The fact that terrorists rammed planes into buildings does not change the fact that "under God" has absolutely no place in the Pledge. Or should we just throw civil rights out the window every time we're in the wake of a national tragedy? If I don't want to lay down and let people be delusional at the expense of my civil rights, that's my prerogative. "Unpatriotic" my fucking ass. It disrespects all the ideals the founding fathers strived for. They'd fucking vomit if they were alive today.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Honestly, the only reason I'm defending it - I think the change was stupid and rather silly myself - is the fact that it would be unpatriotic to change it back. National symbols are just that, and ultimately when you think of the fact that there were schoolchildren who recited the pledge with the words "under God" in it on 9/11, I can't imagine how anyone would want to modify it, nor should it be modified even if some do want it changed.AdmiralKanos wrote:Ad-hominem fallacy; the point is not affected by the personal problems of the guy who launched the case. And there would be no money being wasted if the Congress simply decided to change it back to a less exclusionary form (and despite Marina's bizarre evasions, it's pretty goddamned obvious who "God" is in the pledge), which they could do in about five minutes if they weren't a bunch of jack-asses.
Appeal to tradition.Yes, it's an entirely irrational argument. But a nation is more than a collection of people and a set of laws and a fixed definition of territory. Its history, culture, and ideals, the aspirations and the deeds of everyone in it, living or dead, have shaped it and given it a sort of life, at least within the minds of people - And that life should be appropriately honoured, the composite of the nation not stripped down and reduced through artificial means.
Admitting that the argument is irrational doesn't grant it any kind of validity or credibility. There is no rational argument in existence that justifies keeping "under God" in the Pledge, and there are plenty of perfectly rational ones around justifying its removal. What's the big fucking deal here? If it's "just two syllables," then people wouldn't be getting so pissy about its removal, would they?