Click here and here for two editorials explaining why removing "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance should be a no-brainer, legally speaking. This one nation under God has a fly in the judiciary ointment: God forbid that we have to acknowledge that the law really does come down on the side of the atheist. Of course--and here's the irony of it all--so does Judeo-Christian morality.
Someone on the religious side has pointed out the semi-mind-blowing irony of this debate. "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional because it is blasphemous. The state argues that the phrase in question is not an unconstitutional promotion of religion because "God" doesn't really refer to God, as such. When we say "God," we are not really referring to a deity, making the phrase is constitutionally OK. However, if we say "God" without really meaning an (or The) omnipotent, omniscient being, we run afoul of one of the 10 Commandments, specifically the part about taking God's name in vain. It would seem that the laws of man and the Bible take opposite paths to get to the same place: the phrase ought to go.
In the interest of presenting an opposing viewpoint on the issue, here's what my co-worker Laurie said today about the pledge case: "If they take 'under God' out, we're moving to Canada."
No comments:
Post a Comment