Here we go again.
I use to be fairly rabid about this issue but now I could really care less. I think that there are more important issues to be looked at then the phrase "under God."
That being said, I personally think that they should remove those two words and return back to the original pledge. Yes folks, the phrase "under God" only appeared in the mid 2oth century to attack the "Godless Communists."
I just wonder what the right-wingnut Christians would feel if it was "under Allah" instead of "God."
Hmmm.
---End of Transmission---
11 comments:
Actually I think I might have to disagree with you on this one.
The word God is such a generic term that I think it could easily be left in.
God is the English word for the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. The same for all monotheistic religions. So to simply say God doesn't always mean only the Christian God.
Like you say, Allah is Arabic for God. In Spanish it's Dios. In German it is Gott. The person reciting the pledge can really use the word God for their own purposes.
Now if we are to talk about atheists, then yes that is a different story. The word God to them is offensive. But to believers the word atheist is offensive. So where do we go?
mj:
I forgot to mention the atheists but I do think that is the biggest reason that it should not be allowed in the pledge. Like you said, where do we go since believers in God are offended by atheism so why not just leave the any reference to any religious belief out? God or no God. That way the believers can add God in their mind if they want.
Don't forget the animists.
Blake: Good point, so maybe we should say "One nation, under our many gods..." :)
Good point James.
I said this on another blog:
I never minded the word God in anything, but I grew up in the MN school system and not the bible belt, where maybe the risk for indoctrination would have been greater. God is a universal term; Buddhists have it, Muslims have it, Jews have it, etc etc. If the pledge had the words 'Jesus' or 'Christian' added to them in the 50s, I'd probably be more apt to be opposed, but it's just the word God, and in a country where we have increasing poverty, deficit, and people without access to education or healthcare, the word's 'under God' just don't seem to have that same sense of priority. It's hackery and knee-jerk election issues, like gay rights and abortion, whose arguments both center around personal values/beliefs. No one is ever going to agree, and we'll spend a lifetime arguing about them, when we should be worrying about much more important things, like feeding and being able to care for our families.
I think this man, and I don't know him personally, is just worried about the extent to which 'under God' can be expanded. I think he, like many Americans are worried that they will be forced swallow the personal beliefs of whomever is in power, because often times, those in power forget how they would want to be treated should they be in the position of a minority.
Good thoughts guys!
Jes
Jessica:
You raise a good point that I do agree with.
The only thing that I would debate you on is the idea that Buddhists believe in a God. As a Buddhist I do not believe in a "God." The Buddha represents an enlightened being but we (in my Zen tradition at least) do not pray to the Buddha.
Rather we see the Buddha as a reflection of the Buddha within. We also acknowledge that the are my Buddha's throughout space and time as well as Bodhisattvas (saints).
To quote a Buddhist teacer:
"The Buddha was more concerned with the human condition: Birth, Sickness, Old age, and Death. The Buddhist path is about coming to a place of acceptance with these painful aspects of life, and not suffering through them.
Please be clear on this point... The Buddha is not thought of as a god in Buddhism and is not prayed to. He is looked up to and respected as a great teacher, in the same way we respect Abraham Lincoln as a great president.
He was a human being who found his perfection in Nirvana. Because of his Nirvana, the Buddha was perfectly moral, perfectly ethical, and ended his suffering forever.
Does that mean that every Buddhist in the world is an atheist?
No!!! I have met a lot of Buddhists who believe in God. I have met a lot of Buddhists who don’t believe in God... And a lot of Buddhists just don’t know.
All three points of view are OK if you’re Buddhist because suffering is more important than God in Buddhism."
I get it's probably splitting hairs but I just wanted to give you my point of view on the Buddhist perspective.
Like I said though, I really do not care if they keep "under God" in the pledge. Kids can just not say that part if they desire.
I agree with you that there are more important things to focus on.
woh, now my head hurts...my mistake on Buddhism...I've read one short book, and that's it...
Jessica:
Yeah, there are a lot of different forms of Buddhism but I think most do not believe in a "Creator God."
Mostly it is a belief in great teachers who have cleared the path to walk ahead of us. Therefore, they become examples to us but not "Gods."
Sorry to make your head spin!
+1!
Post a Comment