I pledge allegiance ...

I fully expect the House to enact the revolutionary doctrines from "Bananas" any day now.

 

That's not my religion. My religion is Alleyallenism, and I'm both the founder, pope and member. So can I say, "One nation, under me?"

 

The current House composition amply illumniates why we have a Senate.

 

Good to see that with all that is going on in the country, the Middle East and the world, that Congress is tackling such important issues.

 

Yes it is.

 

Why do I get the feeling that this is nothing more than simple posturing on the part of the House?

Even if this thing dies in the Senate, they can go back to their constituents and say they supported this measure, and hence score brownie points with the religious right for the fall elections.

If this does get passed, I think this sets a very dangerous precedent, both in terms of keeping church and state separate AND, perhaps most importantly, in terms of separation of powers in our government.

 

Zach Wamp?

 

I have no doubt that this will eventually be struck down, somewhere, in some court. But the fact that the House is wasting time and money, and that there are members who believe this is more important than other issues, is what's disturbing. We HAVE to get things like this out in the open and hold these lawmakers accountable.

 

Ides, do you ever substitute Allah for God when you're at church?

If not, there's your answer.

 

why do you get this feeling? because it is. can anyone offer a valid argument that it's not? anyone? anyone? even if you argue that the law should be passed you can't convine tell me that it should be one of the top 100 most important issues of the day or that it's worth spending any time on.

 

I used to bullseye Wamp rats back home. They're no bigger than two meters."
-- Luke Skywalker.

 

Well, the short of it is "sort of."

Here's the deal:
The Pledge has "one nation under God." Thus it is God with a capital "G." Were this to be imposed by Jewish individuals it would not have the letter "o" in the middle. Were this to be for theists, the "G" would be lower case. Were this to be for the Muslim god, it would say "Allah." Were this to include Wiccans, they would have possibly put "mother goddess" or "Wicca." Were this to include those that worship the sun, I guess it would be "the sun." Were this to include believers of polytheistic gods, it would would be "under Gods," as in plural. Were this to include non-believers it would not even be in there.

As you can see, the printing of "God" has essentially two basis for interpretation: the Christian God or Theistic God, which could be the same. So, you should be able to see how this is a problem.

In the end, the very basis for the addition of the phrase "under God" was because the Knights of Columbus, as pointed out in a previous post, wanted to "separate us from those godless communists." Well, in doing so, they alienate the portion of America that is godless yet not a communist.

The original Pledge was written by a former minister to left the church because he hated its corruption. He ran after-school programs for boys similar to Boy Scouts. This wasn't a man that was without faith. Had he wanted to include his faith in the Pledge or felt it was necessary to make the distinction, he would have done so. Years later, when the Knights of Columbus pushed for the inclusion, the author's daughter stated that her father would have never wanted that "under God" in there.