Mmm, sweet, sweet controversy. There's nothing quite as amusing and entertaining as the latest flair on the horizon of needless emotion and futile protesting. Well, I'm out of high school, thank God, now, so I have a much more muted apathy about these sort of things now, as I would have then. On that note of thanking God, might as well go into the issue at hand, the pledge of allegiance.
I remember when there were certain movements to eliminate the "moment of silence" from the morning announcements of public school. That, itself, was such a ludicrous and idiotic notion that I vividly remember laughing out loud at it when I first heard. I mean, the faction or type of faction that calls for such a passing of legislation already has gotten the satisfaction of expunging the old tradition of morning prayer, but now they don't even want to allow for the option of praying? One minute and thirty seconds of silence, where a child is instructed to do whatever may please their personal religion or belief system silently, which was shortened to one minute and, eventually, thirty seconds, by the time I graduated. There's nothing even remotely religious about silence, unless one chooses to, by his or her own whim, to think inside their head of a prayer, chant, oath, or whatnot. Silly extremists and their lack of logic, who are now clamouring to eliminate the "under God" portion of the pledge of allegiance. The main defense for this seems to be the "separation of Church and State" clause of the United States Constitution, derived from everybody's favourite amendment, number One:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Pretty black and white, that is. It's hard to really argue whether or not it's unconstitutional to lawfully require children to learn or recite anything religious. God forbid that happen.
I can't take this very seriously, myself. To think that there is any kind of uproar over two words of the pledge of allegiance induces much laughter from me. How exactly are they going to change it? Reword it, perhaps to "One nation under a deity of one's own personal choice if any such supreme being happens to exist within the context of one's belief system or lack thereof." Not very catchy, if you ask me. I suppose the implications of this court ruling on the pledge is that the school's can no longer force children to stand up and pledge. Now, in the public school system I attended, nobody was being forced, anymore, by about ninth grade. Adults figure that by the time somebody has turned fifteen, they possess enough common sense to make a decision regarding such a trivial matter on their own, or they've simply grown apathetic and weary of yelling at students who refuse to stand, in the first place. Again, I imagine what the issue here is that people will attempt to completely erase the presence of the pledge from the classroom. The Constitution forbids any law regarding religion or a religious institution to be passed, it doesn't say we should forget completely about the existence of such things. The reason why I was so appalled by those who wished to remove the moment of silence was that it was a meager suggestion to pray, or honour whatever religious practices one . . . Uh, practices, not a mandate to get on your knees and worship God. It was an order to shut the hell up and respect those who may do so, however, which I can't see why anybody would have a problem with. "Oooh, we can't let the little kiddies start to respect their peers and the varying forms of religion which are present in today's day and age, no, no! If Johnny wants to beat up Ahmed the Muslim for praying in the bathroom, or yell noisily over Jimmy the Baptist while he attempts to partake in a morning prayer, let him!"
If you can't tell already, I'm somewhat of a cynic and a pinch bitter. Stupid wastes of times like this make me sick, when there are such more urgent issues floating around, like the slow and painful murder of our planet and, I don't know, starvation and poverty everywhere, but, I guess, if you want to dwell on a tiny, insignificant issue like the word "God" being spoken in school, go ahead. After that, why don't you go destroy the heathens who are having us put our hands on the Holy Bible when testifying in court, or those crazies who voluntarily send their progeny to the Hell-spawn institution of Sunday School. Pfft, morons. To paraphrase the comic Gary Fitzsimmons, you sure must have a concrete system of morals and beliefs if me standing up on stage for thirty minute making jokes crumbles it to the ground. In the same way, if your little . . . Whatever-religion-follower . . . kid all of a sudden denounces his previous religion because he's being asked to say the word "God," then I have to wonder how well you instilled that religion in their head very well, and I doubt it would've lasted that long in the face of an argument over the existence of God with an agnostic.
Do I believe it should be law to say "under God" in the pledge? No, not really, I don't. Do I believe it should be law to say the pledge at all? Not really, no, I don't. I stopped standing for the pledge in eighth grade or so because I realised how silly it was to have to reiterate my loyalty to the country on a daily basis by mindlessly and repetitively reciting memorised lines while facing a colourful rectangle of cloth. I love being born in America, living and thriving within a country where I have such freedom and opportunity laid before me thanks to the death and struggle of many, many Americans before me. I appreciate that fact, but do I need to say that every day of my life for it to be true? No, not really, I don't.
When you are within the boundaries of an institution which upholds different beliefs than you do, it is common courtesy to respect those beliefs, not to spit in their faces and tell them they're wrong. I'm not implying that you should believe what is upheld there, either. Just shut up and realise that it is respectful to not question the surrounding customs and traditions for no reason other than to piss them off. I spoke the Lord's Prayer at a friend's high school graduation a few weeks back because he went to a private, Christian school and it was their way to do so. I may not be a Christian, but when I am drowning in them, I don't kick and scream and cry about it, because you can't expect to go somewhere Christian and not be exposed, somehow, to those ideals. No shit, people, the majority of this country follows a monotheistic religion in some form or fashion, from Judaism to Catholicism to Christianity and sects ranging from Southern Baptist to Korean Baptist (that was a new one to me) to Lutheran, Protestant, and Presbyterian. You have the freedom to not follow those religions, and, by law, nobody can deride or refute you for doing so, but when you are in a room with a 20:1 ratio of religious people to atheists, expect to, perhaps, be asked to mumble the word God, in turn, and get over it. I said the pledge for numerous years of my life, but I don't think that is any factor whatsoever in my belief in a God. I don't sit back at night and think, you know, out of everything that constitutes my own religion, I think that having to say the word "God" everyday for eight, nine, ten years is the most influential portion of it. Nobody is questioning your personal beliefs when they ask you say to "one nation under God," or to observe thirty seconds of quiet time while some kid on the other side of your aisle prays, they're performing their own rituals. If I cross my forehead in front of you, and you happen to be . . . I don't know, Buddhist or Hindu, I'm not spitting in your face and thinking, "Your religion is wrong and evil, evil I say!" I'm not even thinking about you because you are irrelevant to my religion. And, no, I don't think Buddhism or Hinduism are evil, it was sarcasm, before someone gets pissy about that.
It could be pointed out that if "one nation under Buddha" had been the line, it would've been questioned a lot sooner. Well, duh. Of course, the first thought to pop into my head is that Buddha is not necessarily considered a deity in all forms of Buddhism, rather an enlightened teacher of how to live your life to attain what he referred to as Nirvana, or a state of all-knowing. But, whatever, it's an example people use arbitrarily to make a point completely departed from what Buddhism actually is, and I find it amusing to be an ass about it just to make them angry. If the national religion of Britain was suddenly changed to Taoism, I do believe, for some reason, that the majority of that country would be upset about that, since they don't practice that religion. I'm struggling to find any real substance in the argument that if it had been Shiva or Zeus or Jupiter or Odin or Isis or Anubis or Medusa instead of God, there would've been action taken earlier. That point is moot in the face of the fact that the majority always tends to muffle the cries of protest from the minority. It took centuries for women to get more liberties. Why? Because the majority of people in power were always men. People point out things like "If it had been Buddha," to try and attempt to make Christians look evil for wanting their deity of choice to be the one in the pledge, as though, if it had been Buddha and not God for fifty years, Buddhist would just kind of shrug and go "Eh, that's cool," when people decided to petition for the removal of Buddha from the line. Yeah, sure. Everybody prefers their way of thinking, because it's their's and not somebody else's, this isn't a behaviour reserved for Christians or any other section of society.
It's popular belief to accept that the foundation of the colony of William Bradford on Plymouth Rock was to provide religious sanctity for him and his Puritan comrades. Of course, most of the colonisation of America was funded by companies who believed that there were some mystical cities of Gold waiting to be discovered somewhere in the New World. Many of our older laws were based on the Bible, and the Bible Belt still exists with the lingering of certain Blue Laws. It's hard to say whether or not America was ever united by God, or by economy and the greed of humans. It's nice to think that we all get warm, fuzzy feelings in our stomachs, hold hands, and share a mutual happiness in the solace of God's name, but that's pretty far from the truth, in ignorance of other religions and those lacking religious leanings. Is this "One Nation Under God?" Not anymore, not with all the corruption in politics, the murders in the streets, and those who cringe at the thought of allowing someone to openly practice any sort of religious ritual. It's wrong of fundamentalist Christians to condemn those who believe in other teachings than their own, and it's wrong of hard-left liberals to condemn any religious person for showing any sort of religious tendencies. I am not against a moment of silence, I am not against a pledge of allegiance. In the end, they are unimportant rituals that most children take with a grain of salt. Focus on something more worthwhile, like the suppression of creativity in writing classes via the use of standardised methods, or the heavy influence SATs and ACTs have in the judgement of admission to college, despite being flawed processes to measure intelligence. For the record, I didn't score low on this tests and am rebelling against them out of embitterment, I scored a 1200 and 34, respectively. How about the fact that the exploration of any obviously present, religious or spiritual significance in literature is being ignored in the English classroom? There are many holes in our educational system that need filling more urgently than anything dealing with the two to three minutes of morning announcements, like low funding, insufficient resources, a lack of qualified teachers, and the effects of the bureaucracy on the upper echelon of the educational system. Get over it, God damn it.
Adios.
Currently Playing Song: Lungfish - Indivisible. (Heh, coincidental.)
Quote of the Moment: "I pledge allegiance / to the flag / of the United States of America / And to the Republic / For which it stands / One nation / Under God / Indivisible / With Liberty and Justice / For all / Amen." (Yes, the original Pledge ended with Amen, until that was deemed too "religious," despite simply being a Hebrew term for the termination of things, such as "and that is all," or "that's that." I used to end the pledge with Khattam-Shud, instead, just because it made people either laugh or angered.)
One Nation Under God
I remember when there were certain movements to eliminate the "moment of silence" from the morning announcements of public school. That, itself, was such a ludicrous and idiotic notion that I vividly remember laughing out loud at it when I first heard. I mean, the faction or type of faction that calls for such a passing of legislation already has gotten the satisfaction of expunging the old tradition of morning prayer, but now they don't even want to allow for the option of praying? One minute and thirty seconds of silence, where a child is instructed to do whatever may please their personal religion or belief system silently, which was shortened to one minute and, eventually, thirty seconds, by the time I graduated. There's nothing even remotely religious about silence, unless one chooses to, by his or her own whim, to think inside their head of a prayer, chant, oath, or whatnot. Silly extremists and their lack of logic, who are now clamouring to eliminate the "under God" portion of the pledge of allegiance. The main defense for this seems to be the "separation of Church and State" clause of the United States Constitution, derived from everybody's favourite amendment, number One:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Pretty black and white, that is. It's hard to really argue whether or not it's unconstitutional to lawfully require children to learn or recite anything religious. God forbid that happen.
I can't take this very seriously, myself. To think that there is any kind of uproar over two words of the pledge of allegiance induces much laughter from me. How exactly are they going to change it? Reword it, perhaps to "One nation under a deity of one's own personal choice if any such supreme being happens to exist within the context of one's belief system or lack thereof." Not very catchy, if you ask me. I suppose the implications of this court ruling on the pledge is that the school's can no longer force children to stand up and pledge. Now, in the public school system I attended, nobody was being forced, anymore, by about ninth grade. Adults figure that by the time somebody has turned fifteen, they possess enough common sense to make a decision regarding such a trivial matter on their own, or they've simply grown apathetic and weary of yelling at students who refuse to stand, in the first place. Again, I imagine what the issue here is that people will attempt to completely erase the presence of the pledge from the classroom. The Constitution forbids any law regarding religion or a religious institution to be passed, it doesn't say we should forget completely about the existence of such things. The reason why I was so appalled by those who wished to remove the moment of silence was that it was a meager suggestion to pray, or honour whatever religious practices one . . . Uh, practices, not a mandate to get on your knees and worship God. It was an order to shut the hell up and respect those who may do so, however, which I can't see why anybody would have a problem with. "Oooh, we can't let the little kiddies start to respect their peers and the varying forms of religion which are present in today's day and age, no, no! If Johnny wants to beat up Ahmed the Muslim for praying in the bathroom, or yell noisily over Jimmy the Baptist while he attempts to partake in a morning prayer, let him!"
If you can't tell already, I'm somewhat of a cynic and a pinch bitter. Stupid wastes of times like this make me sick, when there are such more urgent issues floating around, like the slow and painful murder of our planet and, I don't know, starvation and poverty everywhere, but, I guess, if you want to dwell on a tiny, insignificant issue like the word "God" being spoken in school, go ahead. After that, why don't you go destroy the heathens who are having us put our hands on the Holy Bible when testifying in court, or those crazies who voluntarily send their progeny to the Hell-spawn institution of Sunday School. Pfft, morons. To paraphrase the comic Gary Fitzsimmons, you sure must have a concrete system of morals and beliefs if me standing up on stage for thirty minute making jokes crumbles it to the ground. In the same way, if your little . . . Whatever-religion-follower . . . kid all of a sudden denounces his previous religion because he's being asked to say the word "God," then I have to wonder how well you instilled that religion in their head very well, and I doubt it would've lasted that long in the face of an argument over the existence of God with an agnostic.
Do I believe it should be law to say "under God" in the pledge? No, not really, I don't. Do I believe it should be law to say the pledge at all? Not really, no, I don't. I stopped standing for the pledge in eighth grade or so because I realised how silly it was to have to reiterate my loyalty to the country on a daily basis by mindlessly and repetitively reciting memorised lines while facing a colourful rectangle of cloth. I love being born in America, living and thriving within a country where I have such freedom and opportunity laid before me thanks to the death and struggle of many, many Americans before me. I appreciate that fact, but do I need to say that every day of my life for it to be true? No, not really, I don't.
When you are within the boundaries of an institution which upholds different beliefs than you do, it is common courtesy to respect those beliefs, not to spit in their faces and tell them they're wrong. I'm not implying that you should believe what is upheld there, either. Just shut up and realise that it is respectful to not question the surrounding customs and traditions for no reason other than to piss them off. I spoke the Lord's Prayer at a friend's high school graduation a few weeks back because he went to a private, Christian school and it was their way to do so. I may not be a Christian, but when I am drowning in them, I don't kick and scream and cry about it, because you can't expect to go somewhere Christian and not be exposed, somehow, to those ideals. No shit, people, the majority of this country follows a monotheistic religion in some form or fashion, from Judaism to Catholicism to Christianity and sects ranging from Southern Baptist to Korean Baptist (that was a new one to me) to Lutheran, Protestant, and Presbyterian. You have the freedom to not follow those religions, and, by law, nobody can deride or refute you for doing so, but when you are in a room with a 20:1 ratio of religious people to atheists, expect to, perhaps, be asked to mumble the word God, in turn, and get over it. I said the pledge for numerous years of my life, but I don't think that is any factor whatsoever in my belief in a God. I don't sit back at night and think, you know, out of everything that constitutes my own religion, I think that having to say the word "God" everyday for eight, nine, ten years is the most influential portion of it. Nobody is questioning your personal beliefs when they ask you say to "one nation under God," or to observe thirty seconds of quiet time while some kid on the other side of your aisle prays, they're performing their own rituals. If I cross my forehead in front of you, and you happen to be . . . I don't know, Buddhist or Hindu, I'm not spitting in your face and thinking, "Your religion is wrong and evil, evil I say!" I'm not even thinking about you because you are irrelevant to my religion. And, no, I don't think Buddhism or Hinduism are evil, it was sarcasm, before someone gets pissy about that.
It could be pointed out that if "one nation under Buddha" had been the line, it would've been questioned a lot sooner. Well, duh. Of course, the first thought to pop into my head is that Buddha is not necessarily considered a deity in all forms of Buddhism, rather an enlightened teacher of how to live your life to attain what he referred to as Nirvana, or a state of all-knowing. But, whatever, it's an example people use arbitrarily to make a point completely departed from what Buddhism actually is, and I find it amusing to be an ass about it just to make them angry. If the national religion of Britain was suddenly changed to Taoism, I do believe, for some reason, that the majority of that country would be upset about that, since they don't practice that religion. I'm struggling to find any real substance in the argument that if it had been Shiva or Zeus or Jupiter or Odin or Isis or Anubis or Medusa instead of God, there would've been action taken earlier. That point is moot in the face of the fact that the majority always tends to muffle the cries of protest from the minority. It took centuries for women to get more liberties. Why? Because the majority of people in power were always men. People point out things like "If it had been Buddha," to try and attempt to make Christians look evil for wanting their deity of choice to be the one in the pledge, as though, if it had been Buddha and not God for fifty years, Buddhist would just kind of shrug and go "Eh, that's cool," when people decided to petition for the removal of Buddha from the line. Yeah, sure. Everybody prefers their way of thinking, because it's their's and not somebody else's, this isn't a behaviour reserved for Christians or any other section of society.
It's popular belief to accept that the foundation of the colony of William Bradford on Plymouth Rock was to provide religious sanctity for him and his Puritan comrades. Of course, most of the colonisation of America was funded by companies who believed that there were some mystical cities of Gold waiting to be discovered somewhere in the New World. Many of our older laws were based on the Bible, and the Bible Belt still exists with the lingering of certain Blue Laws. It's hard to say whether or not America was ever united by God, or by economy and the greed of humans. It's nice to think that we all get warm, fuzzy feelings in our stomachs, hold hands, and share a mutual happiness in the solace of God's name, but that's pretty far from the truth, in ignorance of other religions and those lacking religious leanings. Is this "One Nation Under God?" Not anymore, not with all the corruption in politics, the murders in the streets, and those who cringe at the thought of allowing someone to openly practice any sort of religious ritual. It's wrong of fundamentalist Christians to condemn those who believe in other teachings than their own, and it's wrong of hard-left liberals to condemn any religious person for showing any sort of religious tendencies. I am not against a moment of silence, I am not against a pledge of allegiance. In the end, they are unimportant rituals that most children take with a grain of salt. Focus on something more worthwhile, like the suppression of creativity in writing classes via the use of standardised methods, or the heavy influence SATs and ACTs have in the judgement of admission to college, despite being flawed processes to measure intelligence. For the record, I didn't score low on this tests and am rebelling against them out of embitterment, I scored a 1200 and 34, respectively. How about the fact that the exploration of any obviously present, religious or spiritual significance in literature is being ignored in the English classroom? There are many holes in our educational system that need filling more urgently than anything dealing with the two to three minutes of morning announcements, like low funding, insufficient resources, a lack of qualified teachers, and the effects of the bureaucracy on the upper echelon of the educational system. Get over it, God damn it.
Adios.
Currently Playing Song: Lungfish - Indivisible. (Heh, coincidental.)
Quote of the Moment: "I pledge allegiance / to the flag / of the United States of America / And to the Republic / For which it stands / One nation / Under God / Indivisible / With Liberty and Justice / For all / Amen." (Yes, the original Pledge ended with Amen, until that was deemed too "religious," despite simply being a Hebrew term for the termination of things, such as "and that is all," or "that's that." I used to end the pledge with Khattam-Shud, instead, just because it made people either laugh or angered.)
posted by c.Jay Wrong at
4:57 PM
<< Home