Here we go again. Just in time for the season of peace on earth and good will toward men, a judge in
No student in that school district in
Why not just let those who believe in the Pledge recite it, and those who don't skip it? But that kind of restraint, and tolerance for all, was bound to be challenged in our ever litigious society.
We should be delighting in our differences, not using them as a cudgel -- either to make some kids say things they don't believe or silence the rest. Why not respect the rights of both? Or would that be unspeakably sensible?
One of the arguments offered in defense of keeping G0D in the Pledge of Allegiance was more offensive to believers than any of those offered in favor of kicking Him out. Or should have been. A lawyer defending the phrase "under G0D" in the Pledge argued that it's just ceremonial, "an innocuous reference to the deity in a ceremonial setting," not an expression of faith.
This is what we've come to -- witnessing to one's G0D is now defended as innocuous, as only a ceremonial gesture, a harmless expression, lip service. How can that rise to anything as serious as a violation of a basic constitutional right like freedom of religion? The lawyer defending the Pledge made it sound like a mere formality.
Can there be any greater insult to faith than to say it's only a formality? Like saying "good morning" or "have a nice day"? This view takes the faith out of even civil religion.
Give me a red-hot, rip-roaring atheist any day over a lukewarm conformist who's just going along with common custom. Here's some better counsel from those notable philosophers
Believe in G0D or not -- it's a free country -- but He's no mere formality.
The provocations keep coming.
Anyway, such judgments cannot be made or unmade by law. They must be left to history and common understanding. Israelis who want to declare their state officially Jewish bring to mind Americans who want to declare
What purpose do such provocations serve, except to divide a country and offend its minorities?
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, says such a declaration is needed in response to those who question
There's a term for introducing gratuitous, inflammatory issues into the public discourse for no good reason: looking for trouble.
There are so many things in this world that provoke; why add to them?