Alright. Since I've now gotten this email about 10 times in the last month... I think it's time for me to write a solid response to it instead of just ignoring it. I wish I remembered where it says, "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for a good man to do nothing."

I receive this email about the ACLU taking a stand against a group of Marines praying at the birthday celebration of the marines (best Marine prayer summary I found was on about.com). I did a 2 second search (copy one line from the email, enclose it in quotes and hit search in Google) and come up with 10 sites that tell me it's fake. That's a pretty good tell-tale sign that it is NOT real. Exempting this, however, it is important to consider whether the ACLU's legal actions (related to separation of church and state) are justified and, if so, to what extent they are justified.

So... here goes my semi-thoughtout rant:
Exempting the emotional reaction to this... there is a line that should be drawn in the sand. The question should not be "did they pray," but rather, "were they forced to pray, pray to a god and/or pray to a specific god." THAT is the question. That is the point of the first amendment.

It is important that the first amendment is protected. Sure, I don't want the ACLU to be stopping marines from praying, however, how would we feel if a national figurehead such as the president were to declare a specific prayer time during which we must kneel on a prayer rug facing Mecca? Without the anti-establishment clause... we could be forced to do that or face whatever charges our government happens to cook up. Our constitutional freedom is hemmed by a few clear principles that MUST be protected. While the protection of those principles may be uncomfortable, even to the point of loss of life amongst our friends and family... even ourselves. The protections established by our founding fathers must be maintained.

Can they be taken too far? Yes. This is evidenced by the ACLU and many of the court cases that they have brought and won in our nation's courts.

The pledge of allegiance is a prime example. Can the nation say "one nation under god" is our pledge? The problem doesn't truly rise in the schools as the widely publicised court case in California has brought to the forefront. Instead, it is an issue in the only venue in which one is FORCED to take the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America: a swearing in for citizenship. Is it any more "right" for us to demand that new citizens be worshipers of God than it would have been to demand the same of visitors to our churches? Both are inductees into a new culture and way of life. A way of life that is predominanately Christian... but we take all sorts.

I believe we must protect free, individual action... no matter the venue. If one of the marines had chosen not to bow their head, would there have been consequences? If a student chooses not to say the pledge, will there be consequences? These are the core questions. The constitution says "NO LAW" not "have no connection with." Rusty on your first amendment?

Our constitutional rights must be protected.