One Nation Under Nothing?
Daniel Taverne
October 03, 2005
The ‘under God’ phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance is once again in jeopardy. Apparently a guy named Michael Nudoff, an atheist in Sacramento, feels he knows what’s best for the rest of us. I have a feeling he likes the lime light and uses the pledge as a stepping stone to fame. And look mom, it’s working!
What gives? This country, though not forcing anyone to conform to a religious belief, is made up of a vast majority of people (like it or not) who are religious. Since our government is an entity composed of our nation’s people, by our people, and for our people), it only makes sense that their religion will influence their decisions. If, however, separation of church and state means we may not make reference of a God what so ever, does this also mean that we can have no religious people in our government? If in times of national distress, when politicians are telling people, “You are in our prayers” should they be stricken from their jobs? The answer to both these questions is, ‘of course not’! They are acknowledging the faith that they know people have in their own Gods. They are not suggesting that people must believe in God at all, however, the generic acknowledgement of such by utilizing the word ‘God’ does not seem unreasonable.
This pledge, the way it is written right now does not advocate violence, hatred, bigotry, thievery, murder rape or pedophilia. It is simply saying “One nation, under God”. There are a lot of things in life that we will run into that we do not like, and can not change, but there are things worth fighting to change and this isn’t one of them. The atheist who is pushing this suit can simply request that children who feel their civil rights are being violated be allowed to meet, and recite the pledge in a separate room, replacing the words, “under God” with the words, “under nothing”, or he could request that those students stand outside the classroom while everyone else recites it. If this seems unfair or alienating to the student, then he/she could simply omit the undesired words while reciting it with the rest of the class.
While I’m on an issue that the Supreme Court will soon address, I’d like to talk about abortion, which is an issue that I feel is related to the above. It’s no secret that the Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and will surely address it again, in the future.
When the constitution was drafted, and the concept of separation of church and state was identified, children were expected to pray in schools, believe it or not. In addition, there used to be books in public schools that spoke of the virtue of girls, and the behavior of boys. These topics, in addition to the acceptance of corporal punishment of children by parents (at their discretion), and the religious acceptance at that time, did a fairly good job of keeping the incidence of teen aged pregnancies down. Now, since prayer, and the morals our nation once valued openly are considered trite, unnecessary and unconstitutional in schools, and since it is less and less acceptable to correct children by spanking them, almost nothing is taboo. I have heard preteens (on many occasions) say, after being told their mother was going to be informed of their poor behavior, “Who cares, she aint gonna do nothing!”
So, what is happening? By 12 years old, many kids are out engaging in casual sexual behaviors as witnessed on television and portrayed in popular music. Also, Juvenile facilities across the country are having to expand their facilities since more and more kids are being arrested for theft, violent acts against others or drugs. Since more girls and boys have less and less restrictions upon their behavior, more and more girls are becoming pregnant at younger ages. This in turn increases the need to accept abortion as a way of dealing with these pregnancies.
I’d like to know how the termination of a fetus’ life can be called (in official statements) “a woman’s right to choose”. God forbid anyone should want to take away anyone’s rights. So, this act, the act of sucking out mutilated bodies from women’s wombs should instead be called what it actually is: The woman’s right to kill.
It’s like John Lennon said,” Imagine there’s no heaven…” and, “Look at all the people living for today”. I think even an atheist would rather live in a peaceful nation composed of citizens who, because of their religious beliefs, govern their own behavior rather than a chaotic nation of citizens who think everything is okay as long as they don’t get caught.
What gives? This country, though not forcing anyone to conform to a religious belief, is made up of a vast majority of people (like it or not) who are religious. Since our government is an entity composed of our nation’s people, by our people, and for our people), it only makes sense that their religion will influence their decisions. If, however, separation of church and state means we may not make reference of a God what so ever, does this also mean that we can have no religious people in our government? If in times of national distress, when politicians are telling people, “You are in our prayers” should they be stricken from their jobs? The answer to both these questions is, ‘of course not’! They are acknowledging the faith that they know people have in their own Gods. They are not suggesting that people must believe in God at all, however, the generic acknowledgement of such by utilizing the word ‘God’ does not seem unreasonable.
This pledge, the way it is written right now does not advocate violence, hatred, bigotry, thievery, murder rape or pedophilia. It is simply saying “One nation, under God”. There are a lot of things in life that we will run into that we do not like, and can not change, but there are things worth fighting to change and this isn’t one of them. The atheist who is pushing this suit can simply request that children who feel their civil rights are being violated be allowed to meet, and recite the pledge in a separate room, replacing the words, “under God” with the words, “under nothing”, or he could request that those students stand outside the classroom while everyone else recites it. If this seems unfair or alienating to the student, then he/she could simply omit the undesired words while reciting it with the rest of the class.
While I’m on an issue that the Supreme Court will soon address, I’d like to talk about abortion, which is an issue that I feel is related to the above. It’s no secret that the Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and will surely address it again, in the future.
When the constitution was drafted, and the concept of separation of church and state was identified, children were expected to pray in schools, believe it or not. In addition, there used to be books in public schools that spoke of the virtue of girls, and the behavior of boys. These topics, in addition to the acceptance of corporal punishment of children by parents (at their discretion), and the religious acceptance at that time, did a fairly good job of keeping the incidence of teen aged pregnancies down. Now, since prayer, and the morals our nation once valued openly are considered trite, unnecessary and unconstitutional in schools, and since it is less and less acceptable to correct children by spanking them, almost nothing is taboo. I have heard preteens (on many occasions) say, after being told their mother was going to be informed of their poor behavior, “Who cares, she aint gonna do nothing!”
So, what is happening? By 12 years old, many kids are out engaging in casual sexual behaviors as witnessed on television and portrayed in popular music. Also, Juvenile facilities across the country are having to expand their facilities since more and more kids are being arrested for theft, violent acts against others or drugs. Since more girls and boys have less and less restrictions upon their behavior, more and more girls are becoming pregnant at younger ages. This in turn increases the need to accept abortion as a way of dealing with these pregnancies.
I’d like to know how the termination of a fetus’ life can be called (in official statements) “a woman’s right to choose”. God forbid anyone should want to take away anyone’s rights. So, this act, the act of sucking out mutilated bodies from women’s wombs should instead be called what it actually is: The woman’s right to kill.
It’s like John Lennon said,” Imagine there’s no heaven…” and, “Look at all the people living for today”. I think even an atheist would rather live in a peaceful nation composed of citizens who, because of their religious beliefs, govern their own behavior rather than a chaotic nation of citizens who think everything is okay as long as they don’t get caught.
Print
Email
