Wednesday, September 14, 2005

"Under God," utterly divisible, with justice for some

A federal judge in California has ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional because the pledge’s reference to “under God” violates school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”

OK, it's California, where a guy with a petition to repeal the suffrage of hamsters could get 10,000 signatures in 30 minutes. It's ironic that ours is a nation where burning the flag is defended as free speech, but kids saying "under God" should be gagged. But really, is this the most pressing issue before a nation at war, a nation rabbit-punched by a hurricane, and a nation with a big al Qaeda target painted on its back?

On one hand, if God intended to reward us for including him in our daily affirmations before class, He might go a little easier on the hurricanes. I mean, don't you think that admitting we're "one nation under God" should invite some tender mercies?

On the other hand, maybe He doesn't care what we force schoolkids to say out loud, and is more interested in how we conduct ourselves when nobody else is looking.

Who knows? The Lord hasn't really been keeping up his blog, so we're not sure what He's thinking. But I can tell you what I'm thinking: These attention-starved atheists are starting to be as annoying as megawatt televangelists.

13 comments:

Elmo said...

The Lord does indeed have a blog. He's said all He needs to say but even many of His followers don't follow it. He has no reason to say anymore until we listen and obey what He's already said.

I agree He's more interested in who we are when no one is looking. Anyone can put up a display of the Ten Commandments with a hammer and nail. Perhaps the reason more don't live out the Ten Commandments is that it might be as painful as driving a nail into their own hands.

RepJ said...

Ron, Thanks for visiting my blog! I appreciate your point of view. BTW, I grew up in the Beaumont area and attended Lamar University. I think the pledge argument makes the Supreme Court appointments all that much interesting and important.

Rob said...

I'd have to say (if I were Christian) that I think it would be the "is more interested in how we conduct ourselves when nobody else is looking".

I'm not a big fan of recited oaths...in fact, in a discussion with Dr. Bruce Prescott when he visited Hawaii, he mentioned how continually invoking God's name in pledges such as the Pledge of Alliegence is a somewhat "in vain" use. I'm in the military, and I think our invoking of God in oaths (and a lot of the repeated oaths and swearings and rote shows of loyalty) is silly and excessive. It's your actions that show loyalty, not words.

By the way, thanks for the link!

Memphis Steve said...

Maybe if we just give the jackass his own TV show then he'll have enough attention to keep him almost happy and he'll leave the rest of us alone? It' worth a shot. I mean, if Rosie O'Donnell can do it anyone can.

don said...

I say if anyone doesn't feel strongly about a word or phrase in the oath, let he or she not say it out loud.

The words included in that oath are essential parts of American history. The Pledge of Allegiance was inteded to be a patriotic oath AND a public prayer.

I wish these sensitive idiots would just leave the oath as it is.

Rob said...

The Pledge of Alligence was not originally a prayer. "Under God" was a fairly recent addition (1954, to be exact).

don said...

Okay, let's make this interesting for everyone:

If you're not a Christian, what has reciting the Pledge of Allegiance's phrase "Under God" done to you? How did or does it affect you?

Rob said...

Don, I'd like to add a corrollary to your question:

"If you are a Christian, how will reverting the Pledge to it's pre-1954 format do to you? Is "under God" a requirement to show alliegence to the United States, and if so how do non-Christians show that alliegence?"

don said...

Rob,

Thank you. I see your point now.

BL said...

Hey Ron,

Like I wrote in my piece about the article in the Victoria (Texas) Advocate, I don't think that requiring children to recite the "pledge" every day in school is the right thing to do in a free, democratic society.

Add to that the part that made me cringe every day that I recited the pledge: "under God".

I'm not an attention-starved atheist, but it still makes me cringe because it goes against my image of America, that of the land of the free, home of the brave and separation of church and state. That separation is bogus when you require every schoolkid in Texas to say "under God" in the morning pledge.

I want America to be strong and true, not phony and fallacious. Living up to our Constitution is just part of being true to ourselves.

Anonymous said...

god is the one who we were created by not apes so saying this should be everyday to pay respects to the father.

sghin 13 year old girl who knows better that to speak aginst him

Anonymous said...

Religion should not be forced on anyone. Having "under god" in the pledge is unfair. I'm 14 and I don't stand for the pledge because of those words. I have had to take so much from my classmates because of it and having those words is merely another way of making the minority and majority at odds. Reverting back to the original is a good idea. The words were added in the 50's to show we weren't communists. Well. that's over so why can't there be liberty and justice for all again?

Anonymous said...

"It’s thirty one words recited every day by millions of school children all across America for years and years. And yet, just two of those words are causing such a controversy that it is dividing the very nation that is supposed to be standing indivisible: “under God.”

Why are these words so important? Why are they worth such a fight? In truth, these words mean everything, and not in the way they were originally intended."

- discussit.net

true, the words "under god" are 'just words' but for some people these words mean a lot. me, for example. why? they invoke our rights. amendment 1.