No. 118 (essentialsaltes) wrote,
No. 118

Indivisible Enigma

Has it occurred to anyone that by having those two words removed, the majority of people are having their rights trampled?

The majority's rights? Which right is this? The right to feel comfortable that schoolchildren are saying "under God" every morning? That must be one of those rights created by liberal activist judges. Okay, I'll stop picking on the member of the booboisie who wrote the above.

Suffice it to say, removing those two words from the school pledge has nothing to do with anyone's personal freedoms. Everyone is free to say their favorite version of the pledge whenever they feel the need to. Just as everyone is free to pray whenever they like. But an organized public school activity is different. Personally, I never had a huge problem with the Pledge. I just held my breath for a couple seconds and continued on. But looking at it objectively, it's hard to defend the law that inserted "under God" into the pledge.

The Supreme Court doesn't have a perfect way of deciding these kinds of religious issues, but the current system uses the Lemon Test:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

This law doesn't get very far before failing the test. What is the secular purpose of a law that does nothing other than add "under God" to the Pledge?
Of course, supporters of the two words will counter my Lemon Fu with Ceremonial Tae-Kwan-Deism, the idea that those words don't actually mean anything, wink-wink. It will be interesting to see what the Supremes make of the case, if and when it gets there. If the list of amicus curiae briefs resembles the list from the first abortive go-round, one wonders why all these religious groups are het up one way or another over something that doesn't really mean anything, wink-wink.

Anyway, I didn't really intend to rant about this, but I was thinking about the phrase 'one nation indivisible'. Inserting 'under God' into that phrase divides the nation.

All right, moving out of the deep end of the meme pool into shallower waters, last night was the kick-off meeting for Enigma for the school year. The turn-out was great. They pulled a lot of new freshpeoples in, including a good number of the female persuasion. Plenty of gaming, eating and mingling. Though, as is often the case, there was a certain amount of masochism inherent in going to the event:
-Todd points at me and says, "You're old, aren't you?" In his defence, I will assume he meant 'old as opposed to being new to Enigma'. Nevertheless, there was almost a quick game of age and deviousness versus youth and pudginess.
-While I was describing how and when I met Becca in the dorms at UCLA, a callow freshwoman casually announced that that was the same month she was born. Thank you so much, dearie.

I tried to talk to as many new people as Old Ones and roughly succeeded. To make this more LJ-o-centric, I can say that I saw colleency & aaronjv & therrin & chibi_neko & mooglepower & crestedpenguin.
Tags: blog, enigma, politics, religion

  • Death in a Bowl, by Raoul Whitfield

    Fresh off reading about Tough Guy Writers, it was maybe inevitable that a few titles caught my eye. Death in a Bowl, featuring a murder of the…

  • Artistic Consumption

    Last Tuesday, Uzbeki pianist Behzod Abduraimov tore the cover off Rachmaninoff's Third Piano Concerto at the Hollywood Bowl. I can't say that I know…

  • Blindness, by Jose Saramago (feat. Blow-Up by Antonioni)

    Saramago won the Nobel Prize for literature a couple years after Blindness was published. A mysterious infectious ailment causes people to go blind.…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded