I define the first amendment
I react to my elected federal representatives
I make some generalizations in debate
In talking about this and thinking about it, I've come to an interesting opinion:
there seem to be a specific set of people:
1) People who strongly believe the God MUST be in the pledge; (or people that believe they must go along with this for their own well being)
2) People who are apathetic and believe it doesn't really mean anything and no one should be upset about it
3) People who feel they can't say the pledge because of 'God' (or people that support those with this opinion)
4) People who just don't support pledging allegiance to a flag or nation
My problem is primarily with Group 1. So far I have heard stories of the Congress drafting resolutions that God must be included in the Pledge. Group one has said that God is part of our society, that this is the way things just are. This really makes me question our religious and personal freedom that we as a nation so direly pride ourselves on.
I have already received posts from people who've been told that they won't get a job because they are wearing pentacles. I've known people who limit their display of their pagan heritage because they feel safer 'going at it stealth." I suppose I'm lucky because I'm in a job where my productivity and field allows 'eccentricity.' But in all honesty, my religious or philosophical beliefs should be of no question to anyone in this country as long as I am not in the practice of my own life getting in the way of their freedoms.
Personally, this kind of extends to my general belief of stop legislating the behavior in my bedroom. But this is another whole ball of wax.
Group 2 to me represents the biggest problem that we as a democracy have faced. The famous "Swing vote" people who are so detached from an issue, they'll support whichever side has more flash, glitz, and draw. I think the pledge and the way it's handled represents this. We don't want our young to think, to decide, to process....we just want them to follow blindly.
Look again at the comments made by the people we voted into the congress and the presidency (we'll a minority of you voted into the presidency ;)
They haven't even stopped to think. One even went so far to say, "Well, anyone who values their job."
You IDIOTS You are the people who put forth the laws that say, "To discriminate for a job against someone's religious beliefs are illegal." I hope the judge does run for higher office. I hope that Sen. Byrd is true to his word and tries to stop the man on the basis of his being an atheist. Because I really, and truly want to see a man sue the government for being denied a job on the basis of his religious beliefs.
Why is law and policy only good as long as it serves our needs. the moment that someone uses law in a way that we don't like we jump up and shout foul. We go out of our way to complain. But unfortunately, the way we complain is to convince everyone who hasn't made a decision that we're right, they're wrong and it's a question of side vs. side.
Isn't it time that we look at both sides of the issues? Pro and against. Figure out how to fix, not shove it in the face of one side or the other.
Stop calling it Pro life and Pro Choice. Would someone with some real brass stand up and decide what constitutes life. That way the abortionists, the animal rightists, the researchers, the fetal gene harvesters, and the vegetarians could all just sit down at the table and do their things.
I'm so tired of elections being a list of hot ticket issues vs. an elusive list of oppositions that claim they are not oppositions.
I think the key word I'm going for once again is
Stop making the issues