General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: the whining here about religion being included in the inauguration [View all]cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)If you think that nothing yesterday violated it, you are mistaken, but many share your view because they insert an invisible "one" in the phrase "establishment of (one) religion."
The state should have nothing to do with religion. Like, nothing.
Was there a satanist invocation? Was there an invocation from some guy telling everyone that only a particularly stupid child could believe in God? Was there some guy with a unique personal cosmology where the universe is made of Legos?
No, there were not.
Those views were excluded. Their exclusion should not be controversial, but it IS controversial because other views were included. There is no reason for any state function to include or exclude any religion. It is supposed to exclude all religion... not to say anything negative about religion by excluding it, but because it is supposed to be a separate sphere.
The inclusion of good non-sectarian religion is an endorsement of good non-sectarian religion.
And invoking tradition (not saying you are or aren't) is deeply cynical from people (not necessarily you) who want to cop an attitude about how "reasonable" they are in embracing traditional counter-constitutionalism by citing the fact that we have had this stuff for a long time without it being unconstitutional... as if that means anything (!)
It was illegal in many places for blacks and whites to marry even a century after the 14th Amendment. And if anyone cares to argue that the fact that the 14th Amendment wasn't taken seriously in cultural practice is evidence that the 14th Amendment did not mean that black Americans were equal for all legal purposes then they are free to make that argument.
But we know what both you and I would think of that argument.
And re: "No one is forcing anyone else to pray or believe." That's is a real straw man. The establishment clause does not require formal coercion. If the government started running ads for Walmart at government expense they would not be forcing anyone to shop at Walmart, nor forbidding anyone to shop at K-mart.