Wednesday, June 16, 2004
The Pledge Plight
When I was in elementary school, I distinctly remember at times leaving out the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance when I recited it. The reason was because I was not sure that God existed.
I still hold that uncertainty.
However, at no time in school did I ever find myself offended by those two words. I was well aware that just about everybody has some form of belief in God. So I let my peers say the pledge they desired, while I simply dropped what I did not believe in.
When I was in high school, I had a very Christian math teacher. When a moment of tragedy would occur, personal or national, then she would ask us all to gather together in a circle, hold hands, and say a prayer. Now, she knew very well that I was an athiest. So every time she did this, she would turn to me and ask, "You don't mind joining us, do you?"
Every time, I accepted the offer.
Now, why would I do this as an athiest? Isn't the very act of gathering students and praying to the Christian God offensive to me?
No. I took it for what it was, a sincere invitation to join with my Christian peers to recognize the tragedy and to bless whomever it fell upon. Whether that blessing was the blessing of God or merely a wishing for good luck was irrelevant. What was important was that we were united.
Perhaps my acceptance of the words under God and my general acceptance of religion in particular comes from being a Texas atheist. I talk with a lot of Christians about the concept of God. I invite candor in these discussions, and I receive it. I have been told that I was going to suffer for not believing that Jesus died for our sins. I gave even been told that the very act of not believing in Him made me "a sinner".
Although I obviously do not share that view, I did not find offense even in that. That is what they believe, and they are entitlted to believe it. I am aware that they tell me such things not because they want me to burn in Hell, but because they want the same salvation for me that they believe all those who hold Jesus in their hearts receive.
That doesn't mean that there aren't fanatical Christians out there, the kind of people who say "God hates faggots" and the such. But on the whole, Christians are more than willing to let people live as they may. They'll certainly speak their opinion, which can at times be maddening because many do so at times in which their opinion was not asked. However, that is the extent to which they'll go, and no further.
Which brings me to two topics, one I'll cover today, and the other I'll cover this weekend when I do the Bush v. Kerry abortion debate.
A few days ago, the Supreme Court overturned a California federal court ruling that placing "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegance is unconstitional. The Supreme Court did not make their decision on its merit: rather, they overturned it because they felt that Michael Newdow, the father of a child on whose behalf he argued, had no legal standing to speak for the child. They ducked the issue of whether or not the Pledge as it stands is unconstitional.
Let me state this very clearly: the Pledge of Alliegance is not unconstitional. End of story.
This is yet another problem I have with the idea that one can "interpret" the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean: it leads to divisions such as this where a minority group wants to rip away the people's right to choose the pledge they want, a pledge they support by an overwhelming 87 percent majority according to a Newsweek poll.
Let's shed some light on this silly debate.
Here is the relevant excerpt from the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Come on.
Is the Pledge an establishment of religion? Hardly. It's a pledge. You are not required to say it. It's just a pledge.
All the arguments against it- that it indoctrinates children, that it puts peer pressure on children to say a pledge they don't believe in- are issues that the people should deal with. Just because there might be a legitimate argument for altering the pledge does not mean that the Supreme Court has the power to override the peoples' will.
The fact is, the United States has never and will never have a state-sanctioned religion. Therefore, any quibbles about the use of the word "God" or the placement of the Ten Commandants belong in Congress, where the people have a say in the matter.
Furthermore, this whole debate underscores the fact that (wait for it) the government should get out of the education business. By having a uniform education system provided by the government, funded by money forcibly taken from our pockets, we are locked to such silly debates as this. If the people want "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegance recited in their school, they should have every right to have it!
To my fellow atheists, I say this to say: the United States of America is primarily a Christian nation.
Get over it.
I still hold that uncertainty.
However, at no time in school did I ever find myself offended by those two words. I was well aware that just about everybody has some form of belief in God. So I let my peers say the pledge they desired, while I simply dropped what I did not believe in.
When I was in high school, I had a very Christian math teacher. When a moment of tragedy would occur, personal or national, then she would ask us all to gather together in a circle, hold hands, and say a prayer. Now, she knew very well that I was an athiest. So every time she did this, she would turn to me and ask, "You don't mind joining us, do you?"
Every time, I accepted the offer.
Now, why would I do this as an athiest? Isn't the very act of gathering students and praying to the Christian God offensive to me?
No. I took it for what it was, a sincere invitation to join with my Christian peers to recognize the tragedy and to bless whomever it fell upon. Whether that blessing was the blessing of God or merely a wishing for good luck was irrelevant. What was important was that we were united.
Perhaps my acceptance of the words under God and my general acceptance of religion in particular comes from being a Texas atheist. I talk with a lot of Christians about the concept of God. I invite candor in these discussions, and I receive it. I have been told that I was going to suffer for not believing that Jesus died for our sins. I gave even been told that the very act of not believing in Him made me "a sinner".
Although I obviously do not share that view, I did not find offense even in that. That is what they believe, and they are entitlted to believe it. I am aware that they tell me such things not because they want me to burn in Hell, but because they want the same salvation for me that they believe all those who hold Jesus in their hearts receive.
That doesn't mean that there aren't fanatical Christians out there, the kind of people who say "God hates faggots" and the such. But on the whole, Christians are more than willing to let people live as they may. They'll certainly speak their opinion, which can at times be maddening because many do so at times in which their opinion was not asked. However, that is the extent to which they'll go, and no further.
Which brings me to two topics, one I'll cover today, and the other I'll cover this weekend when I do the Bush v. Kerry abortion debate.
A few days ago, the Supreme Court overturned a California federal court ruling that placing "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegance is unconstitional. The Supreme Court did not make their decision on its merit: rather, they overturned it because they felt that Michael Newdow, the father of a child on whose behalf he argued, had no legal standing to speak for the child. They ducked the issue of whether or not the Pledge as it stands is unconstitional.
Let me state this very clearly: the Pledge of Alliegance is not unconstitional. End of story.
This is yet another problem I have with the idea that one can "interpret" the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean: it leads to divisions such as this where a minority group wants to rip away the people's right to choose the pledge they want, a pledge they support by an overwhelming 87 percent majority according to a Newsweek poll.
Let's shed some light on this silly debate.
Here is the relevant excerpt from the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Come on.
Is the Pledge an establishment of religion? Hardly. It's a pledge. You are not required to say it. It's just a pledge.
All the arguments against it- that it indoctrinates children, that it puts peer pressure on children to say a pledge they don't believe in- are issues that the people should deal with. Just because there might be a legitimate argument for altering the pledge does not mean that the Supreme Court has the power to override the peoples' will.
The fact is, the United States has never and will never have a state-sanctioned religion. Therefore, any quibbles about the use of the word "God" or the placement of the Ten Commandants belong in Congress, where the people have a say in the matter.
Furthermore, this whole debate underscores the fact that (wait for it) the government should get out of the education business. By having a uniform education system provided by the government, funded by money forcibly taken from our pockets, we are locked to such silly debates as this. If the people want "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegance recited in their school, they should have every right to have it!
To my fellow atheists, I say this to say: the United States of America is primarily a Christian nation.
Get over it.
Comments:
Post a Comment
