The Pledge, Religion and Abortion

The ‘under God’ phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance is once again in jeopardy. Apparently a guy named Michael Nudoff, an atheist in Sacramento, feels he knows what’s best for the rest of us. I have a feeling he likes the lime light and uses the pledge as a stepping stone to fame. And look mom, it’s working!What gives? This country, though not forcing anyone to conform to a religious belief, is made up of many people (like it or not) who are religious. Since our government is an entity composed of our nations people (made of the people, by the people, and for the people), it only makes sense that their religion will influence their decisions. Does this mean that we can have no religious people in our government? If in times of national distress, when politicians are telling people, “You are in our prayers” should they be stricken from their jobs? The answer to both these questions is, ‘of course not’!

They are acknowledging the faith that they know people have in their own Gods. They are not suggesting that people must believe in God at all. But, since knowing that many, many people do believe in a God, the acknowledgement of that faith is only the right thing to do.

Our Pledge of Allegiance is an acknowledgment of our patriotism to our country, not an acknowledgement of an allegiance to God. An atheist should have no problem with other peoples expression of a higher power. If they do, too bad. This pledge, the way it is written right now does not advocate violence, hatred, bigotry, thievery, murder rape or pedophilia. It is simply saying “One nation, under God”. There are allot of things in life that we will run into that we do not like, and can not change, but there are things worth fighting to change and, this aint one of ‘em. The atheist who is pushing this suit can simply request that his kid or the parents of the children who he is representing , can stand outside the classroom while everyone else recites it.

And while I’m on the subject that the supreme court is working on, I’d like to talk about another subject that the supreme court will address again, sooner or later. Abortion. I want to know how the termination of a fetus’ life can be called (in official statements) “a womans right to choose”. This act, the act of sucking out the mutilated bodies out of a woman’s womb should be called, the womans right to kill. You know, when the constitution was drafted, and the first ammendment to the constitution was ratified, children were expected to pray in school.

There used to be books in public schools that spoke of the virtue of girls, and the behavior of boys. These topics, in addition to the acceptance of corporal punishment of children by parents (at their discression), and the religious acceptance at that time, used to keep the incidence of teen aged pregnancy down. Now, since it is less and less acceptable to whip the shit out of your kids, they are not afraid to do anything. So, what are they doing? By 12 years old, most are out doing it like rabbits, and smoking cigarettes, And, guess what’s happened? Teen aged pregnancy, since the age of school prayer, has sky rocked necessitating the need for legalized abortion because the little girls were all getting pregnant. With abortion being illegal too many of them were being mutilated along with their babies by unprofessionsl people. In most cases, they deserve to be mutilated along with their babies as a kind of poetic justice.

Why can a woman choose to suck a live, healthy baby from her womb in a million little pieces calling that a womans right to choose, but if a person punches her in the stomach causing a miscarriage the charge of murder or manslaughter is levied on the attacker?

IAborting pregnancy should be a choice when the life of the mother is at stake only. If the mother, and the fetus are healthy no matter who the father is, the abortion should be illegal. In other words, abortion as a form of birth control should be illegal. Girls today are considered to be more mature at their age than girls of the same age 20 or 30 years ago, and they are more capable of making a decision of either aborting a baby, or having the baby. I submit they are not. If anything, girls today are more out of touch since they lack the moral compass, self discipline and fore sight required to make good decisions that girls had back then.


Okay, that’s enough of my rant. I concede that my judgement is askew since I am a man and will never know what it’s like to be pregnant, but I submit that in most cases the pregnancies could have been prevented if the girls would stop doing “the do”. If they’d been taught that it’s not okay then they would be less likely to do it. If they had a belief in a higher power which provides guidance, and moral instruction , I submit they wouldn’t be doing it as much. Same goes for the boys. If they were more concerned about the health and purity of their souls, maybe they wouldn’t be doing it as much.

Bottom line, removing ‘God’ and prayer from from schools has had a detrimental effect on our nation’s moral standing and behavior. Almost nothing is taboo. I think atheists like it that way.; If they’re going down, why not take a few with them.,

Now, considering ‘Under God’ in the pledge is much the same.