Comments on: Texas to merge pledge, ‘under God’ http://www.bloggernews.net/16548 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Mon, 28 May 2012 06:26:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: John Eubanks http://www.bloggernews.net/16548#comment-22689 John Eubanks Thu, 10 May 2007 15:39:11 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16548#comment-22689 Putting theology into the Texas Pledge is nothing but pure religious bigotry. In the 1950's, when this was done for the very same reason with the US pledge, it may have been a bit more understandable with the communist scare. But today there is no justification for governemt-endorsement of theological doctrines. It is shameful and reflects poorly on our state at a time when our country is locked in a death-struggle with fundamentalist Islamic fanatics who assert the very same bigoted doctrines on behalf of their equally hate-filled "religion." Putting theology into the Texas Pledge is nothing but pure religious bigotry. In the 1950’s, when this was done for the very same reason with the US pledge, it may have been a bit more understandable with the communist scare. But today there is no justification for governemt-endorsement of theological doctrines. It is shameful and reflects poorly on our state at a time when our country is locked in a death-struggle with fundamentalist Islamic fanatics who assert the very same bigoted doctrines on behalf of their equally hate-filled “religion.”

]]> By: Jaime Hunter http://www.bloggernews.net/16548#comment-22528 Jaime Hunter Thu, 10 May 2007 07:20:17 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/16548#comment-22528 House Bill 1034 constitutes a big step in the wrong direction. It would seem that the sponsor of this bill, State Rep. Debbie Riddle, and other Texas lawmakers who support the bill overlook is what the founding fathers understood to be absolutely vital to the health and harmony of our great American society. I am talking about the separation of church and state. Ms. Riddle is quoted as saying “What they [supporters of this bill] value most is that this bill is found in a time and day when people want to take God out of everything.” Let's be real: There is plenty of religion in America. There is no shortage of churches, and people are free to worship--or not--to their heart's content. Children are free to pray (privately) in school. Ms. Riddle's justification of adding "under God" to the Texas Pledge to reflect the 1954-adulterated version of the Pledge of Allegiance is flawed reasoning too: Two wrongs don't make a right. So what is the real reason for crafting such a bill? Certainly, it caters to the current religious majority in this country, so from that standpoint understandably positions it to be popular. But is it right to use government (e.g. public schools) to forward the position of the religious majority, which is at the moment happens to be Christianity? That kind of logic is--as the founding fathers knew--a recipe for trouble. I understand that the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. How would Ms. Riddle and fellow supporters of this bill feel about adding "under Allah" instead of "under God"? That would seem logical if there comes a time when Islam becomes the majority religion in this country--if we neglect the importance of the separation of church and state and embrace the "majority rules" mentality when it comes to state-sponsored religion. That is the underlying spirit of this bill. The provision in the bill excusing students from the pledges at a parent's or guardian's written request is not at all a solution: Any child so exempted becomes an immediate outcast, and in particular, a religious outcast. I have personally experienced how horrible that is in Texas schools. If we are going to mandate that students recite pledges, they need to be pledges that can be recited proudly by ALL children--including, religious, non-religious, and everywhere in between. Adding words like "under God" or "under Allah" serve to focus attention on religious differences and divide our children into believers, non-believers, and agnostics. This should not be the role our public schools, and it is shameful for any of our state institutions--especially our schools--to engage in practices like this. House Bill 1034 constitutes a big step in the wrong direction. It would seem that the sponsor of this bill, State Rep. Debbie Riddle, and other Texas lawmakers who support the bill overlook is what the founding fathers understood to be absolutely vital to the health and harmony of our great American society. I am talking about the separation of church and state.

Ms. Riddle is quoted as saying “What they [supporters of this bill] value most is that this bill is found in a time and day when people want to take God out of everything.” Let’s be real: There is plenty of religion in America. There is no shortage of churches, and people are free to worship–or not–to their heart’s content. Children are free to pray (privately) in school.

Ms. Riddle’s justification of adding “under God” to the Texas Pledge to reflect the 1954-adulterated version of the Pledge of Allegiance is flawed reasoning too: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

So what is the real reason for crafting such a bill? Certainly, it caters to the current religious majority in this country, so from that standpoint understandably positions it to be popular. But is it right to use government (e.g. public schools) to forward the position of the religious majority, which is at the moment happens to be Christianity?

That kind of logic is–as the founding fathers knew–a recipe for trouble. I understand that the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. How would Ms. Riddle and fellow supporters of this bill feel about adding “under Allah” instead of “under God”? That would seem logical if there comes a time when Islam becomes the majority religion in this country–if we neglect the importance of the separation of church and state and embrace the “majority rules” mentality when it comes to state-sponsored religion. That is the underlying spirit of this bill.

The provision in the bill excusing students from the pledges at a parent’s or guardian’s written request is not at all a solution: Any child so exempted becomes an immediate outcast, and in particular, a religious outcast. I have personally experienced how horrible that is in Texas schools.

If we are going to mandate that students recite pledges, they need to be pledges that can be recited proudly by ALL children–including, religious, non-religious, and everywhere in between. Adding words like “under God” or “under Allah” serve to focus attention on religious differences and divide our children into believers, non-believers, and agnostics. This should not be the role our public schools, and it is shameful for any of our state institutions–especially our schools–to engage in practices like this.

]]>