Monday, July 08, 2002
Pledge Letters
The whole Pledge of Alligiance controversy has so little to do with Canada and yet it's co-opting the letters to the editor in our local papers around here anyway. A young woman wrote an article supporting Dr. Newdon's case to remove "under God" from the pledge. She correctly pointed out who's god (or lack thereof) are they talking about in the pldege? If you do believe in god, then whom that god is would largely be a personal matter wouldn't you think? There are, of course, quite a few that believe that only their definition of god is correct and that's the one they see in the pledge.
As usual, the letter writers are more concerned with the young lady's lack of belief in god than they are with the issue itself. They assume that only god can grant human rights and make moral judgement so he must exist whether we choose to believe or not, we only have to look close enough. Uh-huh! The court that originally upheld the ruling mentioned that it might as well be "under Vishnu". I wonder if all these good folks would be writing in to support that? Of course not as that wouldn't fit into their definition of god right away but that's the entire point. It isn't everyone's god, it can't be. This to me contradicts the First Amendment. We all believe or don't believe in a different god and we can do so because church and state are supposedly seperate. The U.S. was founded by those fleeing religious persecution and it was purposely spelt out in the constitution so that that wouldn't happen again.
On a side note ... I had prepared a response myself to the "letters to the editor". I waffled some as I wasn't sure if I should. I was actually concerned that someone may look up my name in the phone book and begin harrassing me or my family. I find it sad that the thought even occured to me. I got ready to press the send button when my computer froze. I took it as a sign from god that I shouldn't bother .... just josh'in ... but I never did send another one.
The whole Pledge of Alligiance controversy has so little to do with Canada and yet it's co-opting the letters to the editor in our local papers around here anyway. A young woman wrote an article supporting Dr. Newdon's case to remove "under God" from the pledge. She correctly pointed out who's god (or lack thereof) are they talking about in the pldege? If you do believe in god, then whom that god is would largely be a personal matter wouldn't you think? There are, of course, quite a few that believe that only their definition of god is correct and that's the one they see in the pledge.
As usual, the letter writers are more concerned with the young lady's lack of belief in god than they are with the issue itself. They assume that only god can grant human rights and make moral judgement so he must exist whether we choose to believe or not, we only have to look close enough. Uh-huh! The court that originally upheld the ruling mentioned that it might as well be "under Vishnu". I wonder if all these good folks would be writing in to support that? Of course not as that wouldn't fit into their definition of god right away but that's the entire point. It isn't everyone's god, it can't be. This to me contradicts the First Amendment. We all believe or don't believe in a different god and we can do so because church and state are supposedly seperate. The U.S. was founded by those fleeing religious persecution and it was purposely spelt out in the constitution so that that wouldn't happen again.
On a side note ... I had prepared a response myself to the "letters to the editor". I waffled some as I wasn't sure if I should. I was actually concerned that someone may look up my name in the phone book and begin harrassing me or my family. I find it sad that the thought even occured to me. I got ready to press the send button when my computer froze. I took it as a sign from god that I shouldn't bother .... just josh'in ... but I never did send another one.
