In a country with a written constitution, language drift is scary
As most of us know, the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution says "Congress is not allowed to pass a law about establishing a religion", or words to that effect. The exact words are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
There's a current petition to the White House proposing to reverse the decision in the McCarthy era to change the "one nation, indivisible" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance by sticking God in the middle, and similarly for the phrase on our coins and currency, which I'm sure Susan B. Anthony has been itching to remove from under her chin. That's great; I've felt since high school that it violated the separation of church and state, especially when public schools force their students to recite the words. The problem is that the author read the same sentence in the Constitution I did and got a different meaning out of the same words. I think "respecting" means about, while he thinks it means showing respect for.
See the problem? If a written document is the basis for our whole society, and the words don't mean the same thing to the citizens of the democracy 221 years after they were added, then it starts to be hard for the people to understand the governing documents of their own democracy.
Of course, in this case it leads to the same conclusion in: that the Establishment Clause forbids what Wikipedia calls "the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another". But note that the petition author would interpret the last clause of the First Amendment as saying "Congress is not allowed to pass a law saying anything nice about ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
I think there may be linguistic drift even in the language lawyers are taught. I'm pretty sure the phrase "And may it please the Court" they all use when addressing the Supreme Court is a corruption of "An it please the Court."
There's a current petition to the White House proposing to reverse the decision in the McCarthy era to change the "one nation, indivisible" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance by sticking God in the middle, and similarly for the phrase on our coins and currency, which I'm sure Susan B. Anthony has been itching to remove from under her chin. That's great; I've felt since high school that it violated the separation of church and state, especially when public schools force their students to recite the words. The problem is that the author read the same sentence in the Constitution I did and got a different meaning out of the same words. I think "respecting" means about, while he thinks it means showing respect for.
See the problem? If a written document is the basis for our whole society, and the words don't mean the same thing to the citizens of the democracy 221 years after they were added, then it starts to be hard for the people to understand the governing documents of their own democracy.
Of course, in this case it leads to the same conclusion in: that the Establishment Clause forbids what Wikipedia calls "the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another". But note that the petition author would interpret the last clause of the First Amendment as saying "Congress is not allowed to pass a law saying anything nice about ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
I think there may be linguistic drift even in the language lawyers are taught. I'm pretty sure the phrase "And may it please the Court" they all use when addressing the Supreme Court is a corruption of "An it please the Court."