"I think we are using the phrase "an establishment of religion" differently. Having religious phrases recited publicly in a government owned building is not sufficient to be "an establishment of religion"
Then perhaps we should start using it the same. The Supreme Court has interpreted the establishment clause as it was intended to be interpreted..as requiring a wall of separation between church and state.
The Court also defined the Test of Constitutionality as regards the establishment clause. It must:
have a secular purpose, and it must be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and it must not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.
Does this put us on the same page? So the only thing left to disagree about is whether or not "under God" has a secular purpose AND is neutral toward religion, AND does not result in excessive entanglements between church and state. My position is the obvious one: that "under God" is not neutral toward religion, but rather exalts it above the Nation--thus implying an allegiance, loyalty, and love beyond even that of the Nation. "Under God" does not have a secular purpose. It was put into the Pledge as a result of religious lobbying, and religious people are fighting to retain it because it is not neutral toward religion, but exalts it...even above the State.
"Anything further then this"..."would be struck down by the supreme court."
I think that is naive. If the Supreme Court would allow "under God" to be interpreted as secular, and neutral as regards religion, and not supportive of a belief in God, then on what basis would they strike other "neutral" promotions of religion?
"Also other countries that don't have something like the establishment clause of the first amendment are very free"
Countries in which a particular religion (it is always a particular religion) wields influence over the citizenry through the state are not countries where people are free.
"In any case I know their our European countries with nothing like the establishment clause that are still very free and democratic"
It should not be necessary for me to correlate human rights violations, oppression, abuse, and war to the "entanglement" between churches and states-now as well as through the centuries of spilled blood. The role of the church when it is involved in the state is entirely to promote ONE religion, and to suppress and destroy all others.
In the case of America, Justice Harry Blackmun said it best: "A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."
..and God definitely prefers those who believe Him to be the Head of their Nation.
"Does Canada have a law or constitutional clause that forbids any entanglement between government and religion"
No. And the Roman Catholic Church WAS the State of Quebec during the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. It controlled every single school, and all health care, and all civic functions such as marriages.
Whether it is the Roman Catholic Church, or whether it is some montrous regime like Nazism...violations of human rights, and control of the human mind and heart do not ride in on an elephant. They tiptoe in like a mouse. It starts with a couple of words and the taking of one kind of liberty or another. And we all know how it ends...
As far as Canadians go...we have no absolute freedoms. Our freedoms are provisional. This is why we compromise; because we have never had the experience of truly having rights.
www2.marianopolis.edu |
