There can be no freedom OF religion WITHOUT freedom FROM government-promoted religion.
One Nation, Under This One, That One or None at All
We Citizens' Right to Individual Faith
by Brady Mittelman
June 28, 2002

The Community Bulletin Board read: One Nation under God. Let Freedom ring. I guess the Patriotic Citizen who decorated it hasn't read the Bill of Rights, and therefore simply overlooked how these two statements are mutually exclusive. We are not One Nation Under God. We are One Nation, under 282,000,000 individually chosen beliefs, and stronger for it. Lost in the emotional response to the Federal Appeals Court decision to uphold the law is that that is exactly what was at issue, the Law; And the Freedoms this nation was founded on. Not Freedom TO DO something, Freedom FROM:

You see, to be free TO DO something is not the same, and far less important, than the freedom FROM restrictions against the same thing. Freedom TO DO means externally-imposed permission (restrictions to follow), freedom FROM is the essence of individual choice.

The Pilgrims, Quakers and other early settlers came here to be free. Yes to be free TO DO x, y or z, but more to be free FROM governmental or majority imposed constraints on their thoughts, actions and Faith. The Mormons moved West to be free FROM the intolerance of the growing majority in the East. Freedom FROM those that didn't believe or act as they did. Freedom FROM the oppression of Governments and the current Majority. Irrespective of their individual Faiths (or not), the Founding Fathers made their position clear in the Bill of Rights. In fact the first statement:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" 

No Law may be passed. Did they believe in God? Some or most probably did, no poll was conducted on the subject. It doesn't matter. The argument that they believed in God is ineffectual because they clearly intended and in fact did create a Nation founded on freedom FROM government in that matter. "Congress shall pass no Law" is clear enough. It is not an issue of believing in God. The significant majority believes in God in one form or fashion. It is not even a question of whether we have a right not to believe in God. (A small minority). In fact, religious or spiritual beliefs are not part of the equation, only serving to derail the consideration of the Law.

The question is Government advocacy of religion, or more precisely our rights to be free FROM government-imposed ideals. In state-funded public schools, the children should be free FROM dictated beliefs of The State, or of the powerful majority on any issue. Should the government or majority be able to dictate that children say "One Nation, but not under God" everyday? Of course not, though that is why the phrase was added in the first place. The 1950's were a highly patriotic and politically charged era. With all the pro-USA, anti-THEM rhetoric of the day (Sound familiar?), no one challenged the law. It should have been declared unconstitutional (then) vis-à-vis The 1ST Amendment. Congress passed a law, and the Supreme Court finding to support was weak in that it was based solely on an interpretive national consensus borne of political necessity, not existing state laws (of which there were none) and obviously not the Constitution. The current plaintiffs' action, that being forced to recite the words is a violation of Civil Liberties, is separate and significant because the violation only highlights the error.

Daily repetition of "…under God" is an acknowledgement of a God, and is de facto indoctrination. It ESTABLISHES that there is a God, regardless of parental opinion or input, thereby PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE of the right to hold contrary views. It removes the question of "is there or isn't there" from the child's mind. To then give a child the "right" to abstain from participation only serves to further alienate that child from their peers, should they have the personal fortitude to stand aside. What elementary school student has that strength, and why should they need to have it? Why should that pressure be brought to bear on our most innocent citizens? They should be free FROM it. If the (educational) System is Governmental, it must be neutral (separate). 

I'm in the minority because I've read the Bill of Rights. I've read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I don't just "parrot back" key catch phrases. I have not abdicated my Freedoms FROM. I'm not complacent regarding the freedoms of others, even when my own aren't being challenged. I'm glad that I live in the United States of America where the minority is protected, even encouraged, occasionally. I don't agree with Flag burning either, but I accept a Citizens' right to do it. The right is protected now because a law Congress passed was challenged. Protecting the minorities rights is the key. Unless we maintain the freedom FROM majority-imposed correctness, we will soon only have the freedom TO live the way they live. When the Majority sacrifices the rights of the minority, the Majority erodes its' strength. When we accept freedom TO as FREE enough, we're not Free at all.