Under GodWe have yet another interesting Supreme Court case.
Dahlia Lithwick's article One
Nation, Under Hallmark, Indivisible is about the constitutionality of
the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The case is brought by
Michael Newdow, an atheist, on behalf of his daughter who is exposed to those
words in school.
Before I comment on the specifics of this case, I
want to address a broader issue I don't quite understand. Why is religion often
so divisive? Why do some people feel threatened by an opposing belief system?
The fact that others are able to openly believe what they want is a hallmark of
our society. We should look fondly on others' passionate beliefs. It helps
them derive happiness and direction in their lives. And the freedom that allows
those beliefs to be practiced openly is a very good thing. We should respect
and honor that freedom, not disrespect it with
contempt.
We are exposed to many religious messages in our daily lives. The existence of those messages, and our exposure to them, should not (and can not) be considered a threat to our own beliefs. It is the responsibility of each of us to hold our own beliefs strongly, being true to ourselves. We can then safely navigate the sea of messages available in the public arena, entertaining them, debating them, or even adopting them as we see fit. Now on to this case, specifically... As my above opinion already makes clear, I don't think the existence (or not) of the mention of God in the Pledge is much of a big deal. If I were an atheist, I wouldn't consider it to be an affront to my belief system. But the Pledge is not a normal freedom of speech message. It is a state sanctioned message that is specifically exposed to our children. The state must be careful to respect others' personal choices, and not make them feel unnecessarily uncomfortable. In the case of our children, the state must be extra careful not to confuse them with messages that may be different from those being instilled in them by their parents. In this case, the line is being crossed, if ever so slightly. Dahlia Lithwick, in her article, comes to an interesting conclusion: The case is a mess because, whatever you may think about God or the pledge, if you really apply the case law and really think "God" means "God," then Newdow is right. But Newdow can't be right. Can he? Posted: Sun - March 28, 2004 at 10:41 AM |
Quick Links
Calendar
Archives by Category
Notable Entries
Let Go of the Past - Part 1
Let Go of the Past - Part 2 It's an Individual Responsibility Egoism & Our Motivations To Tolerance, and Beyond Happiness Responsibility Putting It All Together Archives by Date
Contact Me
Links
MinuteWar
MinuteWar Commander TiVo Community Allsports Grand Prix Karting ASI Restaurant Systems dc metro blog map XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category: Published On: Jun 04, 2004 09:52 PM |