Tuesday, September 20, 2005

One Nation Indivisible

As it stands, mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is completely unconstitutional. It is religion forced on a nation that is supposed to separate church and state.

The new argument I heard on my favorite talk radio show today is something like this:

The majority wants "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. This is a Democracy, and the majority rules. Therefore, the phrase stays.

Assinine.

Democracy is an important system of government; not only to the majority, but to protect the minority as well. Recall folks, several hundred years ago, the majority of human beings in the USA thought it was ok to enslave other human beings.

Keep that in mind next time - Democracy means you can have all the silly ideas you want. But when your rights (even the majority's) infringe upon the rights of others, it is inherently wrong.

Now, if you still believe "The majority wants "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. This is a Democracy, and the majority rules. Therefore, the phrase stays", I politely ask you to suck on my athiest nuts.

Thank you.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Reciting the pledge meant almost nothing to me in school. Just a bunch of words learned by rote that kinda blended together...their meaning lost on me and the other robots. Damnation, underdogs, invisible, blah blah blah.....

MichaelBains said...

You got any theistical takers on that nut-suckin' thing yet bro?

Maybe the next "Witness" who rings yer doorbell will be up for it.

Good luck with that dude! ;}

Mark Shulgasser said...

you said . . . As it stands, mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is completely unconstitutional. It is religion forced on a nation that is supposed to separate church and state.

I think the idea of a mandatory "pledge of allegiance" to anything is preposterous, childish, a cubscout pledge ok, but a pledge to a country? to affirm loyalty to the leading economic authorities of a bureaucratic political state, I support you right or wrong? Come on. "I agree to obey your laws because I have no choice" is really what these pledges are all about. You accept the idea of a pledge so they've already won; your already playig their game and assenting to it. Nattering on about the "under god" clause is meaningless. You've already been conquered a long time ago dude.

The "under God" part however, is just maybe the only thing that really saves and justifies the pledge... one could say. The term "God" being surely a vaporous, innocuous, perhaps touching or sentimental insertion of the feeling of humane moral intentions, and of hope (and thus the acknowledgement of uncertainty) into the otherwise quite chilling legal contract, the Pledge. It's these vague god-references that mitigate the inhumane threat of the legal mechanism with precedential concepts of mercy and forgiveness.

As for the constitutional question, whether violation of church/state separation is taking place, I think not. God is a non-denominational term, not related to any social grouping or dogma (or intended to be). The word in its wonderful roomy vagueness is perhaps the site of more liberty in the Pledge than is the plastercast "liberty" appearing with "Justice" later in the sentence. Obviously different from the 10 (Judeo-Xtian)commandments, inappropriate in a courtroom. It's a question of historical nuance. Under Our Lord would be wrong, Under the Saviour, as well. The distinction between "under God" and "under _a specific_ god" would have been incomprehensible to the hoi polloi as recently as 250 years ago and its imprint on the Pledge is significant. Only Murrayite fanatics are annoyed by the g word today dude.

What is awful about the Pledge is the daily hypocritical mass besmirchment of the words "liberty and justice for all" on the lips of innocent children. Remove "under God" and the implication "under Mammon" becomes all too clear.

But I must say I find this militant atheism trivial. If it's fundamentalists you're after, attack their illegalities and their venalities; ignore their cotton candy deities -- every community is entitled to its private bad taste. But recognize the concept God as a hugely resonant historical factum in a continual process of redefinition,
redefined even into non-existence, and yet reborn into every insignificant individual as a touchingly personal issue that wil forever stick to the soles of rationalism like chewing gum.

mshulgas@localnet.com

Rockstar Ryan said...

Silly theist! Don't have your own blog to proselytize on? It's ok to disagree with me, but damn, next time do it in less than say, 7 million words? Thanks, suck my nuts. Oh well, here we go:

... You accept the idea of a pledge so they've already won;...

Do you have evidence of this? If not, you're making it up. Anyone can make a claim. Can you back it up? Ignorance anyway, did you read the post or are you trolling blogs today? I don't recall the theme being my acceptance of the Pledge of Allegiance; only the fact that religion and faith do not belong in the public sector.

The term "God" being surely a vaporous, innocuous, perhaps touching or sentimental insertion of the feeling of humane moral intentions, and of hope...

If belief in an invisible man is your sole reason for having morals (ie, not killing, stealing etc,) never drop that belief! I, on the hand, believe that people should have a desire to do good in the short time we exist, rather than fear a sky daddy...

...quite chilling legal contract, the Pledge...

You're kidding, right? I know you're a troll now! That's the most IDiotic thing I've ever heard. Can you be sued for breaching the Pledge of Allegiance?

As for the constitutional question, whether violation of church/state separation is taking place, I think not. God is a non-denominational term, not related to any social grouping or dogma (or intended to be)...

Boy, are you fucking stupid. Belief in God is faith based, meaning "God" is supernatural; it can't be proven. Just because the Pledge doesn't subscribe to any flavor of God/Gods does not mean belief in God is not a religious belief.

...The distinction between "under God" and "under _a specific_ god" would have been incomprehensible to the hoi polloi as recently as 250 years ago and its imprint on the Pledge is significant...

Wait, wait! I beg to differ and say that one is referring to the Judeo Xian God. Otherwise, why can't we say "under Flying Spagehtti Monster" or "under Gods"? You're being dishonest now...

... But recognize the concept God as a hugely resonant historical factum in a continual process of redefinition,
redefined even into non-existence, and yet reborn into every insignificant individual as a touchingly personal issue that wil forever stick to the soles of rationalism like chewing gum...


So all other theists' concept of "God" is wrong but yours. Listen - when you can tell yourself why you dismiss all other Gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours. And suck my atheist nuts.

Thanks for playing.

Rockstar Ryan said...

All Theists are non-critical thinkers Mark. All of them. If you come back, we'll show you why.

Frank said...

Rockstar -- nice blog! Now, personally I think the pledge of allegiance should be ditched entirely. Swearing allegiance to the state is completely contrary to the notion of a free people where government is the servant and the people are the sovereigns. Here's one Christian who couldn't care less about the "under God" portion. Ditch the whole freakin' thing and ditch it now.

But that's just me.