Roger Ebert (he just doesn't do movie reviews) makes a compelling case in support of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' recent decision on the Pledge of Alliegance. In the article, he makes a distinction between what he calls "vertical prayer" and "horizontal prayer."
Read the piece for yourself. And, if Ebert wanted to cite an outside source to buttress his argument, he could have quoted Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
Comments (1)
Ebert is a jackass. The best I can say for Mr. Ebert is that he should stick to movie reviews where we do not care if he lies about the story he is reviewing.
The Bush administration has been dealt a setback in its campaign to allow prayer in our public schools.
Where in the world did that statement come from? It is a complete fabrication. Its only purpose is to give Mr. Ebert an excuse to launch into a diatribe against the Bush administration and that evil Ashcroft who has the audacity to pray. Whether or not you agree with the 9th Circuit Court's decision, it has nothing to do with a campaign by the Bush administration to allow prayer in school. The case was brought by an atheist to remove the words under God from the Pledge of Allegiance. The words were added during the Eisenhower administration in 1954, not the Bush administration.
What concerns me are fanatics like Mr. Ebert who would remove every last vestige of religious expression from public discourse. What's next? Are we to send people to jail for saying God bless you in public. The first amendment to the constitution (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ) protects our freedom of religion, and prevents the establishment of a state religion. It was not meant to remove all expression of religion from public life.
Interesting enough, even the ACLU would not take this case because they believed it was not winnable. However, they underestimated the sheer stupidity of the 9th Circuit Court. I guess the Court must get some vicarious pleasure from constantly having their decisions overturned, as will be the case once again.
Posted by Richard | March 5, 2003 9:41 PM
Posted on March 5, 2003 21:41