Just a place where I can post my musings on current events or whatever else comes to mind. Enjoy!
An Agnostic/Athiest's Perspective
Published on September 16, 2005 By jrutherchevy In Current Events
When I first heard of Judge Lawrence Karlton's ruling in San Francisco, I was elated. I was elated because for me, this seemed like a great victory in the fight against the religious overtones that have permeated American society in the last five years. However, my elation was turned to dissapointment when I heard that the Senate voted unanimously on a resolution to condemn the ruling.

I stopped and thought for a moment, trying to gain perspective on the issue. I mused: I can see both sides....from a historical standpoint, there are plenty of references to the Founder's belief in diety, and they then implanted them into the government that they created. They did so cleverly, with no declared religious preference, though most would argue that Christian sentiments lay at the heart of it all.

The other side though, and this is my agnostic/athiest side coming out, is that even though the Christian right is the majority now, we all live together here in the United States. If I don't want to recognize a diety, I should not have to. If I have children who are in school, I would not want them to have to recognize deity by reciting words that they won't even really understand until they graduate from High School and live in the real world. Freedom of Religion is also Freedom from Religion. I have the right to not only worship when, where, and how I please, but the right to not do so as well. Requiring me, or my children, to recite something that recognizes a deity that I hold no belief in is infringing upon my rights as an American citizen, and not only that, but it then renders the words written in the Pledge, "under God" pointless. The same holds true for public/school prayer as well.

Christians seem to think that they are persecuted because of their beliefs. They seem to forget that they are the majority now.

The words, 'under God', were added in 1954, after petitioning by the Knights of Columbus. The original pledge had absolutely no mention of God at all. The addition changed the pledge from an affirmation of loyalty to our country to a public prayer. Public prayer is, at least in my mind, unconstitutional, as the courts have also ruled it to be.

Unfortunately, I can't see any kind of resolution to this situation. As long as Christians continue to force their beliefs on everyone, and as long as they are in the majority, there's not much that we non-God-fearing people can do but try our best to just ignore them. We could always try removing the offensive words, but I don't see that happening.

I know the next time I recite the Pledge, I'll definately be creatively editing it.

Comments
on Sep 16, 2005
So, instead of making the pledge of allegience illegal (Unconstitutional), we need to be given the opportunity, but not the requirement to recite it. We also need to allow others to not recite any of it if they don't want to.

You are right, freedom of religion means that you are just as free to not recognize deity as I have to worship how, who and what I please. However, it doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the opportunity to recite the pledge, simply because you don't want to .
on Sep 16, 2005
Parated: COuld you please, please, please post a link to a ruling that says that no one is allowed to say the pledge of allegience, 'under God' or not, or that the petitioners in question want that to happen? You keep saying that over and over, and I keep trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about.

What the court is saying is the pledge, AS WRITTEN, is unconstitutional. That doesn't mean you just couldn't revert back to the pre-1950's version. If you have something to cite saying it won't be fine even when they do that, please post it, I'd like to know.

Otherwise, what you seem to be using is a lot of diversionary crap to inflate the 'wrong' of wanting 'under God' out of the pledge.
on Sep 16, 2005
ParaTed said:
However, it doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the opportunity to recite the pledge, simply because you don't want to .

I see your point of view, and agree with it, however....

Until the phrase 'under God' is taken out of the Pledge, which is something that unfortunately, I don't see happening any time soon because of the rampant fundamentalism in the country at the moment, the Pledge will still be unconstitutional. If I were to go to a high school football pep rally today, I, and every person there would be taking part in something that is unconstitutional. Change hasn't occured yet, and I'll see it when I believe it.

on Sep 16, 2005
"Until the phrase 'under God' is taken out of the Pledge, which is something that unfortunately, I don't see happening any time soon because of the rampant fundamentalism in the country at the moment, the Pledge will still be unconstitutional. If I were to go to a high school football pep rally today, I, and every person there would be taking part in something that is unconstitutional. Change hasn't occured yet, and I'll see it when I believe it. "


Back that up please? What exactly is unconstitutional about a pep rally?
on Sep 16, 2005
Reciting the Pledge, as it stands now, is unconstitutional-not the pep rally.
on Sep 16, 2005
Parated: COuld you please, please, please post a link to a ruling that says that no one is allowed to say the pledge of allegience, 'under God' or not, or that the petitioners in question want that to happen? You keep saying that over and over, and I keep trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about.


If this ruling states that saying the pledge is unconstitutional, doesn't that make it illegal?
on Sep 16, 2005
If this ruling states that saying the pledge is unconstitutional, doesn't that make it illegal?


This ruling denied the dismal of the case presented to declare that mandating the reciting of the pledge in California public schools is unconstitutional.

Not exactly the same as making the pledge unconstitutional.
on Sep 16, 2005
No, it makes having it officially state 'under God' unconstitutional. They could immediately start saying the pledge without it and not be doing anything contrary to the Constitution. For some people it seems that without the 'under God' part the pledge is meaningless or something. I don't understand why we discount what we had before McCarthyism.
on Sep 16, 2005
It would be a simple solution, wouldn't it? *gets out the white-out roller thingie*

Two seconds, and we wouldn't have a dispute anymore. *sigh*
on Sep 16, 2005
It would certainly be more healthy than validating the irresponsible act of putting it in.
on Sep 18, 2005
We went through 2 world wars withough "under god" in the Pledge. Just the fact that the Knights of Columbus wanted this changed, should make it evident that it should be changed back.
I also think the republican senetors are a bunch of pussies for allowing it to continue for as long as it has.

Regards,
Fox
on Sep 18, 2005
I pledge allegience to our Father in Heaven, His Son Jesus Christ, My wife and family, and to the United States of America. To serve my fellow man when and where the call comes to me. To claim the rights, liberties and freedoms inherent in all human beings and to acknowledge the responsibilities that come with them. Above all, to worship our Father in Heaven according to the dictates of my own conscience and to honor the rights of others to worship who, what and where they choose (along with the right to refuse to worship anyone or anything). To live for anything less, is to not live at all.