|
You are viewing
Volume 40, Issue 3
September 24, 2002
To return to the current issue please
click here.
|
 |
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
One Nation Under God?
Legend's View
"Under God," was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954,
the original Pledge was composed in 1892.
It is now 2002 and there is controversy about whether or not two words
in the pledge imply a state supported religious belief of monotheism.
Michael Newdow, the man who stirred the hornet's nest by bringing the
case to the courts is an atheist and of course has his own opinions, as
do the numerous citizens out there creating websites and t-shirts about
the issue.
This land is laden in opinion; let's have a look at some of them shall
we.
Now some may say that it is not important, and they turn their backs to
such meaningless trivialities.
They don't involve themselves in the emotionally driven appeals of either
side of the issue.
"Keep the words in, leave the words out, it changes nothing,"
says the apathetic.
Others would say that the tradition is king and what was, is; and should
continue to be.
Let the precious G-word stay in our country's oath.
The traditionalist says that this is the best way because it is the way
we know it.
"Let us stay the same," says this type of thinker, "each
day is so overwhelming, must the times change too?"
Some would say that the word of God in The Allegiance is an infringement
on our right to separately give credence to church and state, and should
not be said in the mantra of the nation.
These people see that the tangible state provides our ability to survive
and that the omnipresent, mysterious God (defined by the individual) provides
our reason to survive while supplying rules on how we should do it.
This type of thinker believes religion and state should be two paradigms
sent to opposite corners of the room and informed to stare at the wall,
and similarly believe that it is possible.
There are those who would say that a sense of patriotism is good but a
sense of humanity is much better.
This person believes in a global community and may propose the last lines
of the pledge read something like:
One Species
Existing Together
With Liberty and Justice for All
However, there are also those who would say that patriotism and religion
are both jokes in the first place.
This thinker has decided that religion and state are both just short cuts
to righteousness, ideas to follow in lack of a personally legitimized
belief structures.
Some even think that the Pledge of Allegiance is just a "nifty song,"
And still others believe that political correctness is crap.
They believe no matter how something is said someone is going to get upset
about it.
This is truly is a valid point.
But should that stop everyone from griping?
This griping is what our founding fathers fought for, the freedom to say
or believe whatever one chooses.
Perhaps the true glue of our nation is the fact that we enjoy disagreement.
We are a nation so steeped in individuality that we actually search out
new viewpoints as a hobby, to keep conversation alive.
We may just be a country running around high on argument, considering
the fact that socializing actually prompts a release of opiates into the
body.
Or maybe we should take a few minutes every day to realize and respect
how well we have it as Americans, and to not take for granted the bounty
before us, and truly do our best to improve on human existence.
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
|
|
|
