Oh 'God,' Part II

"Oh God" is right. One would hope Shuler - a Democrat - had more important things to worry about a piece of paper that may or may not have the word God on it.

If Shuler thought the God prohibition restricted Americans' freedom to practice their religion since 2003, I wonder if the rise of the Religious Right was all in my head.

As trivial an issue as this is, I think Shuler is out of line in his reasoning. He says, "I believe that this restriction is an unnecessary restriction on our citizens' right to openly and freely practice their religion." Since when does the accompanying stationary sent to federal program members count as a citizen's practice of religion? I don't see a citizen agent here whose religious practice is being restricted.

Although it doesn't bug me either way if 'God' is on this official document, it does bug me that Shuler would make an issue out of it, because he's wrong. Accepting that this reference to God DOES constitute the free practice of religion, he ought to realize that more religions are excluded than represented here. The United States of America is not a Christian nation; why, then, does Shuler only make a stink when Christian deities are taken from stationary? Why isn't he upset that Vishnu isn't also represented? Chinese immigrants have long been a part of American culture, from it's earliest stages -- where is Confucius?

The point is, regardless of the silliness of the situation, the issue of the government's treatment of religion is always important, and the Acting Architect's capitulation to Shuler's complain speaks to me of a governing body resigned to pleasing the will of the religious mainstream (even when that mainstream is asking for more than is their due) rather than sticking to the principles of the Constitution.