My news aggregator sometimes comes up with fascinating links. This morning one popped up that just left me shaking my head. Someone named Stephen Erwin on GOPUSA, a conservative political website, wrote what has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments on separation of church and state I've ever read. He begins:
With the Supreme Court considering the Ninth Circuit Court ban on "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and refusing to hear the case about Judge Roy Moore and his Ten Commandments Monument, perhaps it is time to take a fresh look at the First Amendment.If the First Amendment read "Congress shall make no law respecting (regarding) jellybeans" there would be no question of the meaning.
It would be obvious that a law creating a federal jellybean monopoly would be a violation of the law. Everyone would understand that Congress could not tax jellybeans, regulate jellybeans, ban jellybeans, or even write a law defining jellybeans. The Constitution would clearly ban any Federal interference with state jellybean laws. It would also ban Federal interference with any personal use of jellybeans on public property.
But apparently, Mr. Erwin believes that a Federal law that commands schoolchildren to recite a pledge declaring our reliance on jellybeans would not be a violation. The mind boggles, doesn't it?