Friday, July 09, 2004

"Under God": a waste of energy and outrage

Michael Newdow, the California man who challenged the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, is reportedly preparing another challenge. Last month, Newdow's suit was tossed out of the Supreme Court on a technicality. Christian activits are already gearing up to meet the new challenge. The Agape Press -- a prominent Christian news service -- says "Those who believe in God are about to face another court challenge to their faith." Come on. This "under God" battle is another waste of energy and outrage. Christians get themselves riled up over the silliest, most irrelevant issues. We got along just fine before the phrase "under God" was tacked onto the Pledge in the 1950s. Surely we would do so again in the unlikely event that the phrase is removed. We must have less time spent on symbolic issues and more on issues of life and death: let's save the righteous crusades for things that really matter.

5 Comments:

At 10:08 AM, Blogger Lost In NY said...

While I completely agree that it is a big waste of time, energy, and resources, I will attempt to recreate a contemporary Christian argument for "under God".

Our society is becoming more and more God-less, and this is just another example. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (Note: ignore the fact that "under God" did not appeal until WELL AFTER the founding), and we need to get back to them - especially in a time where homosexual marriage, abortion, and people actually being against the death penalty make headlines. We are losing our country.

If you don't believe in God, then you don't have to say the pledge. Even if peer pressure makes all kids say it, it is good for them to come to the eternal truth that there is a God.

Okay, back to reality. Can we worship our ancestors any more? Do we really believe that their slave-owning, Native American slaughtering America was more Christian than the one we have today?

Lets stop idolizing the past for something it wasn't, and put some effort into making this country and world a better place.

 
At 8:40 PM, Blogger Pissed Off Girl said...

"...tossed out on a technicality." An interesting way to characterize Article III of the Constitution, don't you think?

As a sidenote, is it just a coincidence that we felt the need add godliness to our Pledge the same year we desegretated our public schools?

 
At 10:00 AM, Blogger Lost In NY said...

True enough. Sadly though, our public schools still aren't desegregated. The doors the kids enter may not say "black" or "white" over them anymore, but they might as well say "rich" and "poor".

 
At 7:23 PM, Blogger jrl20 said...

Article III's standing requirements are clearly very important in terms of legal process. They insure that the adversarial system functions properly and that the courts are not involved in purely theoretical or political disputes. In short, they limit courts to disputes that are actually "cases and controversies," as required by our Constitution. The characterization of the decision as based on "technicality" merely indicates that the dismissal of the suit is no reflection whatsoever of what the Court thought concerning the merit's of Respondent Newdow's first amendment claim. In my opinion, a decision not based on the merits is the very definition of a technicality.

 
At 11:33 PM, Blogger ats54 said...

Lost in NY, interesting comment on the segregation. Many people (including myself) would say that a rich Latino has more in common with a rich white guy that he does with a poor Latino.

Our country isn't so severely segregated by race anymore, but the economic divisions are far greater than ever before.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home