Separation of Church & State

I have been behind and distracted over the past year as we welcomed the newest member to our family a year ago in August and I have been buried in work from a business I opened around the same time - things have been crazy! So, I had a few minutes today and I am browsing around catching up on topics that are important to me, and i ran across the Michael Newdow lawsuit seeking to do away with The Pledge of Allegiance in public schools and his subsequent lawsuit seeking to have "In God We Trust" removed from US currency.
I read through the suit filed by Newdow's defense and their separation of church and state arguments. Needless to say, my mind is swimming.

The whole political and legal concept of "separation of church and state" is derived from the combination of two Clauses to the First Amendment: the Establishment Clause, which prevents the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion in general, and the Free Exercise Clause, which prevents government interference or restriction on the practice of private religions.


Basically, the Founders and Framers sought to protect religion from government corruption...but I ask you, did they also not seek to protect the government from religious fanatical corruption as well? Bear with me...I am not saying that religion in general is fanatical or corrupt...simply that the influence from any one religion, as opposed to consideration in general, can be corrupting as it appeals to the whole.


Newdow did not seek suit to have The Pledge removed from schools or "In God We Trust" removed from currency for the sake of Constitutionality, for the protection of rights or the good the people, nor did he act out of patriotism or nationality. No! He sought to have his proclaimed religion, atheism (I would argue "liberalism"), recognized, endorsed and shown favor by the government. He was demanding that the court actively violate the very rights he claimed were being denied in the first place.

Here is a guy that feels so inferior in his proclaimed "disbelief in God" that one of the argument points in his lawsuit claimed The Pledge of Allegiance was a reminder to him how unpopular, inferior and alienating his beliefs made him feel when surrounded by fellow Americans who clearly did not share in his beliefs (or disbeliefs, as it were)!

"...it borders on sophistry to suggest that a reasonable atheist would not feel less than a full member of the political community every time his fellow Americans recited, as part of their expression of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he believed to be false."

But Mr. Newdow, you are making yourself feel inferior. No one is denying you the right to NOT believe in the existence of God. You have denied His existence for yourself, as you feel inferior for your beliefs. That is a you problem...the government can hardly make that okay for you...that is not the role of the government you silly liberal. The separation of church and state is there to protect your practice of atheism without interference from the government, and conversely, to protect the government from the corruption of your liberalism that would have it bend a break the laws in favor of your "feelings".