You do make valid points here. If nothing else, I am aware that my venting probably seems very inappropriate to many at this time, given that there are much greater problems to worry about. I admit that I posted this right after recieving it in my mailbox and getting into an extensive debate with a co-worker who disagreed with my reaction.
I think the part of the reason it bothers me is personal - I feel that "One Nation Under God" shouldn't be in the pledge in the first place as it does suggest (IMHO) that those who don't believe in a God (specifically, the Christian god) don't belong. I feel like when Bush mentions it in his proclamation it insensitively gives the notion that those not "under God" are not part of the nation, or that those "under God" are not as upset, not grieving as much, which could not be further from the truth.
Part of it is the fact that U.S. political leaders seem to invoke God over every little thing....political leaders do not need to be making statements about God, at least if they are speaking in their public, political capacity - everyone is entitled to their own personal statements/beliefs. But Bush put all of this in a governmental proclamation.
Also I feel that this constant mentioning of God by political leaders really cheapens the sentiments of truly religious people.
And finally, I feel like at this time it is very important not to create an atmosphere of divisiveness as a nation. I am aware that Bush/his speech writers may have meant the "one nation under God" to be inclusive, but really it is exclsive, because whenever these political leaders mention "God" it is always in the context of the Christian version of God, excluding all others, and especially excluding people of no faith at all. It is offensive in its cluelessness.
I like that Bush recommended that supervisors let their employees go to noontime services - in this time of enormous stress people should be let go to find whatever solace they need, be it from church, priests, or from friends, family, psychiatrists, support groups, etc. What really steamed me was discovering that some conference rooms in my building are being offered as places to pray. IMHO the government doesn't have a place offering that kind of solace, though I think they are to be commended for letting folks out of work to go find their own solace.
I hope I have clarified some of what concerned me. I also hope this reply is more cool-headed than my previous post.
Thank you for this debate. Please comment more often!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2001-09-14 11:51 am (UTC)I think the part of the reason it bothers me is personal - I feel that "One Nation Under God" shouldn't be in the pledge in the first place as it does suggest (IMHO) that those who don't believe in a God (specifically, the Christian god) don't belong. I feel like when Bush mentions it in his proclamation it insensitively gives the notion that those not "under God" are not part of the nation, or that those "under God" are not as upset, not grieving as much, which could not be further from the truth.
Part of it is the fact that U.S. political leaders seem to invoke God over every little thing....political leaders do not need to be making statements about God, at least if they are speaking in their public, political capacity - everyone is entitled to their own personal statements/beliefs. But Bush put all of this in a governmental proclamation.
Also I feel that this constant mentioning of God by political leaders really cheapens the sentiments of truly religious people.
And finally, I feel like at this time it is very important not to create an atmosphere of divisiveness as a nation. I am aware that Bush/his speech writers may have meant the "one nation under God" to be inclusive, but really it is exclsive, because whenever these political leaders mention "God" it is always in the context of the Christian version of God, excluding all others, and especially excluding people of no faith at all. It is offensive in its cluelessness.
I like that Bush recommended that supervisors let their employees go to noontime services - in this time of enormous stress people should be let go to find whatever solace they need, be it from church, priests, or from friends, family, psychiatrists, support groups, etc. What really steamed me was discovering that some conference rooms in my building are being offered as places to pray. IMHO the government doesn't have a place offering that kind of solace, though I think they are to be commended for letting folks out of work to go find their own solace.
I hope I have clarified some of what concerned me. I also hope this reply is more cool-headed than my previous post.
Thank you for this debate. Please comment more often!