One can see things in human nature and not say that they are from god. One can assert natural rights without claiming they come from god.
It surprises me how utilitarian the argument for "under God" has become - it is useful to limit government by explicitly saying it is subject to a higher power. Even if the utilitarian argument is granted, government could be subject not to a Zeus with thunderbolts but rather to an inherent dignity of human beings.
Even natural law need not have God as its source.
And many very moral people are atheists. And some immoral people are not. One need not have god around to limit bad behavior or to spark good.
I reject the historical and utilitarian and philosophical premises for including "under God." I think it a blatant example of the government favoring religion over non-religion. Same with god on money and prayers opening legislative sessions and politicians sometimes sincere, often cynical, appeals to god.
But, I don't think the constitution requires all of these things to disappear - the trivial nature of most seems to be ok. But pledging allegiance and forced recital and even forced constant hearing of a nation under god seems too far.
And let us not play games about which god they had in mind when it was enacted.
Steve
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar
"I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills."
Gandhi
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
