Please take the pledge before your lawmaker is deemed unpatriotic
We live in an oddly schizophrenic country - Amen? There isn't one extreme from which we will jump to the polar opposite it seems. Now, I realize these two incidences are in two not only geographically distanced areas but also areas that may view "religion" in general in fundamentally different ways, but, seriously ...
Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56310,00.html) we have a federal appeals court ruling in 2002 that the infamous Pledge of Allegiance with it's "under God" phrase (which was added in 1954) cannot be recited in the classroom. Of course, the Supreme Court over ruled the decision in 2004 on a technicality: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40279-2004Jun14.html.
Not to harp on old news from two and four years ago - so today we have a North Carolina legislature passing laws requiring school children to recite the pledge (mostly it seems they voted this way to keep people from thinking they're "unpatriotic").
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/459757.html
As offensive as it may sound, it goes against my grain to recite the pledge since becoming a Christian (even with the "under God" bit) because I just don't feel comfortable pledging my "allegiance" to a government or flag or anything else for that matter besides God. Given that, I'm not opposed to, offended by, angered by or intimidated by the recitation of the pledge by others. But neither am I incensed when someone else (like above mentioned atheist who brought the suit claiming that reciting the pledge is unconstitutional and that his daughter shouldn't have to be subjected to such a phrase as "under God") finds reciting the pledge repulsive.
But either outlawing it or requiring it (even if for two entirely different reasons) seems to go against the principles on which this country was founded - basic human freedoms. If I don't agree with your measley pledge, I shouldn't have to recite it. BUT if I find the pledge to be one of the most heartfelt of allegiances to this great nation then by all means I should be able to recite it. Besides that, you can't legislate - especially in a country built on the ideals of freedom - the recitation of a few phrases, which champion these freedoms.
Besides, if the kids in North Carolina classrooms don't recite the pledge, are the pledge police going to break down the door and come arrest them? So, I have to wonder: what really is the point of a pledge law (either requiring it or outlawing it - "under God" phrases and all) in North Carolina or anywhere else for that matter?
Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56310,00.html) we have a federal appeals court ruling in 2002 that the infamous Pledge of Allegiance with it's "under God" phrase (which was added in 1954) cannot be recited in the classroom. Of course, the Supreme Court over ruled the decision in 2004 on a technicality: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40279-2004Jun14.html.
Not to harp on old news from two and four years ago - so today we have a North Carolina legislature passing laws requiring school children to recite the pledge (mostly it seems they voted this way to keep people from thinking they're "unpatriotic").
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/459757.html
As offensive as it may sound, it goes against my grain to recite the pledge since becoming a Christian (even with the "under God" bit) because I just don't feel comfortable pledging my "allegiance" to a government or flag or anything else for that matter besides God. Given that, I'm not opposed to, offended by, angered by or intimidated by the recitation of the pledge by others. But neither am I incensed when someone else (like above mentioned atheist who brought the suit claiming that reciting the pledge is unconstitutional and that his daughter shouldn't have to be subjected to such a phrase as "under God") finds reciting the pledge repulsive.
But either outlawing it or requiring it (even if for two entirely different reasons) seems to go against the principles on which this country was founded - basic human freedoms. If I don't agree with your measley pledge, I shouldn't have to recite it. BUT if I find the pledge to be one of the most heartfelt of allegiances to this great nation then by all means I should be able to recite it. Besides that, you can't legislate - especially in a country built on the ideals of freedom - the recitation of a few phrases, which champion these freedoms.
Besides, if the kids in North Carolina classrooms don't recite the pledge, are the pledge police going to break down the door and come arrest them? So, I have to wonder: what really is the point of a pledge law (either requiring it or outlawing it - "under God" phrases and all) in North Carolina or anywhere else for that matter?
posted by Jeno at
3:13 PM
1 Comments:
Amen, and again I say AMEN! Truth be told, it goes back to the white house, the supreme court, the senate, etc, etc. I'm beginning to think it's not the people at all that have a problem. The government needs to stay out of such issues and let individual states decide what's best for them. After all, they live there. The flag and all that goes with it must be taught in the classroom. It's a beginning to showing children respect; hopefully a beginning to end.
By
Anonymous, at 12:38 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home