June 30, 2002
Local news article

This has been quite interesting reading the different opinions on the "under God" issue. I am seeing all sides and agree with various things on each side really. I still believe this is not something that should be causing so much fuss though. But then... that is just my opinion.

In the newspaper today there was an article that fairly well coincides with my position. I don't want to re-write the entire article here but I felt that these were some very interesting points...

"After all, this is a pledge, not a prayer, the recitation of a patriotic creed, not a directive from the state to pray. No one's sacred space need be violated."

"What we have here is another maddeningly narrow reading of a Constitution that is anything but narrow. That document and act of grace was intended to promote the general welfare, not make all of us march to the beat of a different, dictatorial drummer. It was designed to "secure the Blessings of Liberty," but that phrase will surely have to go, too, what with its religious connotations. So will "God save this honorable court" if this case ever gets to SCOTUS. "

"The Constitution itself was unveiled 'in the Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty- seven ... .' And the republic itself was declared in the faith that all men are created equal, and 'are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... .' Live with it."

Granted many will disagree with many things that were said I am sure but as I personally read the article, I nodded in agreement with every word. The words "under God" are in place. Nowhere does it say that those words HAVE to be said.

Posted by at June 30, 2002 11:46 AM
Post a comment
Email Address:
Remember info?