doodledee

A couple of big church/state court rulings in the news over the last couple of days.

Yesterday, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase 'under God'. Apparently, the phrase is considered an endorsement of religion and thereby a violation of the first amendment. I was surprised to learn that it was actually Congress who added the 'under God' phrase back in 1954. I was also surprised to learn that kids still recite the pledge at all. (This decision was put on hold sometime today.)

I dig the decision, even though a lot of politicians don't seem to. For one, the phrase could create confusion for children who come from agnostic households. It's also fairly easy to argue that by including the 'under God' bit we're forcing our kids commit to some sort of religious endorsement -- something that kids probably shouldn't have to do. Heck, I'm not sure if it's something that anybody should have to do.

Then today, the Supreme Court ruled that school vouchers are legal. The parallel issue here is that parents who send their children to religious based private schools use 95% of all vouchers. By providing vouchers to parents -- basically giving them tax dollars -- the government would seem to be endorsing a religious education. And in rolls that pesky first amendment again.

Strangely, on this one, I don't mind the ruling. The fact that so many parents use the vouchers to send their children to faith-based schools does not change the fact that it's still the parent's choice where to send their children. If they choose a religious school, so be it. If they want to bus their children to the new public school in Maple Grove, again, it's their choice to make.

Now I'm not saying that I'd use vouchers. People that turn their backs on public schools tend to piss me off. But the choices are there, so I guess it all seems fine to me. Then again, I'm easily fooled.