God’s amicus brief in the pledge of allegiance – That God knows what He is talking about!
Aside
Comments are closed.
this is a land of mystery and wonder
God’s amicus brief in the pledge of allegiance – That God knows what He is talking about!
Comments are closed.
An oldie, but a goodie. The world has made great strides towars tollerance and even accpetance. It’s something that should be acknowledged before talking about these kinds of things. While homosexuality is not given the same protections as heterosexuality (except in Massachusetts), people who are homosexual are no longer considered mentally ill and the like. The problem is figuring out how this progress is made. How did we get from interracial marriage from being such a terrible thing to something that is so easily accepted today? A lot of it seems like it has, at one time or another, been forced upon us by the courts system.
The courts system in the United States seems to have been the founding father’s answer to the House of Lords. I was told by someone that the reason the English haven’t given up the House of Lords is that they have little, if any, power, but that their lifetime apointment allowed them to broach issues that someone from the House of Commons wouldn’t for fear of not getting re-elected. While I’m not sure if I follow that logic completely, you can draw a parallel from that function to the function of the courts system. It’s too bad that the Supreme Court decided to weasel out of the case by saying that it wasn’t clear that the father had jurisdiction over his daughter. While that might be true, it doesn’t change the fact that there was something a decision was needed on and they got out of their judicial duty.
A little while ago, Colin Quinn said that while he could see people objecting if it said Jesus or something, but that you couldn’t get angry over simply the concept. That was echoed by pretty much everyone else who was pro-pledge. I guess none of them thought of what their reaction would be if they pluralised it. It’s a legitimate propisition. Why not have our pledge espouse multiple dieties? More importantly, if you are pro-pledge, would you be angry if the Congress changed the pledge in that manner? If you would be angry about multiple dieties in the pledge, then you really can’t criticize a man for being angry about one diety in the pledge.