Thursday, September 15, 2005

A Pending Hissy Fit

Expect the usual foaming at the mouth from theocrats out there. Also expect a level of moderates saying "what's the big deal." If you are a religious person, I understand you don't see the problem. I think that is a problem of lack of perspective If you would not have a problem having "One Nation, Under Zeus" written into law, then I guess you don't care, which I don't agree with, but I can see your point of view. Otherwise, if you see a universal monotheism as a valid entity to praise in the pledge, then you are advocating it as it superimposes an established religion of the state. From my point of view, "god" or "God" is no different than Zeus, Allah, Odin, Vishnu, Ra, or Fred the Almighty of Plattsburg.

The bottom line problem I think people miss in this debate is over the definition of religion. Some define it narrowly, I define it broadly, but with one big point: the supernatural. It is not about just having beliefs, it about beliefs in the supernatural. I think with that level of perspective, people could see why the pledge is in violation of the establishment clause. As long as they view religion with the viewpoint of their personal understand of valid or what they might call "real religions," we will have this conflict.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.