"The decision is not even unassailable in terms of it being final settled law. It only covers on federal district, and it could be overturned"
I did not say it was invincible. I said it was (logically) unassailable. I stand by that.
The pledge asserts the pre-eminence of monotheism (as contrasted with polytheism, atheism, or agnosticism). It cannot be pretended by a rational person that a Nation "under God" is neutral as regards the question of the existence of God, or to the question of whether allegiance to country is qualified by allegiance to "God". Think about that, please.
"And even if it was settled law, it is quite possible to have contempt for a specific law or judicial decision without having contempt for the constitution
Yes. If the law (or requirement) violates the Constitution (as does the text of the official pledge), then, of course, contempt for such a law would not necessitate contempt for the Constitution. But if the law rationally honors the Constitution (which is the Supreme Law) then contempt of said law would (obviously) be contemptuous of the Constitution.
There is no rational basis for insisting that honoring "God" above the Nation is not prejudicial to the intent and meaning of the Constitution. Thus, there can be no rational basis for pretending that the actions of Congress were not contemptuous of the Constitution.
How the US handles this conflict between mysticism and reason becomes extremely crucial. If they make laws to tolerate a "ceremonial" monotheism, then you can kiss rights and freedoms goodby...and you can use the Constitution to wipe up food spills, or something.
Thank you, btw, for being thoughtful about this... |
