It is clear (at least to me) that the decision goes to the heart of what a "Pledge of Allegiance" is and to what it means to be an American citizen. To swear loyalty to one's country should not have a religious-belief test embedded, at least not in a country that purports to embrace religious liberty. This is irrespective of the fact that most people are never required to recite the Pledge. If the First Amendment means anything at all, it is that all Americans are free to believe as they choose. It seems to me that Congress today, in their defiant-pledge-recital-on-the-Capitol-steps photo-op don't seem to get it. It has absolutely nothing to do with pushing god out of, or into, the public square. It has everything to do with whether government has the right to attempt to push god into the heart and/or mind of a citizen.
Most of the regimes there opposing the US supplanted US placed or Supported regimes. If you want lists, I'll send them to you. I just didn't plan on writing a book.
Israel is only part of the problem. The Islamic Salvation Foundation (Al-Qaeda) wishes to cleanse the islamic world of the influence of the infidels, not just Israel. All the regimes that the US has put in place and/or massively supported in the Middle East are almost to the last dictatorial, repressive regimes which remain in power solely because the US can say "Jump" and they'll say "how high." When those regimes come crashing down, and they have and will, the new governments are very likely to be heavily reactionary and understandably angry at the US. Neither does it bode well for the future prospects of democracy in those countries. Oppressive regimes are notoriously difficult to overthrow and the only powers capable of doing so are either the nation's own military, or outside powers, meaning foreign (if covert) intervention. Either way one can't say that democracy has much of a chance as a likely outcome. The people are likely to resent their "saviors" unless they are a popular domestic force.
No one can be universally liked, or loved. However, one can act in such a way as to minimize the dislike of others. Our government has been maximizing dislike around the world since the end of the second world war. The only way we can really feel more secure in the world is to follow the Golden Rule. We've been doing unto others so long, it was just a matter of time before we got "done unto." Sacrificing civil liberties or privacy will certainly make government officials happy, but we will be no more secure than we were last year, or 10 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
It is clear (at least to me) that the decision goes to the heart of what a "Pledge of Allegiance" is and to what it means to be an American citizen. To swear loyalty to one's country should not have a religious-belief test embedded, at least not in a country that purports to embrace religious liberty. This is irrespective of the fact that most people are never required to recite the Pledge. If the First Amendment means anything at all, it is that all Americans are free to believe as they choose. It seems to me that Congress today, in their defiant-pledge-recital-on-the-Capitol-steps photo-op don't seem to get it. It has absolutely nothing to do with pushing god out of, or into, the public square. It has everything to do with whether government has the right to attempt to push god into the heart and/or mind of a citizen.
Most of the regimes there opposing the US supplanted US placed or Supported regimes. If you want lists, I'll send them to you. I just didn't plan on writing a book.
Israel is only part of the problem. The Islamic Salvation Foundation (Al-Qaeda) wishes to cleanse the islamic world of the influence of the infidels, not just Israel. All the regimes that the US has put in place and/or massively supported in the Middle East are almost to the last dictatorial, repressive regimes which remain in power solely because the US can say "Jump" and they'll say "how high." When those regimes come crashing down, and they have and will, the new governments are very likely to be heavily reactionary and understandably angry at the US. Neither does it bode well for the future prospects of democracy in those countries. Oppressive regimes are notoriously difficult to overthrow and the only powers capable of doing so are either the nation's own military, or outside powers, meaning foreign (if covert) intervention. Either way one can't say that democracy has much of a chance as a likely outcome. The people are likely to resent their "saviors" unless they are a popular domestic force.
No one can be universally liked, or loved. However, one can act in such a way as to minimize the dislike of others. Our government has been maximizing dislike around the world since the end of the second world war. The only way we can really feel more secure in the world is to follow the Golden Rule. We've been doing unto others so long, it was just a matter of time before we got "done unto." Sacrificing civil liberties or privacy will certainly make government officials happy, but we will be no more secure than we were last year, or 10 years ago.