I might understand it better if it was not put as simply.
I think it would be inappropriate to include relgious music at a federal government awards ceremony but I also think it would be inappropriate to make it a matter of a federal lawsuit.
At least you did provide an example. I personally can not find a reason to object to gospel numbers in offical government business that would not also be a reason to object to Islamic prayers, or song in honor of Thor.
I think a good deal of our difference here is simply the fact that I would not hold the majority to a higher standard simply because it is a majority. This idea doesn't just apply to establishment issues. If something is ok as part of government business it should be ok for those expressing the majority or the minority view. If it is rather a clear violation of the constitution then IMO it should not matter that if it is supported by the majority or only a minority. In fact I would grant more leeway to a majority if the constitutional issue is unclear. If the constitutional issue is unclear then factors like tradition, the will of the majority, and my opinion of the practical results of an action become important to me. I think the practical result of this decision will just be more fighting about religious issues. The tradition of saying "under God" is a relatively short one, and not a very important one, but it is still there so respect for tradition tilts against outlawing the pledge. I think the majority would support the inclusion of "under God", or at least oppose a court decision banning recital of the pledge with those words. So considerations of democracy, tradition, and practical results, as well as a general opposition to the extent that issues are now decided by courts would lead me to be against the decision.
It would be easier to win my support for a court striking down a law or government mandate as unconstitutional then it is to win my support for the court itself mandating or forbiding activity directly. If the court had said that the state and public schools or school districts can not mandate the recital of the pledge with the word's "under god" I would have supported the decision, but I don't support the actual decision that was handed down by the court. I would not have opposed the school district or school deciding not to recite the pledge or to recite the pledge without "under God" for the very reasons the court decided not to allow such recitials, I just would require a clearer constitutional violation before I would support getting the federal courts involved.
I would support the court striking down laws which unjustly discriminate against race, religion, or sex, have some problems with the courts ordering the government to eliminate potential differences in impact on different groups of a law that is not racially based, and I have a lot of problem when a court gets very specific about what the federal, or a state or local government must do in order to achieve the end of non-discrimination and equal oportunity, if the mandates go beyond eliminating specific biased laws or regulations or policies.
Tim |
