God in pledge should offend no one
Pondering John Klimenok’s well-reasoned letter to the editor published in the Sept. 26 edition of The Times Argus, I am reminded that advocates for causes that are important to them sometimes bend or break definitions to win an argument or to make their case. In John’s letter he says, “When the United States government incorporates ‘under God’ in its pledge, it accepted these beliefs and consequently endorsed monotheistic religions.”
Just a few points: “Endorse” means to support, sanction or approve, and the government does not support, sanction or approve monotheistic religions. Passively allowing these words in the pledge does not do anything for monotheistic religions, zero. I often wonder why an atheist would care what someone else believes as long as their rights are not diminished or hurt. It is hard to understand why hearing the word “God” causes irritation.
Years ago I had a discussion about the existence of God with an atheist on a committee of which I was a member. In conclusion of our talk he said something that stuck with me, “Some say there are no atheists, only those who rebel against God.”
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed