(October 3, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Drich Wrote:(September 29, 2016 at 4:59 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Well given the nature and substance of the first amendment, I'd consider the 1950's insertion of "one nation under god" to be treasonous, along with any oaths used in wtate ceremonies which explicitly reference a deity (eg so help me god). The most defining characteristic of the US constitution, what makes a unique document is the idea it introduces that the state should be secular and that no religion should influence the way the state does business. Every country prior to this date (including the US under the articles of confederation) tied itself to a particular idea of the "divine".
The USA has lost something major with its retreat into narrow, grandiose and bigoted religiosity since the start of the cold war.
The first amendment guaranty's the free practice of religion sport, not freedom from religion. Meaning if the law makes of 1960 decided to incorporate an declaration of alliance to God they were free to do so.
Let look at the wording again:
to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion,
So again congress can not pass a law that makes any one religion a state sanctioned religion. That said (and history points out) nothing prevents members of government can't personally endorse what they believe. Which is also protected by the second sentence of the first amendment. to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, "impeding the free exercise of religion," To prohibit, a formal deceleration of allegiance to God is again impeding the free exercise of religion.
So then you'd be perfectly fine with replacing the word "god" with Allah on our money and in the taking of oaths for public offices and for testifying in court, right?
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.