September 29, 2005

  • One Nation Under Democracy

    That's the bumper sticker.  And yes, that means I AM against the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance.  Look, I'm not too keen on the pledge of allegiance itself.  You should ally yourself based on merit.  You should pledge your allegiance to principles.  But Flag?  and God?  It is one of our higherst laws, part of the consitution itself to separate Church and State.  The founders of this country and authors of that constitution did that for a very specific reason: To insure religious freedom.  Is anyone against that?  Let me put that another way, is there anyone out there who wants their own religious freedom taken away?

    Democracy.  Now that's a different story.  That is being separated from government lately and we need to put the two back together.  So say the pledge with me, "...one Nation, Under Democracy..."

     

Comments (10)

  • I have to admit that I was pretty much all for keeping the words "under God" in the pledge but at the same time this has me considering revising my stance on it - perhaps the words "under Democracy" are more appropriate to the seperation of church and state.

  • That's an interesting addition, especially if you plan on keeping the "... and to the republic, for which its stands... ". You'll have a pledge acknowledging two forms of government.

    Personally, I'm not as opposed to the phrase "under God" as I am to laws which require the mandatory reciting of the pledge. But hey, in a democracy, whatever side has the most votes wins, right?

    Thus the minority is forced to do what the majority wants - pure democracy in action!

    The real issue isn't God as much as it is Government.

    Lets say The Pledge Of Allegience

    Cheers!
    JC

  • 'one nation under stratosphere' really makes me stand out at the ballgames.

  • We don't have a true democracy. What about one nation under bureaucracy?

  • "One nation under Canada, above Mexico" - Robin Williams

  • "One nation, under God, then Democracy.."

  • JC - that would be pure democracy.  But we don't actually have pure democracy, in that the bill of rights and the amendments that come after it, are essentially anti-democratic.  That there are rights that even the Tyranny of the majority can't take away, is probably more uniquely US of American than democracy is.  But we still need to get democracy back.

  • It should be "One nation united as a Republic"--the reasons for a representative democracy are at least as deep seated as the reasons for the basic separation of church and state and the division of powers.

  • I honestly don't see how one could be either for or against having the phrase "Under God" in that speech and still be for democracy.

    You can preach to me all you want about freedom from religion, then I could go over to Tento's site and hear about freedom of religion and at both places I'm standing there thinking:

    Bull shit. That debate has nothing to do with freedom of anything. It's about the same thing that all the other debates around Christianity is about. Christians who don't like Atheists and Atheists who don't like Christians. Right now the Atheists have grouped with Wiccans Jews and other "minority" religions as strange bedfellows. But when/if they complete their goals with Christianity they'll turn on them too. then where will we be? No religion will be allowed.

    So you see if you do support democracy then you should support compromise and neither of those groups give a damn about compromise.

  • I believe that one person's "rights" end where another's begins.  "Rights" are, in effect, an anti-democratic idea, something that cannot be taken away (or should not) regardless of what the majority wants.

    And as such, my "compromise", although I don't think of it as one, would be to let each person have their way, without imposing their way on the other.  I truly don't have any problem with someone who believes whatever works for them.  I don't even have a problem with them trying to share it with me.  But I don't want them to make aspects of their religious beliefs law, and if their religious beliefs lead them to support bad things, just like racist thoughts (which you have the right to also) can lead one to support discrimination, then I will argue that your beliefs are misguided and I will try to change your mind.

    Do I propose making Christianity illegal?  Hell no.  Christianity is being used in a way that if it was gone today would find some other vehicle.  I admire Jesus, who was a liberal.  I admire MLK, Jr and Jimmy Carter, they knew WJWD.  They also don't/didn't consider Christianity the "only" way.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment