denied to us on the dubious grounds that we are not Quakers. Margaret Downey, who is a past President of the International Atheist alliance and founder of the Anti-Discrimination Support Network, met us at the Chester County Courthouse, where she has her local clerk's office well-informed about our Constitutionally protected right to religious freedom as well as her personal commitment to and history of appealing to higher courts if necessary on issues of religious discrimination. Few states offer self-uniting licenses and perhaps many counties in Pennsylvania refuse to issue them as Delaware County does. As a secularist committed to freedom of religion, I believe strongly that such marriage licenses should be made available across the country. As it stands, nonbelievers often feel that they have no choice but to be married by a member of the clergy. Given that atheists are a relatively small and unorganized group, it seems unlikely that we will gather enough political power to bring about this sort of change anytime soon. If we hope to successfully oppose these sorts of religious discrimination, then we will need to find a way to partner with the many religious people who are committed to democracy and to reading the establishment cause as protecting our liberty on all matters religious including the protection of the same rights for the nonreligious. In other news, my wife and I have a baby girl due at the end of September. Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
