PAGE 3
NORTH COAST TIMES E A G L E , JULY 2002
LEE MILLER
PETER UNANDER
I agree with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision
from an historical standpoint because the Pledge of Allegiance
didn't have the “one nation under God” phrase in the original.
We already have “In God We Trust on the money — isn't that
enough?
It ought to say “In Greed We Trust."
I love this country, but I don't like the politics very much.
I don't like being a superpower
I think this thing about the Pledge of Allegiance is a side
issue There are a lot more important things happening right
now What happened to Enron? I think attention is being focused
away from the Middle East and from India and Pakistan. This
seems like another diversion like flag burning to get our minds
off the real issues we should be paying attention to.
“Under God” is an idiotic play of words — a battle
brought on by the religious right We re not a nation with only
one church We never were But the religious right wants us to
have one church exclusively. We have a President who is a
born again Christian and even though he is politically religious
he’s pretending not to be — but he is also trying to pretend he
was elected
THEDA SPRACKLIN
I'm against patriotism, all for Matriotism, so of course
I agree with the court's decision to remove the “under god”
clause in the Pledge of Allegiance. I didn't like it years ago in
kindergarten either, but at that time it was because l had trouble
with the concept of feeling safe and protected by a man hanging
nailed to a cross. It scared me. Still does.
I say, “One nation, under Mother Nature, with liberty and
justice for all.”
SEAN McMULLIN
God should not have any place in government. What if
you are Buddhist or atheist, are you excluded?
Freedom of religion should also include freedom from
religion A lot of people think freedom of religion means it’s their
religion the rest of us are free to worship.
Wasn’t freedom of religion established because our
ancestors came from religiously oppressive governments? We
were most definitely established as a Christian government but
that has to change because we have Muslims, Buddhists, Native
American religions which are still barely recognized, atheists and
agnostics. We are moving closer every day to a religious dictator
ship and minorities are being excluded.
The very statement ‘freedom of religion' is a joke. I don’t
remember when freedom of religion was taken away from us, so
how can anyone give it back?
We are apparently in the middle of a nationalistic orgy,
very anti-lslam, and we are starting to exclude them. Part of this
nationalism is based on “good” against “evil”, Christianity against
Islam.
I am an anarchist and it is hard for me to discuss rights
given to us that are inherently ours to begin with The only people
who take freedom of religion away from us are governments —
who else has?
PATRICIA LONGNECKER
The insertion of “under God" into the Pledge of
Allegiance interferes with iambicpentameter as well as being
a theological slap in the face to several people. The Pledge
was always a slap in the face to the Bill of Rights because
Congress is telling us we should pledge our allegiance and
whom we should worship. It’s presumptuous, period.
When “under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954 I
felt awkward. I thought using the word 'God' did not represent
all of us. Now it is getting even more complicated.
I tried to look up the population of Muslims and Jews,
but only organizations are listed. I think non-Christians in this
country are about half of all immigrants. And they are going to
public schools where the Pledge of Allegiance is recited.
It would be nice if the government lived up to all that is
said in the Pledge and quit stepping on everybody’s inalienable
rights. I hate dishonesty. I don’t mind people disagreeing with
me, but to patronize, lie and think and I’m stupid makes me very
angry. Our leaders think we are stupid as a society and want to
keep us that way.
God forbid if democracy works!
MICHAEL MILLER (aka ‘SASHA’)
I think it’s fantastic. The fact is, we have a defacto
Christian nation. Theoretically we have freedom of religion
in this country and to a large extent that is true, except the
Judeo-Christian majority has found some subtle ways to
sanction their God and for government to sanction their God.
We don’t have “In Allah We Trust or “In Buddha We
Trust" or “In The Great Spirit We Trust on our money. Most of
our holidays are Christian holidays and are sanctioned by the
government. So if you’re not a Christian you are constantly
hearing the government put forth the Christian God. The easiest
way to see this is to reverse it — that this is instead a Muslim
nation and you are a Christian and everything is in the name of
Allah; you pledge allegiance to Allah.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made exactly the right
decision. The government should never force anyone to recog
nize any form of deity or take part in any ceremonies recogniz
ing any deity. The Pledge of Allegiance recognizes the Judeo-
Christian deity. This would not be tolerated if the Pledge had
Allah one week, Buddha the next. Christian parents wouldn’t
tolerate it and would pull their kids out of school.
I think the U.S. Supreme Court could go either way if
the decision got up to them, depending on the political pressure
It’s like the Ten Commandments — you can’t have them posted
in public buildings including schools. I hope the Supreme Court
goes this way about the Pledge of Allegiance.
DARA SOLLID AY
I think it's really good. It’s very important we shed the
old doctrine and evolve — like the Church persecuted people
who said the Earth wasn’t flat or the center of the universe. The
Church has always influenced politics and time and time again
has been proven wrong.
I think it is right that the term “under God” in the Pledge
of Allegiance be questioned because we are no longer a nation
exclusively Puritan or Protestant. We’ve grown into a nation
of people of every color, every religion and every science, and
I think a pledge of alliance should reflect our diversity.
URIAH HULSEY
They're right. I think The Pledge of Allegiance should
go back to the original. It was not designed just for this country.
It was designed for any country. The guy who wrote it (Baptist
Minister Francis Bellamy) intended it for everybody, not just the
United States.
The first thing that was added to the original Pledge
was “United States of America.” The second was “under God."
(Bellamy) would be rolling around in his grave
I think we should go back to the original and cut out the
bullshit. It was silly for anybody to bring a lawsuit — I'm tired of
all these lawsuits — but the man did, and the court was right
DENIS BOU Rl AND
‘Studio /V’
DENIS BOURLAND
TIM DALRYMPLE
RHONDA BURKE
ERIC SWENSON
CHARLOTTE BRUHN
STEVE MENDELSON
I have always thought the Pledge of Allegiance is the
country’s school prayer.
PAUL EVALT (9E2X)
One nation under 9E2X.
I think 9E?X is an improvement on God.
RON BALDWIN
I’m just surprised with the political climate that
anybody’s thinking about the Constitution at all.
TIM BISH
INSIPID HOLLOWDAYS
I am a veteran of the Vietnam War. I spent most of
a year as a USMC’combat correspondent’ with infantry and
reconnaissance up around the DMZ and south to My Lai which
we roared through a year earlier than Calley's platoon.
The war is never far from my thoughts, essentially an
underlying music scored for horror movies which I expect to last
until I finish up on the other side of the dirt with my war-mates
who did not survive Vietnam or died later from wounds, drugs,
suicide or just plain numbed inertia. Well meaning friends insist
I forget about the war but that is as impossible as it is dishonest
to deny war's insights into the real human character we generally
camouflage to protect ourselves from self-knowledge
I think that is a major reason I seriously object to the
manner in which we in the USA commemorate Memorial Day
— and forthat matter the equally empty celebration of Labor Day
(unions don’t march anymore). Each seems to be little more than
a bookend holiday weekend beginning and ending the annual
Silly Season.
Memorial Day was first established as a single day
of national mourning for its war dead (with a powerful element
of jingoism inherent), inspired by the Civil War in which every
one killed on either side or caught inbetween was an American.
The questions of just and unjust wars are momentarily trans
cended by annual recognition of their grim costs. Now that
we are at war again, which might prove to be pyrrhic as well
as perpetual, it is essential that all of us are truly aware of what
we are countenancing
I think Memorial Day should return to a single day,
May 30 as it was traditionally, and be regarded in its original
intent or discarded entirely.The present 3-day holiday makes a
mockery of commemoration of the nation’s war dead and public
ceremonies appear tawdry and comically manipulative.
If we are to honor Memorial Day we should do it for
real, the same with Labor Day, or abolish both in acknowledg
ment they have been trivialized to little more than facades for
commercially sponsored partying Chambers of Commerce
will yowl at any such return to basics, of course, and regard it
as obviously anti-business as well as palpably unpatriotic
Perhaps public celebrations (such as July 4th, which is
the centerpiece of summer holidays) are meant to go only skin
deep — as insipid officially sanctioned observances of things
that profoundly affect us individually and as a nation — to ease
the itch of nagging deeper reflections that might be dangerous
-M ichael M c C usker
RIVERSEA GALLERY, 1169 COMMERCIAL ST., ASTORIA
»
Instead of trying to force anyone to say the Pledge of
Allegiance, I think we should learn its origin and why it is being
said as well as why it is considered important.
There are issues of nationalism as well as of God
inherent in the Pledge, and rather than focus only on its religious
aspect, there should be a greater discussion around it.
TERRY ERICKSON
Whatever form it takes, even without “under God," I
would like to see the Pledge of Allegiance continue in schools,
and in public and government meetings because standing in
front of the flag and reciting it is a sign of patriotism. It is a
pledge to the United States and is what patriotism is all about.
I think people are placing too much emphasis on the
“under God” phrase and battlelines are being drawn. I find the
phrase basically harmless, but if it’s got to go, then it's got
to go. But keep the Pledge. It was important when I was a kid
and it's even more important now.
People are afraid that by taking “under God” out of the
Pledge is showing a lack of faith in the country, but that is out of
context with the real issue.
I think the Pledge and God are separate issues. If you
want to worship God, go to church. We are pledging allegiance
to the United States, not to God.
THROUGH JULY 17
AGNES FIELD
The Pledge of Allegiance is a great pledge and we ought
to keep it. I like the flag; it's pretty. But we need to redefine God.
R. LOUIS RICHARDS
How about:
“One nation indivisible under the Constitution"?
AMY CODISPOTI
I think a phrase like “under God" is a Christian
connotation that usually reverberates negative feelings in our
society because Christianity has become a commercialized
consumer oriented religion, and that is very sad. I think the
fundamental teachings of Christ are beautiful, but the negative
way Christianity has evolved in this country (and perhaps around
the world), I think it is right for the phrase “under God” to be
declared unconstitutional. Our ideas of God are various and are
not represented in that phrase. It should never have been added
in the first place
BARBARA BROWN
I agree with the Court. I believe our country should not
say it is founded under God That’s a hypocritical statement for
our behavior
It’s hard for me to put God and war together My God
is based on love not war, on diversity and learning to understand
each other and find ways to get along with different cultures and
peoples.
Afghanistan has had enough devastation without us
pounding it with bombs. I have to find out what underlies this
— is it about oil? Do God and oil mix?
KEVIN VIOLETTE
I used to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in
school. The words “under God" never hurt me. Nor did they
affect my perception of God much. The words probably should
not have been added in 1954, but now it wouldn't be worth the
hurt feelings to take it out. Those who don't believe in God
should mumble during that part, and no one will notice. I do
think that no one should be required to say the Pledge at all
if they don't want to. It's a free country, after all.