06-27-2002, 06:27 AM
|
#1
|
|
Guest
|
Letter to my congressman
Im not that great of a letter writer, but I managed to scribble up a letter to New Yorks Charles Schumer expressing my opinion. Please critisize and feel free to suggest things to add, take out, etc. I want this to be as articulate, inoffensive, but demanding of my rights as possible. Take the time to point out even minor errors, every little bit counts.
Quote:
Dear Representative:
I write to you in favor of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the constitutionality of 'under God'. I think those judges were absolutely justified in their conclusion that 'under God' is a pledge which establishes a state religion and goes against our rights granted by the first amendment.
Firstly, the 'under God' phrase, establishes the Judeo-Christian religion because they commonly refer to their deity as God. If you wish to interpret 'under God' as under any deity, you find similar problems. You are excluding polytheists such as Hindus, atheists including Buddhists, and agnostics. Are these people not american anymore? Aren't we a nation conceived to hold up the rights of the individual, even when the majority favors a different opinion, such as the issue of slavery and black civil rights?
Sometimes, the majority isn't right, and we must do the right thing, even when it goes against commonly held social beliefs. I think, just as I am offended by 'under God', you must put yourself in others shoes, and think about how you would be offended if the pledge said 'under no God', 'under Allah', or 'under Vishnu'.
So, in order for us to have a truely free society and not force people to believe in something, even if we hold it as truth, we must uphold church-state separation. Religion shouldn't be sponsored by the government, but the government shouldn't take away religious freedom. For example, while the government shouldn't display the ten commandments in a school, the government shouldn't stop and individual from praying at lunch. If we truely tolerate others beliefs, then we would have a separation of church and state and let people practice religion on their own.
One issue raised, and a very valid one, is that the girl is not forced to say it. On one hand, she can respectfully sit down in silence and listen while the other kids say it. On the other hand, the same argument could be used to incorporate prayer into our schools. Why couldn't, under this logic, a principal say the 'Our Father', a Muslim prayer, or even 'God doesn't exist' over the announcement system and then tell everyone they don't have to agree or participate? For us to truely be patriots, we must critisize the government, and slowly move towards the true freedom of religion that can only be found when government doesn't endorse any of the religions at all.
Im not saying religions shouldn't be taught at public schools as part of history classes, but a neutrality to the issue of religion is of fundamental importance to individual liberties. Once we conceed and let one of our liberties be taken away, all of our liberties are in danger. Taking out 'under God' doesn't endanger anyones safety, so we have the duty to remove it and uphold the constitution.
Thank you for your time,
|
|
|
|
|
