Normally, I would be all over this Pledge of Allegiance thing. I agree with Miguel that it’s basically a totalitarian tactic wrapped in warm fuzzy Americana. I think church and state separation doesn’t marginalize religion, but in fact benefits it.
But come on, people, don’t we have more important things to worry about in this country? How about that our president is a marginally literate, xenophobic frat boy? How about that we are searching around for the next culture which deserves to have “a boot in their ass”? How about that these debates are just the bread and circuses to distract us from the real issues?
Stuff like that.
that the Senate stopped their debate on the military budget (which of course would include funding for, oh, I dont know the SAFETY of the country) in order to declare thier outrage, including some congressmen feeling the need to grab some newscameras to witness thier Pledging on the steps on the Capitol…..ugh, I lost my train of thought, its all so STOOPID!
Query, Adam;
Adam, why does this website keep cutting me off after my salutation?
Anyway, my question was as to whether your complaint is against the fact that the suit was brought to begin with, or as to the public reaction?
I guess I don’t really understand what the Pledge of Allegiance is for. Growing up, I said it along with all the other kids (though by my parents’ request, I omitted “under God”), but I’m not sure that it did as much to inform our sense of patriotism as would 1) a good Civics class and 2) actual social justice.
As for the “under God” part, I agree wholeheartedly that this nation started out as a Christian nation and as a deeply religious nation. My question is: does it need to stay that way.
Non-religious but rather moral,
J.