Sunday, March 28, 2004
"Under God", My Ass...
I don't know why people get their panties in such a twist over the idea of removing the words "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. First off, they're a recent addition, jammed in during the McCarthy Era in the mistaken belief that Communists wouldn't be able to say them and would, therefore, out themselves. Well, that wasn't the case. About the only people outed by this inclusion were Jehovah's Witnesses. If you've ever lived in a suburban neighborhood, you know that these people don't need an excuse to out themselves.
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?"
"Jehovah's Witnesses..."
"Sorry, didn't see the accident."
Anyway... there is absolutely no place for these two words in the pledge of allegiance, for two reasons -- one religious, one secular. Tackling the latter first, no matter what arguments the religious apologists make, "One nation, under God" is a profession of religion, no matter how you slice it. And, I'm sorry, as a card-carrying atheist, I don't buy this bullshit. Yeah, if you support this crap, you may want to tell me, "Well, it doesn't really mean anything." Believe that? Then let's change it to "One nation, under Allah" or "One nation, under Krishna" or "One nation, under Buddah."
Still feel that it's innocuous? It's all a matter of perspective, darlings -- and this country has 250 million of them, many of which do not include "god" in the equation. Personally, I find "One nation, indivisible" to be a much stronger statement.
Now, for the truly religious (i.e. Christian) among you, ask yourselves this -- is it appropriate to include a profession of god in an oath to a piece of material, to a flag? In fact, this would seem to be worship of a graven image and, in fact, were you truly following your religion, not only would you not want your god included in the statement -- you'd want good christians to not say the pledge at all. That also applies to good Jews and, while I'm not up on the theology, I'd also suspect that Muslims would have a problem praying to a piece of cloth. So you're all barking up the wrong tree. If anything, you'd support Michael Newdow's attempt to secularize the pledge, and then you'd sue courts to make your kids stop saying it in school.
Of course, the way I dealt with it as a kid (atheist even then) was to say the pledge but, at the "under god" line, loudly state "indivisible," so as to drown out the sheep. That, or just refuse to say the damn thing. Okay, so I managed to go to school in the last days when students still had spines. But, nowadays, there really is only one answer...
Get this "god" bullshit out of the damn pledge, out of our schools, out of anything related to the government. Read the First Amendment again. "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..."
If adding "Under God" and "In God We Trust" to our pledge and our coinage isn't an establishment of religion, I don't know what is. Michael Newdow is right. I only hope that the asshats on the Supreme Court can see it his way.
Although, of course, it being an election year, they won't. And that's sad...
"Knock knock."
"Who's there?"
"Jehovah's Witnesses..."
"Sorry, didn't see the accident."
Anyway... there is absolutely no place for these two words in the pledge of allegiance, for two reasons -- one religious, one secular. Tackling the latter first, no matter what arguments the religious apologists make, "One nation, under God" is a profession of religion, no matter how you slice it. And, I'm sorry, as a card-carrying atheist, I don't buy this bullshit. Yeah, if you support this crap, you may want to tell me, "Well, it doesn't really mean anything." Believe that? Then let's change it to "One nation, under Allah" or "One nation, under Krishna" or "One nation, under Buddah."
Still feel that it's innocuous? It's all a matter of perspective, darlings -- and this country has 250 million of them, many of which do not include "god" in the equation. Personally, I find "One nation, indivisible" to be a much stronger statement.
Now, for the truly religious (i.e. Christian) among you, ask yourselves this -- is it appropriate to include a profession of god in an oath to a piece of material, to a flag? In fact, this would seem to be worship of a graven image and, in fact, were you truly following your religion, not only would you not want your god included in the statement -- you'd want good christians to not say the pledge at all. That also applies to good Jews and, while I'm not up on the theology, I'd also suspect that Muslims would have a problem praying to a piece of cloth. So you're all barking up the wrong tree. If anything, you'd support Michael Newdow's attempt to secularize the pledge, and then you'd sue courts to make your kids stop saying it in school.
Of course, the way I dealt with it as a kid (atheist even then) was to say the pledge but, at the "under god" line, loudly state "indivisible," so as to drown out the sheep. That, or just refuse to say the damn thing. Okay, so I managed to go to school in the last days when students still had spines. But, nowadays, there really is only one answer...
Get this "god" bullshit out of the damn pledge, out of our schools, out of anything related to the government. Read the First Amendment again. "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..."
If adding "Under God" and "In God We Trust" to our pledge and our coinage isn't an establishment of religion, I don't know what is. Michael Newdow is right. I only hope that the asshats on the Supreme Court can see it his way.
Although, of course, it being an election year, they won't. And that's sad...
Comments:
Post a Comment
