Irony at its Best

Recently, Yahoo! News reported about a billboard in Charlotte, North Carolina being vandalized. The billboard’s message belonged to a local atheist group. The message read “One Nation Indivisible”. The message is an obvious protest to America’s Pledge of Allegiance, omitting the words “under God”.

Vandals took it upon themselves to point out the omission by spray-painting “under God” on the ad.

The article had responses from both the atheist and Christian community that are harsh against each other. Here is my issue with the billboard ad:

Let’s take a moment to review the pledge and a tidbit o’ history.

I pledge allegiance to the flag

Of the United States of America

And to the Republic for which it stands,

One nation, under God, indivisible,

For Liberty and Justice for all.

Whether there is or isn’t a God (my opinion doesn’t matter) is not the question. The point is that America was built on religion and because of religious persecution. People did not flee to America because of the lack of indoor plumbing in England. Atheists cannot argue that America was not founded with God being the cornerstone. And Christians haven’t always been perfect or saintly (hello crusades and witch trials).

Literally, this country was built under God.

But this is still not my main issue with the article. The line that the atheists use looks clever. Oh, yes you atheists out there are clever. You omitted the word God; therefore you are standing up for your beliefs. But you missed one little error. You still put “indivisible”. (Audible sigh inserted here)

Do I really need to tell you what indivisible means? Apparently.

According to online definitions: Indivisible: impossible of undergoing DIVISION; incapable of being DIVIDED; incapable of being divided by a specific integer without leaving a REMAINDER.

The sign is a colossal joke. It’s a forty-foot play on words. Obviously, it wasn’t meant to be. It was meant simply to be a bold statement, which is probably why the irony went unnoticed. Atheists do not consider themselves Christians, which is their choice. (This is not a blog about who is right and wrong. It simply more of a “Really, Atheists? Really!?”) Atheists have DIVIDED themselves from a whole, leaving a REMAINDER. (Once again, I’m not saying which part is correct, just merely that there are parts.)

Sure, this could have looked bad for people of the faith, had they constructed a billboard that read, “One nation, under God, Indivisible”. Well then the “I’m with Stupid” shirt would have been pointed at them. But it wasn’t, so this is me saying to the atheist who came up with the catchy sign:

You are in America, the Land of the Free.

You are NOT in America, the Land of the Free of Dictionaries.

(If you are going to prove your group is right, and Christians are wrong, at least use common sense before pasting it on a billboard.)

Act Your Age

There is an old saying that creates quite a controversy. You know, the one that gets thrown around when the 18-year-old-child-almost-adult-adolescent decides to do something inappropriate and the responsible parent yells, “Act your age!”

How does one act their age? At 18, teens are still not sure where they fit in. Like “tweenies” – who are between childhood and teen years - 18-year-olds are at a crossroads. Do they act like a respectable adult, or can they still make noises that similar to that of flatulence?

Telling an 18-year-old to act their age does not seem like wise advice. I have known a lot of 18-year-olds and they are not the most qualified role models around. True, there are very mature and very immature 18-year-olds. So what would the in-between be? Just “ture”? Either case, the 18-year-old is not acting their age.

I think one solution would be to rephrase this old adage and instead say something like: “Act your age if your age was somewhere between 40 through 50!” But again, this might not be wise. 40 to 50 can mean menopause (sorry fellas) to osteoporosis. And what teenager wants to go on a date with the libido of a 50 year old?

One rendition of this saying is “act your age and not your shoe size.” This provides specificity to exactly which age the teen should not copy. So teens wearing size 8 Nike’s, should not act 8-years-old. Nine is ok, however. See the problem? Another issue comes into play when the 18-year-old is wearing Birkenstocks, a company that uses the metric system. So you may inadvertently be telling your teen to not act like a 41-year-old; menopausal and achy.

The best solution seems to be this: Parents, anytime you believe your child is not “acting their age” or is “acting their (U.S) shoe size”, I think you should simply take said shoe, and whack them over the head with it. This sends a very clear message: Stop acting like that this instant or you will nott make it to your next birthday OR shoe size.

I have often been told to act my age and not my shoe size (which in shoe-years is 6-and-a-half). And I think the time has come for me to grow up a bit. I will no longer act my shoe size. Instead, I think I will act my bra size: 36B. 36 is a good age. A little more mature than a 6-and-a-half-year-old and quite a few years away from menopause and osteoporosis meaning great libido. Do the math.