I'm a BIG believer in that church/state separation concept, but this is just stupid -- it's a kids inscription to his grandfather for cryin' out loud. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301054,00.html JB
Separation of church and state vs a variety of principles pertaining to relations between private individuals and control over private property. If a gov't agency actively participates in associating religious references with government instruments that agency is endorsing the possibility of a positive relationship between church and state. The gov't instrument here is a flag that was flown over the capitol and that therefore has official status, however minimally official that status may be. The boy should have the right to inscribe whatever he pleases on his flag or the flag certificate but requesting that the government be the inscriber is inviting the government to be involved in a potentially insidious process of association that's essentially unconstitutional. Your objection to the situation in question is based in common sense, but the government is a big machine that has to operate on principle-guided policy rather than common sense; there simply aren't sufficient resources to deal with the particularities of every individual situation in a fair and common sense manner. Hans
Indeed. For instance were a gov't agency to inscribe the word God on the currency, say something like "In God We Trust" Such would be endorsing the possibility of a positive relationship between church and state. Of course that is an extreme example and something that unconstitutional would never happen.
Indeed indeed. Indeed it happened, but perfect application of government principles is improbable at best. 'In God We Trust' does contradict separation of church and state and should perhaps be discontinued; on the other hand the phrase has become a verbal icon and any attempt to terminate it would probably induce widespread mayhem and serve to further radicalize the religious right. Hans
LOL. I was wondering who would bring that (excellent) point up. JB PS. As you would expect Stu, I have a strong opinion on the above, but will address it in my post to heidegger
I also believe that "In God We Trust" contradicts separation, but I don't feel that way about the inscription, and here's why.... It's simply that the inscription on money is general and forced. The inscription on that particular flag is personal and private. There's not room on our money for every diety to be "trusted". The worshipers of all religions would be welcome to privately inscribe their wishes on individual flags for individual display. So far, not buying it -- don't see the problem as it's a private issue. JB
Policy reversed: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301185,00.html "Acting Architect Stephen T Ayers said in a statement that the policy of disallowing political and religious statements on flag certificates has been inconsistently applied and does not fulfill the objectives of the office"
Fair comment JB, but isn't it private up and until the Gov't are involved? The US gummit produce the cert and carry out a flag fly for the Eagle Scout on behalf of all Americans and representing The People. That is not private ...is it?. The principle of separation has already been violated in such an obvious way , give the lad his flag. If he's been indoctrinated sorry, taught to want to hold God then Country then grandpappy in that order of precedence, then who cares. It's a free country except when it isn't, so valuable and meaningful principles established hundreds of years ago in the Constitution intended to benefit everyone, should be superseded by things of a more recent personal "verbal iconic status" if that's what individuals want. Hans is being pragmatic, you are using common sense, so I'il be the grumpy bastid living under an impression the founders had a good plan which shouldn't really be flagrantly brushed aside just to suit one idea or another. Bit strong but hell what's next? Allah, Islamic America and monkeyâs uncle on Old Glory... wtf.? Indeed!!