The story about the kids in Boulder is an inspiration. 50 students walked out during the Pledge on Thursday. They objected to the "under god" phrase. Even the principle was impressed.
I'm still digging into the background of this story and whether other students around the country are going to do something similar. Or maybe they already are?
Someone should ask our presidential candidates what they think about this. I'd love to hear what they have to say about separation of church and state.
they can get rid of the pledge of allegiance as far as i'm concerned -- most people dont even realize its a crass commercial modern invention, an 1892 advertising slogan designed to help sell flags which was slowly turned into a morale building gimmick (Reconstruction was still on everyone's minds even in 1892) and later codified as morale building gimmick in late 1945, amidst the despair and exhaustion and gloom of the immediate aftermath of WWII
but the "separation" of church and state has nothing to do with atheism or agnosticism. it was/is a prohibition against the formation of an official state religion (as they had and still have in england, for example.)
in short, the "separation of church and state" is not any type of injunction against a common notion of "God",or the sue of the word or concept "god" -- it's just a limitation on the state's right to choose what god one worships, or how or why.
all the founders of this country believed in god in one form or another -- not one, i wager, would have any problem with the use of the words "under God" in an official oath (e.g. in a pledge of allegiance.)
likewise, there is no historical basis at all for trying to get rid of the use of swearing on a Bible when bearing witness in a court of law (note that, in this country anyway, a person can swear in on any religious manuscript they want, Christian Bible, Jewish Torah, Qu'ran, whatever). also, our currency says "in god we trust" not "in jesus we trust" or "in Mohammed we trust".
i have no idea what prompted those kids to protest, and while i resepct and honor their right to do so, i must suspect some adult organization was behind all that. i simply don't look to children to have fully formed notions about such issues, and frankly, I dont think they should -- we're turning our kids into adults way too young. childhood and early adulthood are times for exploring all types and ranges of issues, not for adopting seemingly fully baked polemical stands.
Posted by: Steve Kane | September 29, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Not sure why you assume that "adults" are behind this.
I mean, these kids in just a year or two are expected to vote right?
I think kids today are pretty smart actually and aware of their surroundings. Nice benefit of being connected.
And with regards to whether "god" was part of the founding of this country....I really don't care. There were lots of problems with how our country was created. Let's try to fix it not be stuck in the past. So even if the founders had different intentions, I don't like the idea of mixing any type of religion in our public schools or other public institutions for that matter.
Posted by: Bijan Sabet | September 30, 2007 at 01:23 PM
this needn't be difficult. why can't we separate notion of "god" from notions of "religion"? they are not the same. most people (maybe all) don't believe or don't want to believe that life is meaningless -- if it is meaningless, why bother caring about morality or ethics or community or "good" and "evil"?
no, most people, even atheists, believe, or want to believe, in morality and ethics and community. ("love thy neighbor as theyself" isn't a religious statement, its a core value that most people embrace. ditto "thou shalt not kill" etc.)
what the founding fathers did so brilliantly, in my view, is to get rid of "state religion" without also trying to stamp out spritituality (as the Soviets and Mao-ists did/do, to truly tragic and horrifying effect.)
thing is, stamping out spirituality just doesn't work -- homo sapiens is spiritually inclined no matter how rationally Christopher Hitchens proves there is no "God" as represented in the bible. (even Hitchens embraces spirituality; he just is sick to death of preaching and hypocrisy and organized religion)
more importantly, who really wants to stamp out spirituality? not me, and I suspect, not you.
so why can't we just be at peace with the word "god"? its multi-denominational. unprejudiced against anyone's beliefs, even, i'd argue, atheists. when you hear the word "god", in your mind substitute the word "nature" or "life force" or "spirituality"
finally, i feel compelled to point out the dark irony of a world where we cheerfully accept -- even cheerlead -- when a major corporation seduces and convinces our kids that to "think different" means running out and buying expensive toys, but when we ask our kids to take a minute and think about community and unity and humility before the lifeforce that binds us all and the core values which we try to live up to (that is, "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all") we get outraged?
Posted by: Steve Kane | October 04, 2007 at 03:51 PM
The fact that you and I disagree on this is the *very* reason why this is an issue.
You think we all think the same regarding spirituality when we don't
That why you can say things like "this needn't be hard"
And i feel otherwise
That difference of opinion should be celebrated and not silenced
Posted by: bijan sabet | October 04, 2007 at 04:33 PM