What. The. F***?!

First off, The Bill of Rights is a bit ambiguous. “an establishment of religion” is generally seen to be a church or a movement. Like the Episcopal Church. Or the Catholic Church.

I personally think this sums it up pretty well (from the CNN link above):

Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as “under God” or “In God We Trust” have “no tendency to establish religion in this country,” except in the eyes of those who “most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity.”

“My reading of the stelliscript [majority ruling] suggests that upon Newdow’s theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings,” Fernandez wrote.

“‘God Bless America’ and ‘America the Beautiful’ will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!”

I want an island.

Now, I do understand where this is coming from. It was added in in the 1950s. The US was anti-communist. Communism, in the Soviet style, shunned organized religion. The state above all else. So it was a direct reaction to that.

It’s gotten to the point where society is evicting any piece of religion from anything political. The problem exists that, in evicting religion from our society and becoming completely secularized, those who have exized religion have not been able to replace its moral teachings.

It used to be that good people were moral. They were far above the law. People who just followed the law? they were kind of unsavory. Now? Fuck morals. People go right down below the law. Law is seen as something to beat if you get caught.

Where did it all go wrong? Somewhere in the last 225 years, a great dream got flushed down the shitter.

  1. .sara says:

    there's something that i'm missing in those second to last two paragraphs. you go from the extrication of religion from politics (heh) to beating the law and i don't follow.

  2. Scott says:

    I live in a bizarre country but that takes the cake!

    Unfortunately because of this, some weird people will try to follow this path in other countries. How long until this sort of thing appears in say Britain?

    God Save the Queen or should I prepare for just 'Save The Queen'??

  3. roboboshi says:

    Sorry, good ol stream of consciousness.

    The point was that this is pointing to a greater issue of secularism - how much is too much? With the Conservatives in power, especially post 9.11, it's co-opting anything "American". A day of prayer, etc. I think the problem is walking the fine line between what the founders intended, and abusing the Constitution in order to allow the minority to <b>stop</b> the majority from exercising their rights as well.

    Rights extend until they infringe upon the rights of another in a pure philosophical approach. So my right to believe in God extends until it infringes on our Atheist friend's right to say "There is no God".

    However, the Atheist does not have the right to tell me that I cannot believe in a God. I have just as much right to say there is a God as they do to say there is no God.

    Anyway, back to secularism. You notice that everyone is afraid to offend people now a days. Our sue happy society has instilled an aura of fear in those that are entrusted with educating out children. They can't teach anything that would be seen as "religious" because it's a public school. But so few parents teach their own children morality that we're going to end up with a lot of immoral wankers hell bent on suing anyone who tells them they're wrong.

    Wow, this has really set me off and I'm babbling now. I need to reconvene in my head. Back to 3D land until that happens.

    There. Is. No. Spoon.

  4. cs says:

    The Pledge is not the problem. The objection to including the word "god" in the Pledge of Allegiance comes from the belief that choosing that word over others implies the intent of excluding or nullifying other words that have similar meanings.

    That would happen anywhere a unique word is legislated. For example, if the US Constitution was written: "We the caucasians. . .", even if there was no intent to exclude other ethnicities / nationalities, etc. (insofar as it could be deduced); one would still have a group of indignant people that would want the text changed.

    This is a symptom of plurality. I advocate plurality; this country is nothing if not pluralistic. So, I understand their concerns.

    The Pledge is structured in such a way so that the inclusion of the word "god" evokes the providence associated with the Judeo-Christian faith. It's paradigmatic component is merely an acknowldgement - "under god", meaning strictly "our nation continues to exist in this form through the allowance of the divine". I think, personally, the phrase is included more out of fear of retribution than anything else, as well as the aforementioned political agenda.

    My question is: if the Conservatives want the acknowledgement, and everyone else wants to strike it because of the word, why can't everyone be allowed to substitute whatever set of characters and symbols, sounds and associations they want that evoke the same response from them as the word "god" does from Christians - insofar as that is applicable?

    I obviously don't expect Jews to pronounce the true name of their "god", because to some of them, that is an extremely sensitive word, full of great power. I would expect them to come up with some word or phrase that fits the puzzle, and make them say that.

    Look at this issue in practice: would you rather have a Muslim who truly supports the US, and substitutes the word Allah for the word God, or the next Dahmer, who claims everything in the name of Jesus, not just his "allegiance" to America?

    I am for enforcing the Pledge. This is a simple, disjunctive issue : if you don't proactively support the people and government of this nation, (and there are thousands of ways of doing this), kindly leave. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

    But if you're saying <i>something, anything</i>, in place of the word "god", meaning it with your heart, mind and soul, and are completing the whole Pledge, by G-d, I won't stop you and I can't think of anyone else who believes what the Pledge actually means who would either.

    That's why the word is immaterial and the government cannot force it on anyone. The grandstanding from all the political groups involved in the debate is childish and grotesque.

    And by the way, I know <b>nothing</b> about the strawberries. Nor do I have any geometric logic.

  5. Scott D says:

    Ever heard of Secular Humanism... Try reading up on the Humanist Manifesto 2000. They are creating a religion that is being taught in our public school but they place it under the blanket of Science! Look into it!

    The world’s foremost authority on Secular Humanism is Dr. David A. Nobel. You can find him @ www.summit.org


  6. Lin says:

    <i>They can't teach anything that would be seen as "religious" because it's a public school. But so few parents teach their own children morality that we're going to end up with a lot of immoral wankers hell bent on suing anyone who tells them they're wrong.</i>

    I am probably one of the few people who do not associate morality with religion. Just because you are a person associated with a particular religion does not mean you are a moral person. You can teach morals without involving religion, or maybe I'm just too idealistic.

  7. Unique says:

    Yay! Any chance you have a Chipotle retanursat near you? What about Great Harvest Bread Company or Earth Fare? I can send you the same goodies we'll be using here!

Post a comment

Name or OpenID (required)

(lesstile enabled - surround code blocks with ---)