More on the Pledge (A LOT More).

My friend Brett and I are often on opposite sides of the political spectrum. He replied to my pledge post, with a post he called The Left and Religion. He seems to think my post was 'disingenuous'.

First, I think it's profoundly disingenuous to characterize the left generally as being "very pro-religion". For one thing, secular humanism and -- especially -- militant atheism are exceedingly convergent with center-left ideology.

Again, I argue that the distinction is between how we view government and how we view religion. I think there are a lot of people who want prefer a secular approach to government but have respect for religion and religious institutions.

Brett continues:

For another, if there's a complaint that a particular religious conviction is insufficiently politically correct (e.g., the Catholic church's stance on issues such as homosexuality or abortion), it invariably comes from the left.

The complaints tend to come when the religious institution insists on legislating their point of view. I could give a whit what the catholic church thinks about homosexuality. That's why I haven't been to a catholic church in 10 years. I do care when catholic church decides to dictate legislation to support it's doctrine

Brett continues:

For yet another, the left is terribly quick to mock public displays of faith, oftentimes cruelly (e.g., the left perpetuates the story of Ashcroft covering Justice's breasts as something to condescend and snicker about).

I think it was the spending of $8000+ for curtains to cover a sculpture that had been in the building since 1936 which provoked the snickers. If it was just Ashcroft praying, or going to church, I don't think anyone would have snickered.

Brett continues:

Second, the idea that "for everyone to feel like they are free to practice whatever religion they want, we need to keep the government from promoting a single dogma" rings hollow, because government isn't promoting a single dogma. References to God in the Pledge and on our currency and in political speeches are, if not particularly sensitive from a multi-cultural standpoint, exceedingly ecumenical.

Exceedingly CHRISTIAN (which even the word ecumenical suggests). Yes, I don't think that the Methodists, Baptists, Catholics, ect have issues over what 'God' means, but they are not the encompassing spectrum of religion. I also made the 'dogma' statement at the end of my post, after I pointed out that I think that it's laughable to think that the groups who defend the word 'God' try to do so on the 'historical' issue, then in the next breath explain how the country's history is founded on Christian ideals. It's laughable to suggest that they aren't fighting for the word 'God' because they want the Government to endorse their brand of religion, as opposed to others.

Lets also look at the history of the pledge, as written. It did not originally contain the 'Under God' when it was written in 1892. That was added by 1954 by Eisenhower. (Which means it spent 62 years without God, and 49 with God). So, even the 'historical' argument falls flat, as the original intent of the person who penned the pledge, had nothing to do with God. If the purpose of the 'Under God' phrase was not to promote religion, what was it? (The 'In God We trust, admittedly has a much longer history, but it too was added by Christians so we didn't seem like a 'heathen' nation.)

Brett continues:

And while I can certainly agree that displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, or forcing children to speak the Pledge, are beyond the pale, the individuals who persist in taking umbrage with casual references to religion in the public arena are typically not offended practitioners of minority faiths; they're, typically, militant atheists and the ACLU.

I agree. You may have missed my part at the beginning, where I stated the guy who is pushing this is a troublemaker, and that this is an argument best left un-argued. For both sides! However, when push comes to shove, and you break it down to black and white - 'God' is a religious term. Yes, more than 1 religion claims it, but that is beside the point.

The First Amendment reads, in relevant part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Common sense tells us that the Framers were trying to prevent a replay of the Anglican Church.

Yes and no. Yes, it was their experience in England that caused this to be an important issue, but I think it's clear that their intent went beyond just the prohibition of a state religion.
Look at the draft of the Bill or Rights:

20th. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the [?] exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Not just don't establish, don't favor. And Neither Jefferson, nor Madison were very tolerant of any forms of religion with Government In fact, in the same letter where he mentions church and state, Jefferson continues to say:

The Baptist address, now enclosed, admits of a condemnation of the alliance between Church and State, under the authority of the Constitution. It furnishes an occasion, too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did.

The address, to be sure, does not point at this, & it's introduction is awkward. But I foresee no opportunity of doing it more pertinently. I know it will give great offence to the New England clergy; but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them

Jefferson wouldn't even proclaim a day of thanksgiving - in order to keep the lines between state and god separate. As opposed to today, when we have a Department of Faith in the Government.

I said before, and I say again - this whole argument was started by a troublemaker. Most people on the left, I think, would have left well enough alone. The problem, now, is that the courts NEED to rule - and the fact is that the phrase has no secular purpose. It promotes religion, and specifically, Christian religion.

Most people are willing to overlook it, but as you criticize the left for being too sensitive, you need to recognize that the right also has an extreme which is trying to legislate religious doctrine.

This turned out much longer than I intended, so I'll end now with a Quote from Madison:

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).