Monday, June 14, 2004
Semantics
The Supreme Court opted to keep "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Personally, I don't know if I really care one way or the other, given that it is not mandatory to recite the prayer -- err -- pledge. If you don't want to, you don't have to. The phrase "under God" doesn't hold a big point of contention with me. There is, in public school, already a clear separation of church and state. So much so, that it is almost taboo to speak of religion unless you're taking a course entitled "Religion: its out there. Let's discuss it without everybody getting offended." Ultimately, if I had to make a choice over whether it stays or goes, I'd ditch it.
What's interesting about this is that the "under God" bit of the pledge was introduced during the early years of the Cold War. So when some of the Chief Justices say that it reflects our national history and past time, they're clearly full of shit. It was introduced to distinguish us from "Godless Communists" and, thus, is a propaganda tactic and not a part of our struggle for independance or some such thing that the Justices intend to associate with it. In this context, "God" is very much a religious reference. However, I'm of the belief that as time has progressed, the connection between "under God" and religion has become further and further and further removed; almost to the point where its just another word. But that's me. I'm not fanatically religious, nor do I condemn religion outright (I have a problem with evangelists, but don't we all).
It's a shame that the result of this case was determined over a "technicality," but most people in this country are fine with leaving the pledge as is. What's intriguing, though, is that the plaintiff, Newdow, is an Atheist MINISTER. A preacher. An Evangelist! Couldn't you then make a case that Atheism, itself, is a religion? If not a religion, then a fundamental movement that separates itself only with the belief that there is no god? I mean, aside from that one major point, there's not much difference, is there?
|
Personally, I don't know if I really care one way or the other, given that it is not mandatory to recite the prayer -- err -- pledge. If you don't want to, you don't have to. The phrase "under God" doesn't hold a big point of contention with me. There is, in public school, already a clear separation of church and state. So much so, that it is almost taboo to speak of religion unless you're taking a course entitled "Religion: its out there. Let's discuss it without everybody getting offended." Ultimately, if I had to make a choice over whether it stays or goes, I'd ditch it.
What's interesting about this is that the "under God" bit of the pledge was introduced during the early years of the Cold War. So when some of the Chief Justices say that it reflects our national history and past time, they're clearly full of shit. It was introduced to distinguish us from "Godless Communists" and, thus, is a propaganda tactic and not a part of our struggle for independance or some such thing that the Justices intend to associate with it. In this context, "God" is very much a religious reference. However, I'm of the belief that as time has progressed, the connection between "under God" and religion has become further and further and further removed; almost to the point where its just another word. But that's me. I'm not fanatically religious, nor do I condemn religion outright (I have a problem with evangelists, but don't we all).
It's a shame that the result of this case was determined over a "technicality," but most people in this country are fine with leaving the pledge as is. What's intriguing, though, is that the plaintiff, Newdow, is an Atheist MINISTER. A preacher. An Evangelist! Couldn't you then make a case that Atheism, itself, is a religion? If not a religion, then a fundamental movement that separates itself only with the belief that there is no god? I mean, aside from that one major point, there's not much difference, is there?
Comments:
Post a Comment
