In the first bit of good news I’ve heard in — I don’t know — a bajillion weeks, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that forcing children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school is unconstitutional because of the bogus religious line added in the 1950s.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge’s reference to one nation “under God” violates school children’s right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.”
I’ll take my freedom without the side order of religious fascism, thank you much. Before you theocratic and jingoistic types get your panties in a twist about my reaction to this, you need to keep the history of the Pledge in mind. The “under God” line was added to the Pledge in 1954, 63 years after it was originally published (in 1891). This was a result of Joseph McCarthy’s orchestrated campaign of religious persecution against non-Christians (the U.S.S.R.’s official national religion was atheism, so he declared all atheists to be communist agents… yeah, no shit).
You might also keep in mind the Pledge was written by a socialist. I don’t like anything that encourages blind allegiance to a cause. That seems counter to the most basic American principle of individual freedom. That goes double when two causes are involved, and one of them requires me to believe in imaginary sky fairies who watch me all the time, even when I’m taking a dump. What kind of twisted deity wants to watch me poop? And how does that reflect on our country when we’re all required to worship a voyeur with a scatological fetish?
Oh man - I totally agree that the “under God” is inappropriate, but this will open the floodgates of the religious wackos again. Maybe even bring Bush’s popularity ratings out of the toilet.
Scott,
You’re probably right about the fundies coming out the woodwork, but… well, fuck ‘em right in the ear. Bush can’t run for reelection, so who gives a shit if his approval rating goes from 39 percent back up to 42 percent? Strike while the kettle is hot, I say.
I think it’s interesting how many people remain willfully ignorant of the history of the Pledge - or just don’t fucking care.
This country was founded so that there would be freedom of religion. The pilgrims were persecuted for their beliefs. I think that the use of the phrase “under God” is a reminder of the history of our country.
So, Eric… … …
Freedom of religion is attained by being coerced by the government into stating a belief in a deity? That doesn’t make any sense.
I also, as I’ve written in a couple of places already, find it amusing that so-called “conservatives” are the heaviest advocates for the Pledge (with or without the “under God” reference), given that it was written by a socialist as a device to force citizens to declare blind allegiance to the government.
Why do you hate America so much Rusty?
Holy CRAP!!!!
You know, Rusty complimented Bush and now I have to compliment Rusty. I feel as if my world is slowly collapsing in on itself.
I agree that no one should ever be forced to recite words of any kind. In fact because “under God” was added later, it perhaps should not be a part of the pledge.
However, if a child is given a choice and chooses to recite the pledge and if the people in this country believe that “under God” should be a part of the pledge then that is thier right as well.
Remember, that “freedom of religion” is not the same as “freedom from religion” and before you all jump on me. That does not mean I have a right to force my religious beliefs on you. It also means that no one else has the right to force me to limit the way I celebrate that faith, how I voice that faith, or how I celebrate that faith. As long as I don’t endanger another person’s life, or infringe on thier ability to do as well.
Yes, I sit far to the right, but I have that right, and as much as I might not like it, those to the center and the left have equally the right to believe and believe what they wish to believe.
As long as an open exchange of ideas continues and we continue to work to find the “truth” then we as a people will continue to survive.
This is the part of your comment that I don’t get, and that doesn’t seem to mesh with the rest of it. What is this about “the people of this country” believing the Pledge should contain a reference to God?
Some people of this country believe the Pledge should contain it. That doesn’t mean we should add it as a default part of the Pledge. (I might believe that the National Anthem should contain the word “fuck” seven times - that doesn’t mean Congress needs to vote on the matter. But I digress.) If there are people who want another opportunity to sing God’s praises, they can insert a reference to God into the Pledge themselves when they say it. You may argue that if I don’t want to say the bit about God, I can leave it out; but shouldn’t the Pledge be as inclusive as possible by default, and require insertion rather than deletion to satisfy certain groups’ whims?
However, while you raise wonderful points, I draw back to the one point that I think people over look.
“WE” through our vote elect officials. If the officals “WE” elect insert that in the pledge, then “WE” have the right to have that inserted.
If there is enough of a popular push to have it taken out, it does not take anything more than a simple majority of the House to decide to change the wording and vote on it.
All of us live in a representative democracy. That means that we (speaking of all of us) vote our concious for the representation that we would like. If we have a problem we (as a group of citizens) change that representation.
The key factor here is realizing that just because one is not in power doesn’t mean they are getting ignored, they have representation, and the more powerful the voices are the more likely things are to change.
However, to have “NON ELECTED” officials of the government making these decisions is not right. And that is just a simple fact. The pledge was changed, by elected officials and can be changed again.
All I think needs to be done is for people to vote the way they believe and elect representatives to vote the way they want them to.
Yes, this is not an “ideal” system, but it is the one we have, work within it to change it, don’t throw it away just because you disagree.