. The term does however, exclude those who believe that there is no god at all.
I'm glad you acknowledge that. I assume you realize that it excludes agnostics, too. Many of them may, one might speculate, feel less strongly about referring to a God of whose existence they are in doubt than atheists do. Though the guy I talked to yesterday didn't feel unstrongly about it. He felt the Pledge had been stolen from him and his family.
I believe the choice of "under God" as opposed to "under a God" holds implications for some who pray to Jahweh or Allah, or, like Hindus, to a pantheon of Gods, for example, but that's just an impression.
Edit:
Many people who practice a faith and many who do not, Jews, Native Americans, etc... still acknowledge the existence of a god.
Language is interesting. I know you don't mean to be tendentious or too imply anything at all, but in your natural way of expression your thoughts, you use the phrase "acknowledge the existence of" instead of "believe in." And of course anyone who doesn't "acknowledge the existence" of something is denying the existence of something that actually does exist, whereas "believe in" leaves the existence-status as a matter of belief, not as a fact unacknowledged.
Just a note about language.... |
