The framers of the Constitution were careful to establish a separation of church and state. The majority of them were, after all, descendents of European exiles and knew first hand the horror that monarchs could inflict on their subjects in the name of religion. It had been but a couple of hundred years since Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church and established himself the head of the Church of England, not over theology, but because his wife, Catharine of Aragon, had not produced a living male heir and Henry wanted to marry his pregnant mistress, Anne Boleyn. He applied to Rome for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine on the grounds that this marriage was incestuous, since she was his brother Arthur’s widow. Of course, Henry had been given a papal dispensation in order to marry Catherine in the first place after he had successfully argued that the marriage to Arthur had not been consummated, due to his illness and death. The annulment was denied. "Well," declared Henry, "in that case, the pope is no longer the head of the Church of England, I am." That act plunged England into a long, bloody time where both Catholics and Protestants were imprisoned, tortured, and burned. To this day the Queen is the head of the Church of England and the heir to the throne cannot marry a Catholic. Is it any wonder, then, that our founding fathers were loath to allow religion to become the province of the government, even one that was "by the people, for the people?"
However, I think that they would have been appalled had they know that their ideals and safeguards would be used, not to protect freedom of religion, but to deny any expression of religion in the public arena. Now, I applaud diversity. I am not offended by the display of a menorah or by a Kwanzaa candelabra. I am not offended if someone wishes me a "festive Yule" or celebrates Ramadan. I am not offended if someone chooses to practice no religion, only saddened. I AM offended, though, when someone who chooses not to practice religion prevents all other people from practicing religion in public places.
Michael Newdow, an atheist from California, is currently arguing before the Supreme Court, that public school children should not be allowed to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because the phrase "under God" indoctrinates children into a form of state mandated religion. It doesn’t matter to him that almost nine out of ten people polled want to keep the Pledge as it is AND want to keep reciting it. He firmly believes that the desires of the very few should dictate what rights the many are allowed to keep. Mr. Newdow legitimates his claim by equating the recitation of the Pledge to segregation. (I find the argument illogical. Atheists who do not recite "under God" are not forced into substandard schools under the false assertion of the schools being "separate but equal.") If he wins his case, might I propose a little civil disobedience? You know, Jesus told us to forgive those who wrong us "seventy times seven" times but turned around and drove the money changers out of the temple. I don’t think that Jesus, then, would be opposed to our standing up in a public park and reciting the words "under God."