Let Poetry Be Poetry However Meaningless

The Pledge

Published on March 27, 2004 By stevendedalus In Current Events

The current ruckus before the Supreme Court concerning the Pledge of Allegiance is absurd. Newdow , a professed atheist, is on a cantankerous Nader-like ego trip signifying personal frustration and vindictiveness against his daughter’s mother who is Christian and has custody of the daughter, who doesn’t mind stating “under God.”

Aside from this, it sets a precedent for too many other frivolous issues to be brought before the court, such as “In God We Trust” on the currency, school prayer, prayer opening congressional sessions, confederate flag, creationism, traducianism, and gay marriage. If the law of the land is to be as clear and free of emotive meanings, issues must be predicated on sound empirical evidence that directly affect democratic principles and not whimsical preferences, nor religious impositions.

Though I was personally against the insertion of “under God” back in ‘54 on the basis of let sleeping dogs lie, I did not become a nut case because of it. The entire pledge is nothing but an emotive statement that poetically announces patriotism, not unlike prayer, for children to comprehend either seriously or with a grain of salt. The insertion, thus, is but a relevant emotive enrichment of the pledge having nothing to do with religion. Literalists, like Newdow, will never understand the misdirected poetic spirit in customs and practices. The word God is no more a statement of a belief — nor offensive non-belief — than Jefferson’s “Nature’s God”; it is simply an habitual response as common as profanity or decorating a Christmas tree.

To rank equally a fifty year harmless practice with that of civil rights or religious or non-religious freedom is an insult.

Comments

WiseFawn

on Mar 27, 2004

This will be an interesting thing to watch. I didn't even realize that schools still had this morning ritual. Funny the things that people make into important issues, isn't it? And so often not on the actual principle of it, but for their own agenda. I remember as a young child standing with my little hand over my heart, saying the pledge. And then as an older child, following my big brother's lead and refusing to say it as a protest against the war. And then when my family became Quakers, it became a matter of not saying it or flying the flag because it was against our religion. How strange humans can be. My father, in his Navy uniform was refused service at a restaurant because he was Native American. What a sad waste of time to work to get the phrase "One nation under God."
I'm rambling. Good article, stevendedalus!

JeremyG

on Mar 27, 2004

So what you're saying is that one piece of the constitution is less important than another.

stevendedalus

on Mar 28, 2004

Not at all, what I am saying is that one piece of frivolous controversy shouldn't be given a hearing.

Very Wise, interesting personal history you have.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!