It's easy to classify yesterdays decision as us vs. them or Christians vs. Non-Christians but for me it's not about that at all.
The America I believe in has traditions and institutions that shouldn't be altered so easily, or at least without a far amount of public discussion and debate. The America I believe in is simply not labeled unconstitutional with the ease that was done yesterday.
I hold the Pledge of Allegiance in the same regard as the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, our National Anthem and the Flag. These are institutions and symbols that represent the United States of America, our democracy and our rights. It's simply poor form and ultimately dishonorable to suggest that these things can be altered by a Circuit Court of Appeal.
If you're going to add a star to our Flag or change the rhythm of the Star Spangle Banner, I want everyone in on the decision. I want public debate, cat fights, demonstrations, and lastly a national vote.
Otherwise we end up in a mess just like the one we're in now. The Pledge has now been turned into both a political and religious issue that everyones going to try use to gain exposure and public favor. Instead of the Pledge of Allegiance being an oath of honor towards the founding principals of this nation it's now a you vs. me topic. Absurd.
I don't like Jerry Springer or his awful, degrading, dumbing down of America 'talk' show. With yesterday's decision I feel like we were all just forced to be the featured guest.
That's not the America I believe in.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
I agree, some of the political maneuvering that is already beginning to take form is reproachable and the substance of many debates is disgusting.
The way I understand it, the decision wasn't about these ugly after effects. The decision was meant to right something that had been perverted during McCarthy's red scare. God wasn't always a part of our allegiance, why do we now think that the two are inseparable? And why should the removal of a religious reference from our national pledge tear at the fabric of our national identity, when our nation was founded with the hope that religion truly could be separated from state function.
I don't intend to convince or convert, but I do wish there was more evidence that people were thinking about what the decision means instead of merely reacting to it.
I'm done, I'll pass the conch.
Paul, I don't have a problem removing the phrase mostly because it was done for geopolitical reaons and not as an observance to God.
What I do not want to see is a presidence set that would allow for a witch hunt against all mentions of God in our historical documents and monetary system.
Oh yeah... I vote Alfred off the island for being such a dork. Not only did he make a decision to grab headline time, he didn't have the nerve to even back it up.
Bravo, on a refreshingly common-sense approach to the situation. And I agree whole-heartedly.
More and more decisions are being made like this without public discourse, input, or even a mention that it's going to happen to allow the public to respond in any fashion.
Last year the state of Georgia adopted a new flag design that reduced the Confederate battle emblem to a barely-noticeable patch below the state seal along with other former state emblems. They made the decision to do it, debated it for a few minutes, and passed the bill without any public input because they knew that unless they took the initiative to "just do it," the overwhelming public consensus would be to leave alone, which would extend the racial divide and cause more problems along the way than just taking care of the issue straight away.
As it stands, I agreed with the decision to change the flag, but agree that at least public notice prior to doing so would have been the right thing to do.
I think it is important to have debate about this and similar issues before decisions are made. I am disheartened that in this country, when a person is strongly opposed to these references to God in our public documents and ceremonies, it is seem as somehow un-American, as starting down a slippery slope. I think that the process of removing references to a particular spiritual entity is climbing back up the slippery slope. Can a person just not say "under God?" Sure. But why should a person have to choose to be excluded in part from a pledge of allegience to their country because they don't believe in God? Are they any less American? You won't make songs and traditions that include references to God disappear, but they should not be selected for use at secular and public events, unless they have been adapted.
this desicion is political correctness for the sake of it. its like homosexuals defining themselves by their sexuality in trade: trade unions and what not. i have nothing against homosexuals, although i cannot condone their sexual politics, but no-one can touch their trade unions because if you do, it is homophobic behaviour. again, this removal of an important (i feel) and misunderstood part of your society. if you have no religious beliefs, you are your own God in a very real way (well, you think you are). If you're a religious person, then most religions have one basic deity they believe in; Judaism, Islam, Christianity, whatever; so just say it to your God. as a Christian, I hate to see spiritualism discouraged on any level, but why have the supreme court not seen this before? Crazy.