I'm Canadian. And after surfing around the blogs of the other ONU Journalists, I believe myself to be the only one who's not going to be directly affected by this ruling. However, I will be affect in the long run, as Canada tends to follow suit in many ways. This will probably be one.
I also am a Witch. Yep, that "nasty" W word. Most could classify me as Wiccan, but the reason why I myself don't classify my religion as Wiccan is a long debate that is completely off topic at this point. I just felt that everyone should know my background before I continue.
Now, when I first heard of this court case, I thought it was a lie. While I did know that it was completely legal and probably would stand up in the courts, I didn't think anyone would have the guts or balls to try it. And when I found out it was true, I had to smile. Personally, I believe it's about time. The words should have never been added in the 50's, and in my opinion, should be removed. But good luck doing that with good ol' Bible-thumping, Retrobution-Bush at the wheel.
Why do I think "under God" should be removed from the Pledge? First, yes, it's unconstitutional. But, to me, it's somewhat a statement of snobbery. I mean, this line was added during the Cold War. Statments that it was added to one-up those "commie bastards" (their words, not mine) are all too frequent not to be taken as a possibility.
Religion has its place, and it's not in government. Or in schools, baseball games, or in foreign policy. Religion should be a personal thing. That doesn't mean that one can not be religious and share this religion with others... It just should not be implied that everyone holds the same views. "Under God" implies everyone has the same views...
My 2 cents to get things going.Posted by at June 28, 2002 10:38 AM