The Bill of Rights - Amendment I Review

OK, so you're an Atheist. You don't believe in God. Well, neither do Apes and cockroaches. (LOL! Sorry, I could not resist that dig. Please forgive me, or maybe you can't cause you're an Atheist.)

Anyway, you are sick to death (and you believe there is no life after death) of seeing the word God printed on government buildings and documents. Phrases like "under God" and "in God we trust" make you feel like a victim. (So give me all your money.) You believe the Government has established a religion, and has violated your rights under the establishment clause of Amendment I of the Constitution.

In my opinion, you're a little off...like you were aiming for the side of the barn, but you hit the water tower instead, and now you're all wet.

Consider the following scenario: a teacher (who is technically a government agent...no, not like 007) stubs her toe on her desk. In front of the entire class, she exclaims, "Oh God that hurt like a son of a..." Is she establishing a religion in that instance, in violation of  Amendment I?

To answer that question, let's take a closer look at Amendment I:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Well, clearly the teacher did not make a law respecting an establishment of religion when she exclaimed the word God. Prohibiting her from saying that word would violate her right to free speech and the free exercise of her religion.

What about the Pledge of Allegiance? The phrase "under God" was inserted and the Pledge was made compulsory. School kids were required to recite it.

In that instance, I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling that kids can be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance whether they believe in God or not. In that instance, a child can be punished if he/she refuses to comply.

The key difference here is the potential use of police power. When government officials simply write and say the word God, and plaster public buildings with Godlike graffiti, they are merely exercising their freedom of religion, speech, and press. Sure, they irritate the hell (pardon the pun) out of you if you're an anal-retentive Atheist, but your constant anti-God screeching gets on their nerves too.

We all have the same rights. For God's sake! Amendment I doesn't just apply to you and your fellow bible burners. Got it? We all have to put up with each other if we are to practice Amendment I faithfully.

Those government officials who like to throw the word God around only cross the line when they use force, police power to force you and yours to practice THEIR religion.

I know you are probably hung up on the separation-of-church-and-state thing, but that is an interpretation of the first amendment, and not part of the language of that amendment.

To clarify the matter, ask yourself why it is important to keep church and state separate. Well, our forefathers feared that a church with police power could persecute those who did not practice its religion.

Hey, there is that phrase "police power" again. It seems to me we are safe and secure from religious persecution as long as we don't give a church police power.

If children are allowed to choose whether to say or omit the phrase "under God" when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, then I don't see that their rights are violated.

Heck, when I was in high school, I converted to Taoism. I recited the Pledge as follows: "One nation under the Tao, invisible (I never could pronounce indivisible) with liberty and justice for all." I never got in trouble for doing that. I got a few looks from fellow students, but that is all. Well, sometimes they chuckled, but that is all.

As far as I can tell, the free exercise of religion, press and speech by government officials has not prevented me from practicing my faith--and that's the bottom line.

WP