Again the infant mind of the narcissist pairs-up with an ignorant voice as, under the cover of Religious Liberty, a pleading is being prepared for for an all-out assault on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s Constitution pleading that “Under God” (as it appears in the Pledge of Allegiance) is an issue of discrimination. Again the Lowest Possible Common Denominator is being used as a weapon and it remains to be seen whether the Courts will act appropriately.
First, I believe we must first reacquaint ourselves with often forgotten or mostly ignored principles of American Representative Government: (1) The context of “representative”, (2) The standing of Government and (3) Those Freedoms not only reserved by the People but those which the Gov’t may not offend.
It is so very critical to understand that it is not the role of Government to sanction one in favor of another or is it within its legitimate domain to violate the legitimate right of the represented (the whole) in favor of a select minority who may oppose a legitimate right particularly where the offended possess the privilege to avoid the claimed offense. This structural premise speaks to the essence of as well as the fundamental rational lying back of a legitimate right and why the argument of Separation of Church and State (which by the way does not exist in the Constitution) remains a deeply flawed argument. The Constitutional (specifically The Bill of Rights) affirmation (paraphrasing) that Government shall make no law respecting religion does not mean you have No Legitimate Right to profess a Religion or, for that matter, no religion at all but more so that the Government cannot and must not interfere with or sanction said expression.
Were the Courts to handle, on Constitutionally explicit terms, the matter correctly it would authoritatively respond with a summary judgment expressing the following:
The Congress of the United States, acting on behalf of its represented-in-the-majority, passed a law that remains unchallenged and as the Plaintiff retains the privilege to avoid said offense the Court hereby advises said party to express their Inalienable Right to void the asserted offense by simply electing not to speak or otherwise profess the words “Under God”. As an alternative the Court advises a secondary remedy: Engage sufficient support and petition Congress to rescind the 1954 Law which inserted the words “under God” into this Nations Pledge of Allegiance.
So many twists explain why reason is so hard to come by unless of course the preference toward a Nanny-State is the preferred punishment; this of course is the final measure of the Lowest Possible Common Denominator.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder