June 28, 2002
A Waste of Energy

I have been giving a lot of thought to the issue of the removal of all public references to "God". While I understand both sides of the coin, I truly feel that this is such a huge waste of time and energy.

As I have stated on my own site, I do believe in God but am not a religious person by any means. I live life for what it is. Whether the reference to God is in the Pledge or on the money or not makes little difference to me in general. What has me fired up is the attention it takes away from other national issues that are TRULY important such as school violence, crime, terrorism... take your pick. Who cares what is printed on the currency. How many times do you sit down and read your money?? It spends just the same whether "God" is on it or not. As for the Pledge, the words "under God" are miniscule compared to the overall meaning behind it. I have not heard the Pledge said in classrooms in 25 years. Maybe other area schools are different but that is the way it has been in my experience. And how many people actually get up in the morning and recite it at home?

And as I have stated before, you cannot please everyone no matter how hard you try. This is really a no win situation. Leave the words in place, people who are offended by them will throw a tantrum. Remove the words, the people who take pride in them will be offended and throw a tantrum. What is the point?

Religion and any reference to it tends to be an extremely hot subject. People get fired up about it every time. Frankly, it is redundant. The end result is the same no matter what you believe. Whether you believe in a supreme being or not... what happens in the end is the same for everyone, right? So when you get right down to it, the reference to God can mean whatever you WANT it to mean. :wink:

Also, I do agree that this is not a case for the lower courts. This is more than just a People's Court kind of case. It has become a major national issue... it stands to change this history of this nation. I swear these people have no clue what they are doing.

Anyways, my drawn out point is this... I wish the bigwigs that are exploding all over this issue would get a clue and put all their energy into things that really matter in this country. There are bigger fish to fry after all!

Posted by at June 28, 2002 10:25 AM
"... it stands to change this history of this nation." perhaps you should re-read the history of this nation, particularly, the part about the pledge. go here thepledge Posted by: kat on June 28, 2002 11:48 PM
I realize "under God" was not an original part of the Pledge. When I say history, I am not necessarily speaking of the day the Pledge was originally written. ;o) Posted by: Jill on June 29, 2002 12:09 AM
so which history are you referring to? the history where eisenhower agreed that under god should be part of the pledge so that we could all figure out who was communist and who was an all blooded true american? please explain. i'm really interested to know what you mean? Posted by: kat on June 29, 2002 11:39 AM
Actually all I was referring to in regards to "history" was not so much a specific moment in time but rather a general idea that has been in place for many years... an idea that everyone has become accustomed to (whether it is agreed with or not). For example, in a personal viewpoint, the way the Pledge is now has been the way I have known it to be since I was a child. It therefore changes everything for me if it were to be change... and thereby changing things for a vast majority of others in the country as a whole. That is all I mean by changing history.... whether it is a change for the better or worse really isn't the factor though. It is a historic change none-the-less. History was changed when the words "under God" were added and it will be changed again if/when they are removed. Honestly, while I see the change is irrelevant when it comes to the over-all message behind the Pledge, or at least my personal interpretation of it, it won't make a difference to me whether the words "under God" are officially removed or not. I don't say the Pledge... I haven't said it since I was in grade school. I prefer to show my patriotism in my own way. :o) When I give it thought actually, it makes sense to remove the words I suppose but it still irritates me that so much energy is spent on an issue such as this when it could be spent on something more important. So whether I agree with the words or not, I won't support the issue yet I won't deny it either. Sorry if I didn't word my original post very well. What seems clear in my head doesn't always come out quite as clear in my words. LOL Hope this clarifies it a little better. Posted by: Jill on June 29, 2002 12:46 PM
thank you for explaining jill. but just because that's what we were tought, doesn't make it right. those words were added to figure out who could be trusted and who couldn't. this is a whole different time and the words need to be removed because as one nation, we must stand together as a whole and not be torn apart by religion ever again. Posted by: kat on June 29, 2002 03:52 PM
a love story told by poet and jennifer aniston novelist Carson (Men in the Off lord of the rings Hours, 2000, etc.) in 29 brief, carmen electra lyrical "tangos" (which are kind justin timberlake of like stanzas, only a lot more angelina jolie internet romantic) that have little quotations online photo sharing from Keats in front of each. online photo sharing web Basically, it's Girl-meets-Boy, buy the simpsons Girl-gets-Boy, Girl-and-Boy-grow-old-and-get-tired-of-each-other. health insurance Posted by: web design on January 18, 2005 07:50 PM
Post a comment
Email Address:
Remember info?