Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

[Prudence]

Because I'm on a roll (and because I F*CKING HATE MY BOSS and have to channel this rage into constructive discourse or I'll walk out this instant and then how will I pay the mortgage?)....


The "big deal" about "just not saying it" is that the sponsor in this case isn't Mrs. McGruder's third grade class fieldtrip. The sponsor here is the US. Not even the US Gov't, but the country itself, with all its history and mythology and symbolic position on the world stage. That's a *lot* of pressure.

And "letting" people not say "under God"? That's supposed to fix the matter? So, we're a Christian country, but we'll "let" you be otherwise?

I'm pretty sure that is the actual gist of the argument for many people. Their perception is that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian (but mostly Christian...) values and that the laws and norms of the land should reflect Judeo-Christian values and there's no need to go further than that because gosh, we're not requiring people to go to church on Sunday so what's the problem?

But there's a great and mighty difference between promoting freedom of religion and merely tolerating other religions.

(And don't even come close to me with that "we didn't say which God nonsense." Of course Ike and crew meant the Judeo-Christian God, complete with ZZ Top beard and fierce-yet-benevolent countenance. The generic term is "diety." And it doesn't say "under diety." Heck, even AA says "higher power.")

But wait, there's more!

Let's turn this around and examine another angle -- what is wrong with removing those two words? Why is that a problem? Why isn't the response, "I can see how that would make some people uncomfortable -- let's take them out"?

The historical aspect doesn't hold much water -- particularly when the history of the phrase's addition is disclosed.

Because that's just how it's done? Considering all the other shattered norms, I think that's a weak argument. So weak I can't even come up with a good metaphor.

So what, then? Is it because Christians like saying it? Because Christians like affirming that their country is "under God"? If that's the reason, then doesn't that support the petitioners' position?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Prudence

And "letting" people not say "under God"? That's supposed to fix the matter? So, we're a Christian country, but we'll "let" you be otherwise?

Just cause you said not to come at you with the "it doesn't say which God crap" doesn't mean I'm not going to.

Can't let you get away with that no matter how mad you are!

It doesn't say "Christian God". It says God. Could be Allah. Could be Vishnu. Could be Zeus. All it does is acknowledge a god. I don't really care what their intent was. God means different things to different people.

The question to me is if saying "under god" constitutes government favoritism of a specific religion. I guess I don't see it that way.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

... I don't really care what their intent was. God means different things to different people....

And to some people, "God" means the Judeo-Christian God. I don't think Allah is God, so why should a Muslim think God is Allah? You are entitled to a happy fuzzy view of God as all-inclusive. (How very 60s flower child of you! It brings a tear to my eye. ) But that doesn't make it so for others. And in this case, the "we don't think it should bother you" attitude doesn't fly.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It doesn't say "Christian God". It says God. Could be Allah. Could be Vishnu. Could be Zeus. All it does is acknowledge a god. I don't really care what their intent was. God means different things to different people.

The question to me is if saying "under god" constitutes government favoritism of a specific religion. I guess I don't see it that way.

Well, if nothing else, "a god" sure seems to imply monotheism. That leaves out Hindus, Native Americans, Wiccans, and to some extent, Buddhists. Shouldn't a country that professes a love of equality and democracy have a pledge that is as all-inclusive as possible in regard to personal faith? Or, are you less of an american if you don't believe in one god. That is what George Bush Sr. seems to think and I strongly disagree.

Nothing about a lack of government getting involved in religion keeps people from practicing their faith in this country. Government and religion can both co-exist just fine. There is no good reason for them to intertwine and plenty of bad ones.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Well, if nothing else, "a god" sure seems to imply monotheism. That leaves out Hindus, Native Americans, Wiccans, and to some extent, Buddhists. Shouldn't a country that professes a love of equality and democracy have a pledge that is as all-inclusive as possible in regard to personal faith? Or, are you less of an american if you don't believe in one god. That is what George Bush Sr. seems to think and I strongly disagree.

Nothing about a lack of government getting involved in religion keeps people from practicing their faith in this country. Government and religion can both co-exist just fine. There is no good reason for them to intertwine and plenty of bad ones.

Excellent point (which is why I was careful to tiptoe around the topic of polytheists in my arguments).