Finally, a judge speaks for the rest of us

9 thoughts on “Finally, a judge speaks for the rest of us”

  1. Judge Crabb’s last name speaks volumes… 🙂

    maybe she should take a Sharpie and strike out “endowed by their Creator” and “Natures God” from the Declaration of Independence.
    Now, now, let’s not judge the book by its cover … or name. 😉

    The Declaration of Independence, of course, is not law, so she won’t be making any rulings on it. Good thing too, because scholars still debate the meaning of some of its language. Even if it were law, she couldn’t do anything until someone files a lawsuit.

    1. It may not be Law, but it is the Country’s “Manifesto” and dare I say one of the “founding documents.”

      You (figurative “you” that is) can remove God from the face of the earth, strike his name from every coin, obelisk and tablet, but if you done believe in Him or one, what’s the point? Or is it just to get out from under the thumb of a higher power that does not exist in the first place?

      What’s the big deal?
      Oh, I don’t know, if you’re, say, a Christian, and there were Muslim symbols and phrases on U.S. currency, even though you didn’t believe in or worship Allah, would you think that was a big deal? If the Pledge of Allegiance said “one nation under Allah,” would that was okay? Why is it okay to promote religion on things that are used by all Americans of all beliefs and non-beliefs? Our laws shouldn’t reference religion because we are not a theocracy, and because it can’t be done without becoming exclusionary. And because the Constitution forbids it.

  2. Creator and God are generic terms. Prayer is not. Prayer relates directly to religion and under the Constitution we have a right to Freedom from Religion. The Constitution is what sets our laws not the Declaration of Independence.
    Plus, let’s face it. Our fore-FATHERS wrote the DOI and Constitution to fit the times. The world has evolved and our laws should too.
    As far as “one nation under god”. That was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and it really is inappropriate. Yes I know I said God is a generic term, but still not everyone believes in a god.
    And “in God We Trust” wasn’t completely added to our currency until 1957, and no that shouldn’t be there either.
    Why does it matter? Because this is what divides us as a nation, our differences. Our differences should be respected no matter what the majority. One particular belief cannot be the basis for our entire Nation.
    Well said!

  3. A subject worthy of lively debate… unfortunately, we agree.

    There’s an interesting book that developed a new understanding (in me) of why we humans are prone to invent religion in order to accept authority figures of any nature.

    The book is titled: The Discovery Of Freedom by Ms. Rose Wilder Lane. I hesitate to link it to or, but those are sources where you can find it if you’re interested.

    My own belief is that without freedom FROM religion, there really is no such thing as freedom.
    Yes, agreement at the outset sort of kills the debate potential, doesn’t it? I agree the amount of religion permeating our society (not in churches, but in supposedly public places) is distasteful, intrusive, and oppressive to those with different beliefs.

    BTW, it’s slightly off topic, but my browsing the other night took me to astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s website. There’s an interesting essay there called The Perimeter of Ignorance in which he mentions the “God of the gaps.” It’s the God invoked by scientists, especially the early ones, when they reached the limit of, or a gap in, their knowledge and had no other explanation for their observations. Methinks this God exists well beyond the science lab …

    1. Methinks you are spot on. Interesting article. One only has to visit the latest criteria being used to select Texas public school textbooks and the unimaginable acceptance given it by other states to see your point.

      Hindsight is a moving target. I would hope that in much less than a thousand years people will look back on the current state of things religious and wonder why and how we still believed that a talking snake was able to change the course of humanity. It could happen. I have faith.
      I worked for a textbook publisher back in the ’70s. Adoption by Texas (and California) was imperative even then, but the worst we had to worry about was making sure the illustrations reflected a politically correct balance of races, genders, and handicaps physical challenges. Looking at today’s situation, it seems Texas textbooks (and with them, the majority of texts in America’s public schools) are actually regressing. At this rate, your thousand years may be overly optimistic.

  4. Hey, not that I want to ruin your day or anything, but your favorite person doesn’t think we should have separation of church and state at all.

    At least you didn’t sully the premises with that person’s name. Making up for that nasty link of yours was the link it mentioned, where I found the following:

    At a press conference in Turkey, President Obama casually rebuked the old chestnut that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation.

    “One of the great strengths of the United States,” the President said, “is … we have a very large Christian population — we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

... and that's my two cents