|
This has long been the excuse used by activist believers to force more religion into public life. Article One is not a mechanism to keep any particular assumption to have sway over others, it's to have none endorsed by the government. There is to be no endorsement of a god, group of gods, particular versions of god or the very concept of "god" itself. It is to be off limits, and for good reason: once the government, as a voice of the people, sides with any concept of this sort, all those who don't subscribe to that guess are inferiors whose words mean little if anything.
That's the issue.
Christianity didn't create goodness.
Judaism didn't create law.
The mixture of religion and government was a thing of primitive beings, and the divisiveness is paid for in blood on a daily basis.
This country was not founded for religious freedom, this country was founded for commercial opportunity. Jamestown predates Plymouth by 13 years, and it was a strictly commercial enterprise; there were slaves in the Virginia colony before the Pilgrims even landed.
Belief is a guaranteed right, but it's not a cornerstone of our culture. It is, in fact, something that's been maneuvered out of government since the beginning of the republic. It messes up things. More than anything else, it creates an aristocracy, which is antithetical to pluralism: one of the sanctified belief will be listened to more, and those of the sanctified belief needn't prove any contention, since it's true by dint of the deity. That's privilege pure and simple.
They're liars, and they try to steer the interpretation of Article One to being not just a non-committal unwillingness to pick one of the big guesses, but as proof that those guesses should reign supreme.
Whenever the "any particular religion" argument is leveled, fight it with all you've got.
|