nancylebov (nancylebov) wrote,

Supreme court decides pledge case on custody issue

A description of the decision is basically a swat at the Michael Newdow for trying to make the ultimate decision about his daughter's religious upbringing even though he's not the custodial parent.

While I'm also bemused at a society so wealthy that so much can be spent on the relatively minor decision of whether "under God" can be in the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm mostly pleased. I've heard him talk on NPR about how he's entitled to not have his religious views overriden in front of his daughter, and I'm distinctly not impressed. He also says that it's not his place to talk about his daughter's religious views in public--this is reasonable, but not good enough, imho, to make up for his arrogance in trying to make a no-official-religion bubble around her for the sake of his religious views.

As for why I think "under God" is a rather minor matter, I'm extrapolating my childhood reaction to the pledge, a purely emotional thing which roughly translates as "they're trying to bind me into a group I feel no connection to by making me say pointless words. I'm surrounded by idiots and there's no point in talking to them about it." I'm still not sure how much of that was depression and how much was good sense.
Tags: me, politics, religion

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded