In the recent days, a certain case has come up for hearing in one of the courts in the USA. It concerns a certain gentleman called Paul Newdow who considers himself an atheist. He has a daughter who goes to school. Supposedly, in school the children recite a pledge(Is it some kind of a national pledge like the one in India?) which contains the lines ‘One Nation Under God’. Mr. Newdow has a problem with this particular line because according to it, he is made to look like a liar in the eyes of his daughter. Currently he is asking for the removal of these lines from the pledge. This case is making front headlines since a few days on major news channels.
Man! This urge for individualism and protection of rights goes to crazy lengths and no better example of this syndrome than the United States of America, I bet.
It’s impossible to truly express using any medium the true depth of one’s feelings towards God or any loved one, for that matter. Words just fall short when it comes to a real depiction. Even prayer just comes close to actually expressing the intensity and passion of the feelings. In fact, I have zero expectations out of any medium of any kind. Going by that, an atheist’s beliefs(or lack of it) cannot be challenged by any pledge of any kind.
Also, this case is supposed to be one of infringement of personal beliefs and rights. In that case, Newdow had better let his daughter decide whether she wants to be an atheist or a believer. Or whatever she cares for… Instead of forcing his beliefs on her.
To think that someone can actually take this case seriously….
rileen says:
I agree that the daughter should be free to make her own choice, but if you think about it, few religious families spare their children the heavy dosage of religious doctrines, customs etc while growing up. Society as a whole reinforces religious influence all the time through festivals etc.
So why would we expect an atheist to not ‘transmit’ his or her beliefs to their own children ? Freedom of choice comes with time, but ‘total freedom’ is non-existent, if possible at all.
In other words, what i’m saying that you can have freedom of choice, but not freedom from influence.
P.S : Words do have considerable power, pledges etc. don’t exist without reason.
March 25, 2004 — 6:33 am
Lakshmi says:
I don’t think I mentioned this… This guy is divorced from his wife who is a born again Christian and she has primary custody of the child. She has no issues with the pledge in school and there you go, you have two warring influences right at home…
My point is, influences creep in all the while. You aren’t going to bring up your daughter caged at home and hence, she’ll be subject to a million influences in varying degrees. What an educated and sensible individual should do is acknowledge these influences, I guess. Friends, relatives, school, society… your child is going to be at the receiving end of all kinds of experiences which may or may not colour her beliefs, her faith system. It is impossible to curb or enforce any such thing, I believe.
March 25, 2004 — 8:16 am
rileen says:
It is impossible to curb or enforce any such thing, I believe.
If that were true, would organised religion be quite as successful as it is all over the world?
I agree that trying to get the school pledge modified is a little extreme, but ‘one nation under god’ is a sweeping generalization too, and gives the impression that the nation itself is something to do with god/religion.
I’m not justifying the guy’s actions, and indeed i agree with your views. But they’re also views stemming from what we believe in.
People always try to pass on their values to their children, which is natural enough. For some of us, those values include letting the children make their own choices; for others, they don’t.
Many people want to decide on behalf of their children, be it on matters religious, or related to career, wedding ….. what have you.
It isn’t the way i’d like the world to be, but it’s the way the world is.
March 25, 2004 — 8:52 am
deelight says:
That is so true! Though we love to make our independent choices, we can’t escape the years of conditioning, both parental and societal that leaves its influence on us.
March 25, 2004 — 11:34 pm
vasanth says:
i remember an argument in which two colleagues of mine were discussing something similar. one of the guys had a problem with his son reciting something that he didnt approve of ( the reason is probably different from this one ), and was planning to speak his son for not reciting it in assembly.
in my opinion, children have a right to decide or not to decide only after a certain age, say early teens, but going any extent is not acceptable to me.
March 25, 2004 — 8:20 am
Anonymous says:
I don’t think this guy was entirely wrong at having taken offense. I do think that a national pledge should’nt be having any religious strains. Why should patriotism be associated with God (belief or the lack of it !) In any case, it does’nt seem like he’s enforcing his beliefs on her…more like he’s against society enforcing its beliefs on her…which it always will, I guess…
Maybe am plain biased, being an atheist myself ! But I sometimes take offense when people bring ‘God’ into everything…assuming the world is full of believers…
Geets..
March 25, 2004 — 9:09 am
Anonymous says:
The same thing happened when I was studying in 7th standard in school. I had to promise that I believe in God as a Scout Boy. I refused to promise because I was an Atheist by that time. The authorities refused to give the Certificate. but I do not regret that because even today, at the age of 63, I am an Atheist
March 25, 2004 — 7:47 pm
Lakshmi says:
🙂
Who is this?
Someone I know, I think….?
March 26, 2004 — 4:46 am
radhika74 says:
nice discussion you’ve started here locks..in this particular case, there are points both for and against the motion,but generally speaking,individualism is fine,but too much of it breeds intolerance and self centredness, as is evident form the high divorce rate and insecure family life one observes in the U.S.
March 26, 2004 — 1:15 am
Lakshmi says:
I have a feeling that this is a never-ending debate of its kind… And at the end of it, it’d suffice to say that one is responsible for one’s own choices ONLY and the cases rests.
March 26, 2004 — 4:49 am