Getting some discussion/feedback on this post, concerning the case before SCOTUS that involves the Pledge of Allegiance.

Perhaps I come from a particular bias, that the Pledge itself is harmless - especially as a tool for "promoting religion". The phrase in question, "under God", has been rendered generally meaningless by its repetition. There are no altar calls given at the end of its recitation. Indeed, it states that the speaker is pledging allegiance to a flag, to a nation, not necessarily to God, which it claims to be under while at the same time forsaking His ways.

To remove the phrase, however, would be another instance of the courts mandating something that's outside of their bounds as a judicial body. These two words were added by Congress, a voice for the people by the people of the people - there is a mandate to the work of Congress, while the courts are to judge impartially and relatively true to the difficult-to-define original intent.

And in this case in particular, at this time with these circumstances - this is more about a power play than a principled discourse on the separation clause. He wants some control over the life and faith choices of his daughter, and he has no authority, right or power to do so. Only by going to the Supreme Court does he feel that he can now control what she says and how she says it. I've got two children, and I love my wife. I still can't make them do what I want, but I seek to train them in the way they should go so they'll make wise and fruitful choices. I'm not trying to pass legislation to stop them from watching Spongebob or to go to Sunday School. He doesn't have an impact, and he wants one bad enough...

I realize I'm standing in judgment of someone's motives, a place I don't think I have the right to posit from there. So anything I say/write is already invalidated perhaps. One thing I know: this atheist needs someone real and meaningful in his life, someone to show him the love of Christ in a way that bring real change in himself - instead of false, superficial and ultimately fruitless change in the POA.
- posted by Rick @ 10:10