Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Morrigoon
.... By forcing the government to remove "under God", the government is ruling in favor of atheism, which I believe is unconstitutional....
|
BRRRZZ! Wrong, try again. Ruling in favor of atheism would require an affirmative statement supporting an atheistic belief. Omitting a reference to God is not equivalent to stating a belief that God does not exist.
I hope that when the SC hears this, and they will, they are able to draw the distinction between physical objects and physical actions. It's one thing to shelter money and monuments under the blanket of historical tradition. It's quite another to support an established national ritual that includes a specific religious reference. Particularly a ritual that was modified relatively recently to include that reference, and for reasons clearly established as the promotion of Christianity in the face of godless communism.
Yes, people could "not say" the words. But they are then saying a modified form of the Pledge. They will be saying "the Pledge as modified for those who aren't from a compatible faith." Meanwhile, the pressure to conform continues. If you don't say under God, you're not one of us.
Our national anthem doesn't mention God. Okay, it does in the 4th verse. But we don't sing that verse. Most of us can barely sing the first verse. Still, we manage to be suitable patriotic before sporting events of all kinds with nary a whisper of deity.
I also think this is silly, but I think it's silly that those two words are in there in the first place. But I suppose at the time no one dared contest it, lest they end up before some committee questioning their loyalty. I think they should just take them out and be done with it. Easy fix. Tomorrow morning we're just one nation, indivisible. (Note: How ironic is it that the "under God" is next to "indivisible"?)
Full disclosure: In most instances, I don't believe in saying the Pledge anyhow.