PolySciFi Blog

Thursday, September 15, 2005


Sweet Merciful Newdow!

The phrase "one nation, under God" is on its face a statement of religious belief, refers to nothing outside of religious belief, and has no purpose or value beyond that of a statement of religious belief. I don't see the slippery slope Jody envisions (although it seems to end with the complete demolition of public education, which is an outcome he actually wants...)

I don't accept the premise that a slippery slope argument can be applied here, and I don't see in any of Jody's writing on this any actual defense of including the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. I am willing to be convinced that it is something I should encourage my own (at this point hypothetical) children to recite. But Jody's argument seems to be "we can't get rid of the words "under God," or we will be forced to jettison biology, history, health, and physics," and I'm sorry, but I don't think that passes the laugh test. So give me something better.

One further question: say the Pledge wasn't altered in 1954, and still was a non-sectarian statement of national allegiance. Say Congress wanted to change it today to put those two words in. Would you support that? If so, why? If not, why fight to keep it?


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?