M.C. Busman

I'm posting a series of letters between my sister & I about the pledge. She's an educated moderate, open minded God-believer-not-Christian. Me: full time job, happiliy married w/ kid. I'll post more of our letters as they arrive. Why am I posting these here, you may wonder? They offer insight into what an educated, non-religious "generic god" believer thinks. All personal names & references to specific places have been removed, of course.
---------------------
From: M.C.
06-29-02

Dear Sis,

Personally, I prefer the ~original~ pre-politically correct 1954 Knights-of-Columbus-McCarthyite version,

"...One Nation INDIVISIBLE, With Liberty and Justice for all!"

Hey, isn't that what we are? Undivided, unified...the UNITED States of America. If they decide to change it to the Godly States of America instead, someone lemme know....

All The Best,
M.C.

---------------------
From: Sis
06-29-02

M.C.,
I like one nation indivisible too. I think that either Dad taught it to us like that, or when we first learned it at [elementary school] they were still using it, because I recall that I too had to change the way I said it. (And I wasn't around in '54)

I like the idea of people in school saying the pledge. If they don't want to say it, i think that it still shows that they are respecting this nation and the fact that they are getting educated in it, by standing respectfully when it is said if nothing else. I've always liked the pledge...How about you?

Love,
Sis
-----------------
From: M.C.
06-30-02

hi Sis,

Yeah, I'm definitely a POA [Pledge of Allegiance] fan as long as we leave out the "under god" (u.g. for short) part! Why don't religious people say that version in church, and leave the original way for everything else?. I'm not looking forward to [my kid] learning the pledge if it is recited that way in school. [the kid] will end up either 1. reciting the u.g. due to peer pressure, or 2. will be rewarded for omitting it with the liked of "un-American", "commie", and (for reasons that escape me), "jesus killer" like I was.

I learned from a 'scout leader that it was as acceptable to stand at salute, or salute and seat onesself if one didn't want to say the pledge for whatever reason (I always said the pledge anyway, remaining silent for "under god"). Congress messing with the pledge in 1954, regardless of the reason, would be like someone inserting at the end of the Beatle's "I wanna hold your hand", something along the lines of "...and Buddha's". It wasn't intended to be there, doesn't sound right, and the original artist(s) probably would have been repulsed at its inclusion. Of course with the political power of religion, no-one will ever VOTE to return the POA to its original form. The courts thankfully, are not swayed by popular opinion. Or so I though.

Now, is it just me, or...have you noticed how THE ENTIRE MEDIA (supposedly so liberal) seems to be against the 9th circ's original rendering? And all the downright mean stuff people are saying about Newdow (who is an emergency room physician AND an law school graduate!), who brought the suit on his daughter's behalf? What a bunch of self interested fools people are. They figure it's o.k. to leave that phrase in because it agrees with their own personal beliefs, and the rest of us should acquiesce and either not participate ("un-American"), or not say the two words (my tack originally in school, which won me grief nonetheless). Hey, whatever happened to church and state separation? Why not go all the way and just declare it one nation under Jesus H Christ?

Then we have people championing the "since the majority believes, it should stay!" view. These are the same clowns who vehemently disagreed with changing our voting system from electoral college (republic) to a true voting democracy after the Gore-Bush fiasco in Flori-duh. (hey, no-one had much of a choice in '00)

Maybe I can just teach [the kid] to say something inoccuous in place of "u.g", like "under Energizer Rabbit..."

Hmph. Really. What a crock of rotten beans.

love you despite being utterly peeved,
M.C.
------------------
From: Sis
07-01-02

Hi M.C.,

G.O.D.= Good Orderly Direction for some people...maybe you can teach [your kid] that. And I bet that if you teach [the kid] to say the pledge the way it is taught in school (whatever way it is by then) and then teach that he can just remain silent during that part, he will learn to also appreciate the history behind the whole thing (the change, who wanted it changed, and the most recent ruling).

I agree that using that line 'under god' isn't really separating church and state, and state run public schools should just leave it out, and go with the orig.

How about one nation under nature. or under sky or under good.

gotta go but I miss you!

love,
Sis
--------------------
From: M.C.
07-01-02

Hi Snis,

How 'bout teaching our kid to say "One Nation, WITHOUT god, indivisible..." But that's not much better than being silent during the 2 words (I was in school), as far as people eventually noticing and using it as an excuse to call you names, squash your lunch, or exclude you from things. It isn't easy, having a choice between doing what is right (what your conscience dictates), like remaining silent or complaining, and saying something you do not believe for the sake of your political and social survival. Nothing should come between the idea of our country being free of division, not even the idea of keeping the majority happy.

No matter how many nice acronyms and creative definitions we come up with for god --and I can understand why people use the method you do, I don't necessarily disagree with it in instances we've discussed together before-- Most people agree that god refers to a one, supreme diety. That was the intent of the congressmen who squished "under god" into the pledge in 1954, that was Eisenhower's intent when he signed it into law--to show we were not "godless communists", or even "godless". But what about those of us, moral, law-abiding people, who are happily godless?

Most atheists love the pledge. It is beautiful --and consitiutional-- until we come to those two odd words, words that belong in a church or home, not public [] elementary or [] high school. So, why is the so-called "liberal media", like the rest of the public, so against removing these words? Why does our nation's President call the 9th circ's rational, lawful descision "ridiculous"? Why are people, including several U.S. senators & congressmen saying that WE ATHEISTS ARE WORSE THAN THE SEPTEMBER 11th TERRORISTS?

Maybe I should turn myself in. After all, in the opinions of these people, I am destroying the moral fiber of our nation by supporting separation of church and state (therefore, I too must be highly immoral!!!). I had a co-worker the other day tell me that maybe I should move to Iran or North Korea (neither place is dominated by atheists, which isn't what I'm looking for anyway--I'm American & proud of it!). Although I had a funny witty comeback that made everyone else laugh (and made this man look like a fool), I no longer feel as secure in just letting people know I do not share the common belief in god as I once did. Sis, people are getting death threats. Unlike the civil rights era where at least the federal government investigated threats and offered some protections to minorities, apparently no agency is doing anything about these threats now. I can't believe some of the things I am hearing over the radio, and overhearing in public places, like in line at the checkout at [the supermarket]. I can't believe I am hearing these things from Americans, in America--in supposedly "liberal" California.

I think "liberal" has become a misused buzzword for anything certain people don't like. Wonder what they'd think about the revolutionary "liberals" who established our country. Funny how suddenly people think of the founders as these staunch, old conservatives. No-one wants to discuss that Benjamin Franklin's idea of having a daily prayer for guidance at the start of the constitutional convention was voted down. Instead people blather on about the few references to "creator" in the Dec of Ind. and private letters concerning the beliefs of individual signors....no-one wants to answer why there is no mention of god in the bill of rights, why we have a bill of rights INSTEAD of the 10 commandments as our national guide.

Maybe with all of the fervor some politically savvy congressman will try to add an ammendment to permenently preserve "under God" in the pledge. Maybe we can have another ammendment to the consitiution which declared that the USofA recognized that god does exist. Maybe we can even declare ourselves a christian nation. What the heck. Shouldn't the majority get to do whatever they want? Then, the congressman who introduces the bill to add the ammendment can run for president, guaranteeing that the USofA will finally become that dear theocracy Pat Robertson has always wanted.

But that's o.k. I'm sure that people as good and honorable as god believers and christians would take care of us atheists, protect us from harm, discrimination and prejudice. As long as we acted like we agreed with them, prayed with/like them, and hid the fact we were atheists. Don't ask, don't tell.

So, should I just be quiet now when people call us "worse than...terrorists"? Or do you think I should continue to stand up for what is fair? Is there a precident anywhere for people remaining silent ever getting anything done? Should I get a little gold cross and pretend to be christian? :-)

love you :-), don't love extremists, :^P
M.C.

P.S., have you noticed that most people don't know what E Pluribus Unum means anymore?

P.S.S., notice how people are freaking out about this stupid pledge thing as all of the real news about crooked CEO's is just floating over everyone's head? :-O
----------
(to be continued....maybe)