My Opinion of the 9th District Appeals Court Ruling
I had originally been quite uncaring about the recent court decision, but due to the way it has been blown out of proportion, I felt I needed to add my 2 cents. When I went to school, we had a moment of silence. Some people prayed and some people just thought. The moment of silence examplifies my attitude of religion in schools; it should be permitted but in such a way as not to discourage diversity.
The pledge of allegiance, as a whole, is completely constitutional as originally written. The court protests the adding of the words "under God" in 1954 by Eisenhower, at the heart of the cold war against Russia (the country who pioneered and failed the experiment of "evangelical state atheism").
To say, "one nation under God" is, in my opinion, a Judeo-Christian affirmation of faith. Though it is true the US is a predominently Christian society, one day this may not be the case. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America. Perhaps, in 15-20 years, popular support will be behind changing the pledge to "one nation under Allah". Maybe atheism will take over, and we'll have "one nation, unbelieving in God". Or, from off in left field, Hinduism takes the US by storm, and we'll have "one nation, under Shiva, Vishnu, and/or Krishna". If you feel uncomfortable with any of these alternatives, then I think it is comprehendable as to why people of the above faiths (or "unfaiths") feel uncomfortable with the status quo.
As far as the fore-fathers rolling in their graves, I seriously doubt it. They were as a diverse group of people, some atheists, some christian, some deists; they decided to seperate church as state to form a common basis for a government based of secular principles of John Locke (life, liberty, and property).
In my opinion, the only reason why this is so controversial is because most people agree with the assertion being mandated. Even if you agree with the claim, people have the right to feel differently, and still be patriotic. Lastly, I think that this controversy has pointed at the sad state of affairs with which people in this nation tolerate religious diversity. Personally, I think most atheists are just as bad as (if not worse than) their theistic counterparts in provoking hostility. However, after listening to various comments, atheism seems to garner little sympathy in this country. The reason people are allowed to choose to or not to say the pledge of allegiance is based on a case brought by a Jehovah's wintess; were this person an athiest, I think the situation would have been much different. (For those of extreme curiousity, the case is West Virginia State Board of Education v.
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624). Though this is over 10 years old now, I recently read it for the first time and felt completely appalled and feel that this conversation still accurately reflects the position of some people (and even worse, policy makers) in this country.
Conversation between Bush (not GW) and a reporter at a news conference on August 27, 1987
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are
atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Perhaps, though, getting athiests and theists to get along, is another conversation for another time.