My take on the Pledge of Allegiance debate.

[arib]

Okay, this is all IMO, and should be treated as such. Feel free to disagree with me, I promise not to get offended. Also, please correct any factual errors I may have, I'd appreciate it.

From what I've learned, and from my experience in dealing with these things, "separation of church and state" does not mean a complete and utter lack of religion. Rather, it means that there's no state-sponsored religion, as there were in many countries at the time of the USA's founding. The country may well push the concept of having a religion as a good idea, and I think they do, but they tend not to force the issue. (Except of course for some of W's actions, such as "Jesus Day.") I don't think the state should force religion on those who don't want it, either.

But let's be honest "One nation, under the deity or deities of your choice, if you so choose to have one, but if you don't that's quite alright by us, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," sounds a bit unwieldy to me. Also, try teaching it to five-year-olds. :-)

How should we settle this? Maybe make the "Under God" part optional, or let people insert whatever deity's name they feel is appropriate, kind of like different pledges that require you to state your name. It'll sound a little garbled, but it's a start. Besides, depending on how garbled it gets, you'll know what kinds of religious discussions to expect...

"One nation, under godgoddessallahbuddhavishnuzeusjupitercthulubob..."

If you don't want to say it, don't, if you do, do. Just don't get bent out of shape if someone takes the opposite opinion.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to have some caffeine.

Comments

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with making it optional. Heck, there's no reason it couldn't be optional or that people couldn't do just what you say, swearing it to Whomever or Whatever they choose or not to thereof.

The problem is, it's codified into American law as "under God." When it's recited officially, that's how it's read. When it's taught to schoolchildren, that's how it's taught. It doesn't add to the secular unity, it detracts from that feeling that all Americans are included as one body together.

Myself, I go back and forth between saying "under Goddess" or just not saying that line at all. But I am constantly reminded by this that there is a large segment of America, including its lawmakers, who'd rather I not be involved at all because I don't share their God, reputedly and by his own word a jealous God, at that.

"one nation, indivisible." Nice ring to it that way. Scans awfully well. No awkward pause, no skipping anything, and no one gets left out or swears to something s/he doesn't hold true. What's so wrong with it the way it was originally written? (I might add that the original text to the Pledge was written by a Christian minister who intentionally left out reference to Deity in every way. If that minister felt it should have been in there, wouldn't he have added it at the time?)

Re:

[arib.livejournal.com]

Another point to consider...

Our currency says "In God We Trust" which is the country's official motto. It's also mentioned in one of the unsung verses of the National Anthem. (Then conquer we must/when our cause it is just/ and this be our motto/"In God is our Trust)(Yes, twelve years in the Boy Scouts...)

Are we going to have to change all those, too?

I think redesigning our money and rewriting the nat'l anthem will be a lot more controversial than what we're going through now...

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

Well, those lines don't have to go unsung, it's just that no one has the patience to sing the whole bloody anthem. ;)

As for the money, I've heard one commentator saying that money, since we don't have to swear by it, isn't really the cruxal problem being addressed here and that's true, it isn't the issue really at hand. But frankly yes, that is a consideration. The words "In God We Trust" wasn't added to paper money until the late 1980's, in case anyone wants to claim history's value here. The motto was added to coins by an act signed by Pres. Theodore Roosevelt, who was himself against the idea of putting religious mottoes on our money. The only reason he signed it was due to an overwhelming outcry by the American public at the time when he went on record stating his opposition to doing so. Public opinion swayed him from what his conscience told him was right and wrong.

Public opinion should not necessarily be what guides national policy. The Electoral College was set up by the Founding Fathers because they didn't believe the electorate was really smart or informed enough to truly make their own decisions, just in case someone wants to claim that the Founders had ample trust in the good sense of the public. There are times when the public should get a direct say in national policy. They're called elections.