Atheist Joins Others to Sue Over Pledge

SAN FRANCISCO -- An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has filed another lawsuit -- this time with other parents.

Michael Newdow won his case more than two years ago before a federal appeals court, which said it was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school students to pledge to God.

In June, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-aged daughter and because the girl's mother objected to the lawsuit.

In the latest challenge filed Monday in Sacramento federal court, eight co-plaintiffs have joined the suit, and all are custodial parents or the children themselves, Newdow said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-pledge-of-allegiance,0,4526992.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

I think Newdow is exploiting his own daughter to further his agenda.

I'd love to see "under God" out of the pledge. But he's being completely out-of-line IMO.

Just curious. I think he's looking out for her well-being, as any good father should do.

philosophies they don't understand. Especially in the Bible Belt.

I preferred to stay under the radar and not announce my religious preference, at least until high school when I decided I didn't give a shit anymore.

My dad was extremely anti-Christian, but he never would've used me as an excuse to file a court case, and I would never have wanted him to.

because the people who don't want "under God" removed from the pledge are assholes who will harass and intimidate non-believers, WE should just shut up about it?

When I was eight and getting harrassed and bullied for it, the last thing I would want is my parents stepping in and making it worse.

Is exactly how bullies get away with it. No one stands up to them, so the bullying continues. I wouldn't force someone's parent to do this, but I certainly am glad someone is doing it.

</sarcasm>

Seriously, though, I think the guy's got a right to look after his daughter's best interests - in this case, letting her, and not the state, decide if she wants to pursue a particular faith (or not).

As a parent, he has the right to guide his child. If he doesn't want a public school brainwashing religion into his child's brain, he has a right to dissent. Personally, I think that parents should let kids discover a religion/faith/lack thereof that works for themselves, when they are older. They shouldn't brainwash their kids. But at the same time, I'll defend a parent's right to guide his or her child the way he or she wants. The school has no business commenting on or promoting one religion's views.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16187573

by making a sordid and national spectacle out of her!? By using her to further his political agenda. I am marginally a Buddhist but Newdow's exploitation of his daughter is vile, vulgar and immoral.

Is it Newdow making a spectacle out of her, or the majority Christian population that will focus their hatred on a child whose parent is fighting for her religious rights?

What you said is much like blaming a rape victim because they dressed suggestively.

Thank you for saying what should be said.. I am not the kind of liberal that approves of harassment, no matter who does it.. He is not the custodial parent, and as far as the news accounts say, neither the mother, who is the legal guardian, or she welcomes what he has done and continues to do to her life or her reputation..

This young women is ashamed that he is continuing to humiliate her, and as far as I am concerned, that child isn't old enough to tell her father to shove it, but the mother is, and has said so..

I don't want the school in my church, or vice versa, but I don't want anyone to make that judgment but that poor girl and her mother. Flame away.. I don't give a shit either, and I am plenty old enough to say it.. if you don't like my opinion you too can shove it!!!

Come down off your high fucking horse. It's still his daughter regardless of who has custody. It is his business. Every god-damned day in school, the Public school makes the children stand up and say a pledge to some "being" that he contends does not exist.

He has the right and is right to do it. The pledge should not include god. As a matter of fact, the entire pledge is bullshit.

Forget about the other kids being neo-cons like their parents or religious "PRAISE JEBUS!!!" types. Kids will torment any other kid who themselves or their families do anything slightly different or garners notice. If the father was suing the school system from not serving 2% milk in the lunchroom, there are kids who would see that as a reason to make fun. I just hope he has had a serious discussion with his daughter about her feelings in this matter.

the lawsuit. She is a Christian and perfectly happy saying the pledge the way it is.
The other parents and the suit would be better off if this guy wasn't party of this. He is a terrible spokesperson for this cause. He couldn't care less how his daughter feels, he is fighting a never ending grudge match against the mother's beliefs. What an asshole.

I wish the rest of the parents luck, I couldn't give a damn either way, I think kids will say God or they won't and this is a nonsense issue.

If atheists really want to fix our tilt to right wing religiosity, why not take on school vouchers and/or faith based initiatives?

turn off the radio. "Exploiting his own daughter" were Rush's exact words....probably Repug talking points.

read some of the other things I wrote in this thread before accusing me.

Were you raised an atheist? Do you know what it's like to be in elementary school and realizing what a crime it is to admit that you don't believe in God? No? Then, please, I beg you, shut the fuck up.

Many times on DU, someone will make a point, and someone will reply with "that's exactly what Rush (Bush, Rove, Hannity, Coulter) would say!" The person who is attacked will often reply that they are a bona fide leftist.

Just saying Rush Limbaugh agrees with something isn't much of an argument. I'm pretty sure Limbaugh supports traffic lights at intersections, but that doesn't make traffic lights wrong.

By bringing up the names of these hated figures on the right, the argument shifts from the point being made to the loyalty of the person making the point. The usual result is that people start attacking each other personally and no useful information is shared.

I think DU would get better discussions if people avoided the "that's exactly what Rush (Bush, Rove, Hannity, Coulter, etc.) would say!" line of attack. If someone thinks another poster is mistaken, they should just point out logical or factual problems with the posting.

Just a thought.

I think he's standing up for his daughter.

I would love to file a similar lawsuit here in Wisconsin but my boys are special needs and already have trouble with bullies. The kids they go to school with are little neo-cons like their parents.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

out of taxpayer owned spaces is a great idea.

180

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of which I am a member wastes lotta time and money supporting the pledge and flag, god stuff etc. Some of that money is mine. I will argue against the VFW position all I want to.

So there. I guess. And among the VFW members I am not alone.

180

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hee hee hee.

But it was not so that school children (And others) could be forced to say god stuff when they do not believe.

Yes?

180

Liberalism does not want to take the words "under god" out of the pledge, it wants to take the state out of the business of establishing religion. Citizens can recite the pledge with the words "under god" all they want, the state cannot force a child to say the pledge with those words under penalty of being ostracized. Liberals are almost always on the right, we just seem incapable of making things into a winning political issue. Politically incompetent.

So I guess those gays who want the same rights as everyone else should just shut up, so we don't piss people off.

Those women who want to control their own reproductive decisions should just shut up, so we don't piss people off.

People who want to make sure the rich pay their fair share of the tax burden should just shut up, so we don't piss people off.

In fact, let's just abandon everything that sets us apart as Democrats so we don't piss people off.

So tell me, how does one get elected without a platform other than "I support whatever my opponent supports"?

Sure, they cheat and steal to do it, but still.

seperation of Church and State but the left really does need to "prioritize" its battles. We should not give the right this unlimited ammunition to use against us. The total seperation of Church and State is a very important issue, more so than at any other time in history but it's NOT about the pledge of allegence, it's about domestic and foreign policy being directed by religio-corporate America AKA the right wing. Issues such as religious leaders threatening Senators and Congressmen, churches using the pulpit to promote political agendas, and using religion as a scare tool in post 9-11 America are the issues we should be fighting. These same people fighting the Pledge thing should focus all that attention on churches preaching politics and having their tax exempt status pulled. You want seperate Church and State you go after their wallets, revoke the tax exempt status from the offending churches. Stop the grandstanding with these "meaningless" cases and get them where it will hurt, the collection plate.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

feel real strong about their positions, I guess you can't fault them for that but during this time when the media uses every little thing it can against the left is it a good idea to parade the PETA people running into PETCO saving goldfish around? It's the same with the anti-religion groups, the real simple answer to this is have parents become parents again. You don't want your child saying under God, then instruct them not to, don't start a lawsuit that will show 50% of America hoe crazy you are. Same goes for the right, you don't want your kids seeing nipples then change the damn channel. If eating gopher testicles disgusts you then don't watch Fear Factor.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it may be a chance for some kind of media attention, for others they really believe that saying, "Under God" will be the downfall of western civilization. My wisdom tells me it's mostly for the media attention, the time is right for the media to report any and all stories like this to make us on the left look bad. Those are the one's I'm ashamed of, the one's seeking the attention. If they really cared about seperation between church and state they would take recorders in every church they could and build a case for income tax violations. Everytime Falwell or Robertson preaches politics they break the law, these are the cases we could win.

The right wants it all, no nipples and under god! So we have to react with PETA, etc. I say give PETA guns and let em shoot nipples....it all works out in my mind.

This is about the separation of church and state, not opposing any particular religion.

You take victories where you can. We have liberals arguing you don't go after "meaningless" cases like this, and we have other liberals who argue that if we try to revoke tax exempt status for "offending" churches we'll lose too many votes, and on and on, but what it all boils down to is that nobody does jack shit except argue over how to not do anything at all.

This is the perfect place to start the war. Check out the NAACP's longterm goals to overturn segregation in the south. They didn't start by going after voting segregation or elementary education, they started with small, "meaningless" cases to lay the groundwork, to build up a system of precedence to define the flaws in "Separate but equal." Case by case they built their ultimate case, indifferent to whether it cost votes for politicians or hurt their political image. They handled the battles in the courts first, because that way they could get something done without having to convince some politician to commit political suicide by supporting them.

You start where you can. As an atheist, I can't tell you the bitter pain I feel when my five year old recites the Pledge and punches those two words "under God," as I know her teacher has taught her to do, just to run it in to liberals. The rest of the pledge is mumbled, but every kid learns to say "Under God" with emphasis, clarity and capital letters. Watch "Super Size Me--" at one point he has a group say the Pledge, and they mess up in every conceivable way except on those two words.

It is not meaningless that kids are being raised by our government from kindergarten to accept God as part of our government and history. That phrase is the absolute heart of the matter, not some "meaningless" side show. We have to change people's perceptions and legal precedence before we can go after the bigger issues. Tackle the big issue first if you must, I'll back you there, too. But good luck trying to get conservative Democrats from the South to agree to oppose religion. You and I can put together a retirement fund to help them out after the next election if you do convince them.

I will be so happy the first time I hear a Repub pundit call a Democrat "hard-line" or "hard-ass" or some other grudging term of respect.

As it stands now, we remain "wussies" and "whiners" and "crybabies".

I want Democrats to be thought of as assholes, people who have to be faced, dealt with, feared, not relegated to the side as impotents.

You gotta start somewhere.

And I for one think it's ridiculous that "under God" was put in in the FIRST place.

I can tell you feel strongly about this, strong enough to tell them not to say "Under God" in school? the only reason the schools and government has the control is because parents are using the school to raise their children. YOU have to ultimate control over how they recite the pledge, no one else. If they are punished or harmed in any way for not saying "Under God" then you have the Mother of all cases. I've always been a huge supporter of the ACLU but sometimes a parent has to be a parent. Do you not want them saying "Under God" or do you not want them hearing it? When we remove it from the Pledge and your family wins, the Christian family looses. When all we really have to do is instruct our children at home there are options, the Atheist can omit the words, the Christian can say the words, the Muslim can add Allah, the Buddhist can add Buddha, and the Druid can add Mother Earth, it's such a simple solution.

If they don't say it they are subject to harassment and physical assault.
Adults that don't say it are immediately deemed unworthy or crazy.

on those "physical assault" cases, I wouldn't even need to be a lawyer to win those.

I've been deemed "unworthy and crazy" my entire life, I don't care what others think, I haven't stood or said the pledge in 25 years.

first grader? Yeah, you'd win that one easily.

The issue isn't harassment, the issue is that the government accepts a Pledge as official that proclaims a belief in God. That's forbidden. It's a legal issue, all the rest is a red herring meant to add an emotional element to the legal argument.

harassment, others here did that, but to answer your question you would sue the school district for having a hostile public school, the parents for any damages their children may have caused, and the teacher whose classroom it occurred in. What legal precedent has been set forcing the children to say "Under God"? What legal punishment did they have to endure for not saying it? Where the parents punished for telling their kids not to say it?

Especially after the media represents it as you suing a first grader for picking on your kid. Look at how badly they represented the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

But I find it interesting that you want to sue a school system for creating a hostile environment by forcing a kid to say "under god," but you don't want to sue to the school for requiring that the Pledge containing those words be said each morning. That's an extremely fine distinction. In fact, I'm saying now that you have just accepted my point of view but haven't had the courage to admit it to yourself yet.

I mean, if you force the Pledge to be said, or even teach children to say it, you are creating an environment where they are expected to say it, and therefore not saying it creates an inequality. More importantly, a government sanctioned and created inequality.

I'm saying there should be a choice and I believe they have that choice. All I'm asking for are the reports that show the children are being forced to say it. There has to be one school system that has suspended a child for not saying it right? If you find THAT school you have a case.

By allowing school systems to say the Pledge every morning, and setting aside a specific government-financed time to say it, you are creating a situation where a student has to say the Pledge or else single themselves out. To "force" someone to do something, all you have to do is create an environment where not doing it results in some repurcussion-- no matter how minor it may seem to a hardline supporter of the policy. You have created a situation where it is easier to do one thing than the other, thus you are applying force. If you want to quibble over how strong the force is, realize that the force applied to a woman undergoing sexual harrassment or a black man stopped in a white neihgborhood for a false claim about failing to use blinker really undergoes no more force unless they resist. Creating a situation where resistance can lead to unequal treatment is using force.

No one can stop a group of kids who want to recite the Pledge from meeting on their own time to recite it, the objection is to it being led by a government official-- a teacher-- who has almost supreme power over a child for seven hours a day.

Your real point here isn't that force isn't being used, it's that you find the level of force acceptable. But since the First Amendment gaurantees that the government won't use force on my kid or any kid of any kind to force her to observe an established religion, any level of force is a violation of her first amendment rights.

Now, instead of wasting time by trying to claim that no one has been suspended for not saying it, tell me this. Do you agree it's a violation of the First Amendment, and if not, why not? Don't tell me how it's just not a serious enough issue, or that if it is a violation it's a really minor one, give me specific logical reasons why our government's adoption of an official Pledge declaring a belief in God is not an establishment, however minor, of a religion or a religious belief? Because that's the issue, not whether a child has been suspended for not saying it.

it's not a violation of one's civil rights until they are forced to say it. If a person gives in to peer pressure then that's an issue they need to address. Giving in to peer pressure is far different from being harrassed on the street by some racist cop. Have you taught your children into not giving in to peer pressure? A large population of kids smoke if they give in and smoke has a parent done his or her job in explaining peer pressure? You want me to believe peer pressure is a punishment?

And if that's what you are talking about, you don't understand any of the case or any of the arguments raised here.

The government has adopted the wording of the Pledge to include a declaration in the belief in God. Whether my child says it or not does not excuse the government's official Pledge from including a belief in God. "COngress shall make no law establishing a religion." That's the First Amendment. Clearly the Pledge is in violation of that Amendment. Therefore, requiring or even suggesting that students say it in an official capacity is in violation of the First Amendment.

The example of peer pressure was to point out how the government is using force by reciting the Pledge in an official government capacity. It was meant as an example of how the government is not providing equal protection to those who don't want to say it. Of how the government is creating an inequality while violating the rights of everyone (not just those who realize their rights are being violated). Peer pressure is one of the methods the government is using to apply force.

Government is not Pledging allegiance to a tobacco company nor encouraging my kid to smoke, thus the peer pressure she will face one day over that issue has no logical parallel to what we are talking about. If the government did start running tobacco commercials during the school day, and justifying it by saying my kid didn't have to buy the cigarettes after seeing the commercial, then we might have a parallel.

no law forces you to say it. Look I really could care less whether it is said or not, all I wanted to show was that we have far more important battles right now. Yes separation of church and state is very important but our nation is being raped by a corporate run government, a government that is bankrupting our economy, killing our children, and denying medical care to everyone who needs it. All I'm really trying to point out is "Under God" is the least of our worries right now. We should be breaking the hold the conservatives have on our media and politicians, the way to do that is by going after the churches that preach politics from the pulpit. When you achieve that you get your government back, no church can stand their wallets being taken. There are clear violations of the tax laws by churches in this country, go after that, we would all like to see Falwell and Robertson declare bankruptcy. This is an achievable goal.

You are saying we shouldn't fight this battle because their are bigger battles. Okay, let's as a nation vote on what the biggest battle is, and no one can fight any other battle until that one is done. Then we can trickle down to the smallest battle, and all our problems will be solved.

It's not so easy. You fight battles where you can. This one will be fought in the court by civilians and government lawyers. Other battles may continue. For some this is a very important battle, as the number of posts in this thread indicates. Let us fight it. If you aren't even opposed to the battle, why are you fighting it? But don't tell me that my battles are meaningless. It isn't to me.

And it doesn't matter if I or my child HAS to say the Pledge. I don't have to go fight in Iraq, either, but that doesn't stop me from opposing the invasion. The Pledge violates separation of religion and government. You yourself mention that as a problem. So you fight it everywhere you can. If you don't, if you say this one violation is acceptable but (insert favorite violation here) isn't, people don't listen. You aren't really complaining about preachers preaching politics from the pulpits, you are concerned more that they are preaching someone else's politics and making you lose. That's the impression you give when you don't oppose all violations, whether it's true or not.

Fight it where you can, and maybe ultimately, as with the NAACP, you will eventually achieve your "higher" goal.

And by the way, my child does HAVE to say it if she wants equal treatment with those who do. The government is forbidden from creating such inequalities, not just by the first amendment and the equal protection amendment, but throughout the body of the Constitution-- where it forbids the establishment of a nobility, in other words. When you create a situation where a citizen has to choose between receiving equal treatment or facing some form of exclusion--even if that exclusion is not government-sponsored--then you have violated the whole spirit of the Constitution, and not just the religious separation.

to go after separation of church and state you go after the large corporate religious entities that preach politics from the pulpit. You hurt the Falwell's and the Robertsons then you have victory. When their collection baskets are seized by the IRS they stop this pledge nonsense and you can really affect a change. They are breaking the law every day in churches from coast to coast, hurt that and you really will win a battle, maybe even the war. But what the fuck do I know,I'm the one everyone is calling a freeper.

In the state of Texas, they passed a law in June of 2003, that ALL Texas schoolchildren, teachers and administrators shall say each day:

1. The US pledge
2. The Texas pledge
3. Have one full minute of silence, ostensibly for prayer

Then at the school's discretion (and this is mandatory if the school does do it!) they sing the Star-Spangled Banner each Friday.

Bullshit it's not a law.

That's a strawman - you of course know the punishment referred to is from other children whose (Republican, assumedly) parents teach them that any kids who don't say "under god" are "commie liberal traitor faggots" or the like, right?

the pledge to know who did or did not say Under God. LOL

I spent so much time at the elementary school they should have paid me. I volenteered partly because I enjoyed it but I also had to be there at recess and lunch so that my son didn't get beat up on the playground. The school didn't make any entries into my son's records and now they deny that they were ever bullied.

of religious persecution, you should have documented the injuries, gathered witnesses, and contacted the ACLU. This would have been a case with merit. No offense but your statement saying, "The school didn't document the offenses" reinforces my position that parents need to start parenting again. You should have documented and filed a legal complaint at the time. Once again I do not mean to offend you in any way but we are ultimately responsible for our actions and reactions.

she is wasting time, just using her children, and making liberals look crazy. Have you looked at the postings on this thread? I can't tell you how appalled I am by the fact that you can't see the "catch 22" in all of this.

This is a lose-lose situation for people like goddess40 and Michael Newdow. He filed a suit doing exactly what you said - claiming that the school district did not have the right to force kids to say the pledge because it contained the words, under god. Look where it's gotten him. Based upon your post, you should be applauding him for standing up and not expecting the school district to raise his daughter.

Which is it supposed to be? You have me absolutely confused by your logic.

in which her children were physically abused and mentally abused by not saying "Under God". That would show religious persecution in any state. His case if frivolous in the fact that there will be no proof that his kids were forced to say it. This woman would have had that proof. So far no one has shown a case where a person was forced to say it.

There is no need to prove anyone was forced to say it. IT was the policy of the school district that everyone say it. That's all that's necessary in a court of law. Second, for the same reasons that teachers can't participate, lead nor prevent prayer in school, they should not be allowed to participate, lead nor prevent the saying of the pledge if it includes the phrase under god. It's a simple violation of the same judicial ruling made years ago that doing so constitutes an establishment of religion and violates the constitution.

It's not that difficult to grasp. To suggest that people have to invite violence on to themselves in order to have a legitimate case in court is seriously fucked. If that were true, I couldn't sue my neighbor for tresspass unless they came on to my property to abuse it or me. I couldn't sue my employer for discrimination unless they physically ejected me from the building. Satisfaction of rights violations shouldn't have to come with physical costs. One would hope in a society that strived for peace, we would seek and even go so far as to applaud those who sought justice in the courts rather than at the end of a fist.

that policy?

them are unworthy of being protected from bullies?

At first the school did "pretend" to do something about the complaints, they just weren't recording them and I was clueless about keeping records myself.

Yes, I should have kept records but as far as witness's go forget it. No one ever sees anything staff are busy watching the playground and kids are taught never to rat on anyone. It all comes down to my word against their's.

Rather notably, he said, "I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world..."

Some other quotes of his...

If the freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by law in theory, can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of public opinion, (then and only then will truth) prevail over fanaticism. (Thomas Jefferson, as quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 49. Jefferson's words are, according to Gaustad, from his letter to Jared Sparks, 4 November 1820.)

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823, as quoted by E. S. Gaustad, "Religion," in Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: A Reference Biography, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986, p. 287.)

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man. (Thomas Jefferson, as quoted by Saul K. Padover in Thomas Jefferson on Democracy, New York, 1946, p. 165, according to Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 48.)

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371)

I would think that "keeping views on religion to one's self" would require a pledge that invoked no diety of any sort, directly or indirectly.

You're probably tombstoned already, but if not, quit baiting the OP.

Edit - bolding makes things easier to read.

Jefferson did write all of those things. The Pledge, however, says nothing about the religions of which he or your write.

Jefferson, however, also said there was a Creator. Having done such therefore begs the question which I asked and which you avoided.

-- quotations from Jefferson.

I chose his image as my avatar in large part because of his comments on Christianity.

We could use the man back here today, if you ask me.

Thank you for your post.

I am a teacher, I never say those words and in 25 years, not one kid - or adult - has ever questioned me about my choice to not say "under God".

It is just words. It's a stupid automatic ritual that means literally nothing to the kids. Most don't even pay attention to what they are saying. Every year, I teach a lesson about the pledge and it would amaze you how many of my kids have no idea what the words even mean. Every single one of them can recite it, but none understand it. That's why I teach a lesson on it.

First, raising my kids may begin at home but it doesn't end there.

Second, I don't have the ultimate control over whether my kid says "under god," she does.

Third, if she can't skip the words without fear of reprisal, even from other students, then she doesn't really have the same right to skip the words as the other kids have to say it. That clearly violates the equal protection amendment, as well as the first amendment.

Fourth, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT in any way an issue over whether I want my kid "hearing" the words-- I let her go to church with her friends, I have nothing against religion on it's own, and you can search my handle and prove that for yourself easily enough-- it is a question of law. Our nation is built on a complete separation of religion and government. Madison said that that separation was one of the two greatest achievements of America (the other being the destruction of classes and the equalization of all humans). Washington said he was most proud of the fact that the Constitution contained no reference to God. Jefferson, Adams. Franklin, and a long list of Founders, from Christians to Deists and atheists, all agreed-- separation of religion and government is one of the cornerstones of this nation. Forcing the Pledge to contain these words, forcing this to be said in school so that each child has to decide and announce each day in a public forum whether they believe in the God that our government proudly and officially proclaims is one of the binding factors of our nation, is against the law. It's against the Constitution, it's against everything our nation was founded on. When we stick to those rights, those laws, both my family and the Christian family gains something-- not to mention Muslims, Buddhists (Buddha is not a god in all forms of Buddhism, btw), etc.

It's not an issue of what I want my kid to say or hear. It's an issue of what I want my government to proclaim as its official statement of belief.

Your daughter says it and goes to church with her friends, does she want to say "Under God" when she says the pledge? What are her feelings? I still haven't seen anyone jailed, dunked, burned or stoned for not saying it. It is still a choice as to whether one wants to say it or not.

If as you say, you daughter has the ultimate control over whether she says it or not then is her "free will" in jeopardy in places other than school? Maybe she has feelings she has not shared with you yet.

The issue is whether an official government agency can recite an official pledge which officially declares a belief in God. Whether my daughter or I believe in God is irrelevant to whether that law should be obeyed. The law now creates a hostile environment where a child has to either accept the government's official religious view (which it is not legally allowed to have), or become unequal by staying silent.

It's a clear violation of equal protection. A student who can say the pledge without violating their beliefs is not being treated equally to a student who has to refuse to say the government-mandated words in order to keep their beliefs. The whole point of the first amendment is to avoid that type of situation.

Many states require that the pledge be recited at the beginning of each class day. If you have raised children, you know that a teacher standing before the class, telling elementary-age children that they are must do something will have more immediate sway over a child than the parents do. A small child does not have the mental capacity to think "My dad said not to do this, and so I must disobey the teacher." A child thinks "An adult is telling me to do something. I have to obey." The child won't even remember what the parent said during that moment. As the child gets older, she will remember later that she was supposed to resist, and then will feel shame for disobeying the parent but the need to fit in, to go along with the authority of the moment will still be hard to resist for most children. Most children do not develop the ability to resist--to rebel--until they are teenagers.

the option of NOT saying it is NOT an option here.

Oh that and the Texas pledge. And one minute of silence.

pariah of your community. You seem to have no concept of the consequences of standing up to this kind of bullshit. These cases are so few and far between because very few people are willing to put themselves at risk of at best a shunning and at worst a social lynching. And that goes for the children as well as the parents. There are no innocents in the eyes of the mob.

Of course raising your kids begins at home. But this issue isn't about raising my kids. I've done my job. They know what their rights are. But my son will still stand up every morning and say the pledge as his teacher (a former Marine) instructs and illegally requires because as a junior in high school, he would prefer to focus on school than to have to deal with the bullshit that would come down on him if he bucked the system.

This is no different than a woman having to put up with sexist comments at work just to get a paycheck. This is no different than a gay who can't confess to being gay because he fears the reaction of his homophobic co-workers. Are we to tell them all to just sit down and be good boys and girls and don't rock the boat? That seems to me to be exactly what you want to do. As a matter of fact, I recall that there were people just like you in the 70's and 80's saying the exact same thing about women's rights. In the 80's and 90's saying the same thing about gay rights. Heck, there were even people like you saying the same thing about the rights of blacks in this country.

Everyone, stand up and give a big, welcoming round of applause to Bigotry. He's large and in charge and we're just supposed to sit down and take it.

But I applaud you! :bounce:

but your are entitled to your opinion, as far as consequences for standing up for what I believe in I don't really need to justify that suffice to say I've done my jail time in the late 60's and 70's. to this day I still do not recite the pledge anywhere, I have never been ridiculed for it. Other than that I cannot address much more of your attack on me when all I ask for is tolerance on both sides.

MichaelHarris is a bigot. In fact, when you capitalize the word Bigotry, it personifies it. Like like capitalizing Reaper, or Bliss, or Fate.

But my father-in-law always says that if you've pissed someone off, at least you know you've got their attention.

If you think it really is about you, then I'll take your word for it. But I would never presume to know you are a bigot. I cannot judge you. I do not know you. All I can judge are the words you type.

I quote, "pariah of your community. You seem to have no concept of the consequences of standing up to this kind of bullshit."

"Everyone, stand up and give a big, welcoming round of applause to Bigotry. He's large and in charge and we're just supposed to sit down and take it."

"Heck, there were even people like you saying the same thing about the rights of blacks in this country."

...taking the word "God" out of the official Pledge and substituting "one Nation, under ,..."? That seems to be a better compromise than putting the onus on our children to say something different than what's in the officially sanctioned Pledge.

I never say the pledge anyway, haven't for years. The only thing I'm really saying is at this point in time we have so much bigger battles than this and I don't see any damages unless people are forced to say it. I don't see "peer pressure" as a damage, not if parents have raised their kids to be above peer pressure. Wonder why this guy doesn't sue the Treasury dept for "In God We Trust", his kids see a dollar bill more than they say the pledge.

"One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Doesn't change the patriotism at all.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16187573

:eyes:

How exactly does the Christian family lose? What makes the Christian family any more important than the non-believer's family?

>> it's such a simple solution <<

Horse shit! That's no solution. That's the path of least resistance and completely misses the point of why it ought not be there in the first place. It's a vanity "solution" that demonstrates how the believer places himself on a higher pedestal over non-believers.

So why must it be "official"... why can't the believer just INSERT the words if that's what they want to do instead of making the non-believer OMIT the words?

Fact is that even when the non-believer doesn't SAY the words out loud, the words are still in the pledge, and it's still an official endorsement of deity belief.

for the Christian family who wants to say it? If they add it should we stone them? Someone has to loose in this case, why can't there be a compromise? Say it or don't say it, add another deity, whatever a person wants to do, we are not forced to say it. This would be an entirely different thing if we were forced to say it, then I would fight it.

and NOT have the belief in a deity endorsed by our government. Any Christian who is so inclined to say a different pledge may do so (just as the Knights Of Columbus did before the "under god" pledge was imposed on the nation).

>> If they add it should we stone them? <<

:eyes: Yes Michael, we should stone them.

>> Someone has to loose in this case, why can't there be a compromise? <<

A fine demonstration of how you apparently believe that the believer's viewpoint is more important than that of the non-believer. It should have never been added in the first place. This is the action that sets it right. Believers aren't "losing" they are being returned to the same level as everyone else.

The insistence on "compromise" is pure vanity.

>> Say it or don't say it, add another deity, whatever a person wants to do, we are not forced to say it. <<

This is not the issue. You know that. Whether or not someone says it or doesn't say it is not the heart of the matter. Clearly you want to MAKE it the heart of the matter, but it's just not so. --- Don't insult my intelligence by continually pretending that you don't understand what the objections are.

>> This would be an entirely different thing if we were forced to say it, then I would fight it. <<

I cannot account for your refusal to face reality.

take the word God out of everything, but then wouldn't that make the non-believer's viewpoint more important than the believer's? Nooooo we can't have that and certainly compromise has never worked anywhere, we should never compromise, someone has to win. I'm facing reality Allen, the reality that some want total control of a free society, whether it be the religious or the non-religious.

I really do believe in compromise and the ability of people to work together. I also believe that if this is the most important issue we have facing us then we truly have some work to do.

Removing all mention of god from the government does not remove it from public or society. Government is a special construct. It is not day to day life. It is an impartial system set up to help us deal with each other in our day to day life. Push it to one side or the other and it is no longer serving the duty it is supposed to.

Secular government is neutral to belief. Not opposed. There is a difference between an absense of promoting god and the promotion of the idea there is no god. But atheists do not ask for a Gorvernment that promotes atheism. They just want a Government that stays out of the issue and leaves it to We The People.

>> "Well then lets" take the word God out of everything, but then wouldn't that make the non-believer's viewpoint more important than the believer's? <<

Again, you're trying to re-frame this issue and make it into something that's it's not. This isn't about anyone trying to "take-the-word-God-out-of-everything", it's about removing the phrase "under god" from the official pledge.

>> Nooooo we can't have that and certainly compromise has never worked anywhere, we should never compromise, someone has to win. <<

This isn't a contest. This has to do with what's right and clearly you think it's right for our government to officially endorse and promote deities.

If we applied your logic to slavery, then the slaveholders "lost"... and I imagine that many were hoping for some sort of "compromise" as well.

>> I'm facing reality Allen, the reality that some want total control of a free society, whether it be the religious or the non-religious. <<

No, the reality you're ignoring is the reality of social pressures in the classroom. Yet instead of acknowledging the reality of it, you prefer to ignore it by making laughable arguments suggesting that if kids are affected by peer pressure then the PARENTS aren't doing a good job. --- That's HORSESHIT!

>> I really do believe in compromise and the ability of people to work together. <<

There is no middle ground. Either it's IN or it's OUT of the pledge. I don't see how you can compromise on that.

This isn't like negotiating a price on a car, or dividing up the household chores... the fact is, and always will be, that when the words "under god" are in the pledge, it is an official endorsement of belief in deities.

Same thing goes for "In God We Trust".

>> I also believe that if this is the most important issue we have facing us then we truly have some work to do. <<

So what you're saying is... YOU feel that there are other more important issues, and YOU feel that people should concentrate on the issues that YOU want them to, and leave this issue alone. Is that about right?

When you say things like that, Michael, do you not realize how dismissive and insulting that is? Have you considered how self-important that sounds? Should someone give up their fight for something that they feel strongly about simply because you deem OTHER issues to be of more importance?

:eyes: Well Michael... Surely there must be SOME other issue for YOU that's more important than fighting to leave the pledge IN? Isn't there? -- Is THIS the ONLY thing you care about. Well, jeeze, we "truly have some work to do" if our country is in such a sad state that the ONLY thing anyone cares about is keeping that damn "under god" in the pledge. :eyes:

Is to abolish the pledge once and for all. The notion of a pledge in a free society is ludicrous. But short of that keeping the phrase in the pledge is simply wrong.

one nation, under canada?

:evilgrin:

seriously though, i personally think that although this could be considered "starting small", on the other hand, it's one of those issues that is commensurate with other larger issues...

pursue it if you want, but there are other issues you could pursue with equal vigor that would have equal validity...something along the lines of "treat the disease, not the symptoms."

me likey. :)

I still don't understand why Christians get so hung up on this. The original version of the pledge just said "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The "under God" bit was added in the McCarthy era. Why not just go back to the original?

i think christians HAVE to get hung up on something, it's just their way...if they aren't being oppressed by another religion, they MUST be oppressed by government, or by atheists, or someone...it's the pariah's religion.

(on edit: mind you, that's just my personal opinion, what i see when i look at the religion)

Though I'm sure you already know. :-)

It loses because it is no longer given an exalted position by our government over the non-Christian family.

You've certainly got a way with words! :hi:

This is not a prayer. The pledge as it was written did not include those words. I am not sure why we should be having our children taking what amounts to a loyalty oath anyway, but its still a secular undertaking. Its statement about our country, a christian family loses nothing if the religious nod to piety is taken out. I consider myself a religious person and in no way feel I or my family would be diminished if the words under God were taken from the pledge. I dont see the logic behind the assertion it would. I think we should fight this for the camels nose under the tent reasoning. Religion does not belong in school or to be mandated in any way by any government function. We have turned a blind eye to enough of the incursions. Paying a minister to lead prayers in congress, in god we trust on our money. I say we fight this one, not because we can win but because we should, we are right. If they want it to be a prayer they can take it to church if its not a prayer under God is unessasary. The right makes every attempt to conflate God and country, it is another tactic to make government unassailable. Its already looked on in many quarters as unpatriotic to question the shrub if we dont fight these battles it will eventually be seen as blasphemous.

various scout things, just closing my mouth (or leaving it open) when the word "God" "or under God" occurred. Nobody noticed. It lasts less than a second. Never had to defend myself. Years of public school, 3-4 years of scouts.

If I had demanded to leave the room, they would have noticed. The only imposition on me was having the hear "under God" or whatever.

Did you know the pledge DIDN'T have those words originally? They were added during the 1950s "red scare" to keep us safe from the "godless commies."

Sheesh. Get religion OUT of the government, it's as simple as that.

Christians can ADD under God if they want, but take it out of the official pledge.

And by the way, it's not as simple as just not saying it. In Texas it is a STATE LAW (passed June of 2003) that ALL children and teachers and administrators HAVE to say the US pledge, the TX pledge and then have a minute of silence at the beginning of each day. Then on Fridays, they sing the Star-Spangled Banner! And it's LAW! Kinda od-ing on the jingoism aren't we?

Yes, I can just imagine how smoothly it'll go over when some innocent kid named Raed mumbles "Under Allah". Yeah, that'll work. Hell, there'd even be some DEMS at that point screaming for the principal's head!

Do you really not understand why government is to be kept strictly apart from religion? It's because of the HAVOC that would ensue if the state was in the business of picking the "right" religion. My God (the atheist ironically gasps), can you not see the BLOODSHED once the state weds with a religious faith? Nazi Germany ring a modern historical bell?

How many millions more past dead do you need to convince you IT'S A DANGEROUSLY HIDEOUS IDEA TO ALLOW RELIGION INTO GOVERNMENT?

Seriously!

Specifically, with regards to a woman's right to self-sovereignty - first with "fetus rights", and now the cases involving the judge disallowing divorce due to the woman's (initiated by another man who she got involved with after her abusive hubby landed in prison) pregnancy, and the "baseball bat abortion" charges.

From one atheist to another, great post! :yourock:

That's like being a little bit pregnant. You either are for the rights as established in the constitution as amended or you aren't.

Which is it?

on edit: Oh, never mind. I've read the rest of your posts. I guess I can answer that on on my own.

you haven't read all my posts, just the one's you hated.

chosen to do.

The Rise of Church and State in America
Michael Harris

With President Bush’s recent re-election, we enter tumultuous times, the battle between the conservative right and the liberal left in this renewed culture war has found its battleground in the Constitution, the church, the schools, and the American family. Throughout America’s history we have always had these “morality swings”, beginning with the Temperance Movement in 1869, to the modern day Prohibitionist Party, the conservative right has sought to change the values of America. From the Scopes Trial in 1925 to the present, the "traditionalists" have fought the "modernists" in a battle for morality.

The Georgia Board of Education’s recent decision to remove the word “evolution” from the high school curriculum and adding a warning sticker in suburban Atlanta science textbooks that says evolution is “a theory, not a fact” is evidence of this ongoing battle between the right and left. A well known creationist author named, Curt Sewell writes, “The Bible says that all the sea-creatures were created on the 5th day of creation week, and land animals were created on the 6th, just before humans. Leviathan (Job 41), was probably a sea-monster, while Behemoth (Job 40), represents the dinosaurs that lived on land. They were both living at the same time as humans.” In his writings he never mentions fossil evidence such as spear point marks on bones, weapons of early man found in context with fossils, or even human fossils from the same period as dinosaur fossils, in fact he uses no science at all. He goes on to add, “ dinosaurs were certainly on the Ark with Noah and his family. They were probably juveniles, not the huge full-grown monsters whose fossilized bones are usually found today. It's likely that God also caused most of the larger creatures on the Ark to go into a state something like hibernation, so there wouldn't be a lot of activity and confusion. And at that time all humans and animals were herbivorous (plant-eaters), and co-existed peacefully, until after the Flood.” One must ask themselves, how does a creationist explain man’s early hunter gatherer status? It is these people that are influencing our government with nonsensical ideas. It’s important to note here these people believe the earth is only 6000 years old.


Using the Bible and its many “Laws”, the religious right wishes to dictate morality to the rest of the populace in the courts, from the pulpit, in the schools, and in the Constitution. The Bible contains countless barbaric and tyrannical laws, most handed down by God. The religious right would have us believe that these laws were written by mortal man, thus rendering them fallible, but as we shall see the majority of these laws were derived from the word of God. The same is true for the atrocities mentioned in the Bible. These were not acts committed by mortal man alone, they were acts commanded by God. The conservative right fails to see the hypocrisy of this “picking and choosing” of God’s Laws to enforce. On one hand they condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage while ignoring laws such as, “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.” (Exodus 12). Religious conservatives would argue that Biblical Law is obsolete and no longer valid today. Using their own argument couldn’t it be said that the condemnation of homosexuality also be obsolete? Our forefathers saw the need to a separate church and state, the laws of God, and the laws of man. One can only imagine a Constitution based solely on God’s word.

How does the conservative right choose which of God’s laws to follow? Lets examine a few Old and New Testament passages they must have missed. From the Old Testament:

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

While the right never has a problem with quoting Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality why do they miss the others? They come from the same book they cherish so much. Would they have us deport couples who have had sex during a woman’s period? Will Jerry Falwell use Leviticus to bring back slavery? Some on the right say that the words of the Old Testament are archaic and that the New Testament is the word we should follow. Lets see what they have missed:

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says."(1 Corinthians 14:34)

"Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord."(Colassians 3:22)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. "(1 Peter 2:18)

Is it easier to condemn homosexuality than to keep a woman quite as Corinthians tells us to do? I know women, George Bush will have a hard time with this one. Slaves must submit themselves to their gentle as well as cruel owners? While I remember some people in Texas who would welcome this I’m not sure it would be well received in places like Detroit.

In 1988 Jimmy Swaggart stood before his congregation and confessed his sin of adultery, then turned to his wife and said, “I have sinned against you and I beg your forgiveness”. On March 19, 1987 Jim Bakker, caught in an adulterous affair claims he was, "wickedly manipulated by treacherous former friends and colleagues who victimized me with the aid of a female confederate... Vulnerable as I was at the time, I was set up as part of a scheme to co-opt me and obtain some advantage for themselves over me in connection with their hope for position in the ministry." Jerry Falwell, called in to rescue Bakker’s PTL Ministry was quoted as saying, “God sent me there to bring an abrupt end to the immorality and financial fraud of this 'religious soap opera' that had become an international embarrassment to the Christian gospel." These three men, well known crusaders against homosexuality and same-sex marriage never once mentioned Deuteronomy 22 in which God says to Moses, “If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel”. Would these so-called Christian leaders support an amendment against adultery? Which argument, outlined above would the religious right use?

At a time when modern evangelists want us to turn to the Bible for laws governing man we must look back to the Bible and its position on slavery. “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” (Exodus 21:20). How far would this new Christian right want us to go in basing laws and amendments on scripture? The evangelists of old saw the evil in slavery and its place in the Bible; they saw the benefit of a separation of church and state, they did not use the word of God to fight slavery, they recognized the injustice and chose to fight this battle outside the bounds of God and the Bible. Can the new religious right deny the Biblical positions mentioned in the Bible concerning slavery? If they choose to recognize slavery as a barbaric practice why can’t they accept same-sex marriage? Is this an argument of Biblical Law being obsolete? It’s this hypocrisy that upsets the liberal left.

On November 2, 1920 over 8 million women voted in America for the first time. In 1848 Elizabeth Cady Stanton penned the Declaration of Sentiments declaring, “men and women are created equal," and proposed that women should vote.

“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

He has withheld from her rights, which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men - both natives and foreigners. Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known. He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her. He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.”

America saw the injustice shown to women during this time, sentiments based in past religious beliefs. Followers of a separation of church and state realized that the treatment of women as “second class” citizens outlined in the Bible was archaic, cruel, and unjust. “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In picking and choosing Biblical Laws, as the conservative right does, would they have us return women to a subservient role? Does an amendment stating, “A woman’s Place is in the Home” suit their needs?

As the conservative right attempts to change the Laws of the Land its important to see where their reference material comes from. The Bible is a good book, a history of mankind for some. What it should not be is a book of laws for modern mankind. The Bible should not be an infallible source of morality. We’ve seen the barbaric, and tyrannical laws God placed on man and the struggle to overcome them. We’ve seen the shackles of slavery broken, and the power of the Woman’s Movement and their accomplishments. With the hypocrisy the religious right shows in their “picking and choosing” of Gods Laws how can we know what is right? We know what is right by relying on principles based on a modern moral philosophy in which mankind respects rights of others. The solution is so very simple for “true” Christians, if you truly believe in a higher being then your judgement is not needed. If your heart is full of love for all human-kind then there is no room for judgement, for if you truly believe then you know judgement is up to a higher power, not Jerry Falwell nor George Bush, for them I quote:

You cannot serve God and money. Matthew 6:24

Thank you for posting it here again.

I was called a bigot, a racist, and a freeper in this forum I had to dig up something to prove my "worth" I guess.

About all I can add to the debate now is, I'm glad Rosa Parks didn't succumb to peer pressure or any pressure for that matter. I hope that all children can have half the fortitude she had in standing up to injustice.

Just list the post numbers. I can find them for myself. If this is true, I'd like to alert on those posts as it is very much against the rules.

I never alert on anyone but to save you some time:

92, 94, 101, 105, 119.

As far as racism and bigotry go you only need to look at your own post.

All I really wanted to get across was, we didn't loose this election for two words in the pledge, we lost this election because we allowed the preaching of politics from the pulpit. The fight against those two words contributed to our lose by inflaming some in the middle to swing towards the conservatives, thus the right was able to preach that the left was full of Godless heathens. If we really want to see a separation of church and state then we should stop the politics from the pulpit that is going on coast to coast. Either that or we continue to give the right the ammo they need to continue the attacks on the left, I'm only one voice, I'll continue my fight against the preaching of politics, maybe some can win the smaller battle against the two words.

of calling you a bigot when no such thing took place. What I did say, if you'll go back to the post, is that the position you defend encourages bigotry to flourish. There is a difference. If you can't see it, :shrug:

But I also want to comment on your subsequent statement. You would have to spend days in the bowels of newspaper morgues and the cesspools of legislatures to find any overt statement, even the most minute statement by an elected Dem or representative of the DNC who supported in any way the fight of non-christians, even Michael Newdow, in the most minute battle for the separation of church and state. It hasn't been happening. If it hasn't been happening, then the mental connection between Michael Newdow and the Dems is purely a construct of fundamentalists fear-mongers and perhaps the GOP. Hence, it appears you are parroting the fundamentalist lies. In fact, I haven't even seen that particular connection made in any media by any respectable GOPpies, only the local nutcases writing LTTEs and fanatic pundits. That may only speak to the miserableness of the media in my area, but there you are.

And you're totally discounting the fact that immediately upon the heels of Newdow winning his first battle in the 9th circuit, the House of Representatives created a resolution in support of the pledge with the words "under god" in it, passed it nearly UNANIMOUSLY and then proceeded to stand on the steps of the Capitol building and recite the pledge with emphasis on "under god." Oh yea, Democratics are clear and forceful champions of the rights of non-christians. Right.

I strongly disagree that blacks battling in the courts for their rights, gays battling for their rights, or non-christians battling for their rights had nor has anything to do with the success or failure of either of the parties in subsequent elections - especially when these groups are in the beginning of their fights. These battles all start in the court room and neither party gets off the fence to join the plaintifs or the defense until the rights begin to be proven in a court of law. In fact, the Democratic party still hasn't wholly embraced gay rights and is still having to be dragged into the 21st century by its more progressive members.

But, as a strong advocate of the separation of church and state, I absolutely agree that we need to stop the politics from the pulpit.

As for giving the reich ammo, they nearly always shoot blanks. They don't have any ammo except in their own minds. The problem the Democratic party has right now is pointing that fact out to the voter.

on edit: not alerting on posts in violation of the rules is the act of a martyr. Someone who is seriously interested in discussing the issue at hand has no interest in either name calling nor in distracting from the conversation by pointing fingers at those who are name calling.

you have your battle and you must continue to fight it, me I'll continue to take on the Falwell's and Robertsons. Good luck with that fight.

Either a martyr or someone who decide a long time ago that alerting on someone was akin to telling on children in grade school or denying someone their voice, it's your call, you're the one who wanted to alert.

you'll wait until you have a good case and go to court. Just like you've advocated all through this thread.

If I'm not mistaken, and your invited to correct me, by your own reckoning kids who are abused for not saying "under god" and who rat out their abusers are tattle-tales. Yet you advocate exactly that in several posts in this thread. Apparently, it's a lose-lose situation trying to please you.

just do so, if you feel the comparison between church and state and prayer in school compares to alerting on a post then by all means alert. I can't make that stretch.

All I have advocated is we have a much better case, every time Falwell or Robertson preaches politics we have a case, every time a Catholic priest tells his congregation to vote for right to life candidates we have a case, every time a minister speaks of the "evil" the Democratic party is we have a case. You fight two words in a pledge that so far no one in this thread has shown is forced upon anyone, good luck with that. Please all I really ask is someone show a school handbook where it says it's mandatory and what the punishments are if they don't say it.

I'm not belittling your fight at all, I'm just choosing a different one.

Misdirection will get you no where. As I stated, either ratting someone out is tattle-taleing or it isn't. It shouldn't matter the severity or the seriousness of the violation because who's to judge that? As an outsider, it's easy to say a situation didn't call for ratting. On the receiving end of the rule-breaking, it may be an entirely different matter. That's why we have people in positions to judge that sort of thing (aka teachers, school adminstrators, forum admins, adjudicator).

As for proof of situations where kids have been required to recite the pledge and say the words, under god, you've been given several first-person examples and have apparently dismissed them out of hand. Because the requirement to recite the pledge may not be codified in each instance, it doesn't mean that the violation didn't take place. Because the retribution for violating the requirement isn't codified doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or will you next be telling me sexual harassment is a myth the GOPpies are using against us, too, as it fits the same definitions of proof and punishment you wish to establish for anyone to have a valid cause to fight.

And as for not belittling the fight you call mine, nearly every one of your previous posts in this thread refutes that claim. Nice re-write of history there.

By all means, do choose a different fight. You're welcome to it.

have a nice day.

confirming that this country is "under God" is meant to be very exclusive of those who don't believe that.

I think you should " focus all that attention on churches preaching politics and having their tax exempt status pulled" if you think that is the thing to do instead of telling other people what they should be focusing their attention on...

The fundies fight tooth and nail to put the 10 commandments in our schools and courthouses.

The fundies fight tooth and nail to keep "god" in the pledge.

The fundies fight tooth and nail to put creationism in our schools.

The fundies fight tooth and nail to allow prayer in school.

Yet, if you try to teach tolerance for homosexuals, suddenly we're "imposing our agenda on their children."

WTF????

I believe some battles inherently make some of us on the left look kind of silly. Men and women dying on on a battlefield in a civil war stated by an illegal president would be a better battle.

An easier solution to this problem would be have the parents of the young children instruct them not say "under God" when reciting the pledge. As they get older let them decide.

One group on the left exploits the use of God in the pledge while groups on the right use it as ammunition to attack, it surely is an endless cycle.

Just let parents parent, schools school, churches preach, and leave governments to kill our young. We should choose our battles a little more carefully, there's alot more at stake.

The article does not say. I don't remember any previous publications about Newdow to say for sure. He could very well be a Republican, for all I know.

I saw him on TV once but he didn't say.

People wanted to say, "Under Allah?" Do you think the religious right would go for that? Left being silly? I don't think so.

Separation of church and state means what it says..If they want to say "Under God" then do it in private school, not public school.

"Under God" wasn't even in the original pledge! The RR had that put in in the 40s or 50s.

And while we're at it, let's campaign to stop singing "God Bless America" during the 7th inning stretch at the baseball games...what a fucking buzz killer that is while you're going for your last beer!

I HATE THAT!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of Americans pray to Allah everyday, it's a private thing. How do we know that Muslim children don't say "Under Allah" when they say the pledge? Wouldn't it be a better solution for parents to instruct their children on which higher power they should substitute for God? I really think that if a parent told their son or daughter to substitute Allah or Buddha or whoever for the word God it really wouldn't matter that much and if it did then you have a very good case for religious persecution. A much better case than the one that started this thread.

I think they should just take the "Under God" back out of it and return it to the original pledge before the RELIGIOUS RIGHT changed it in the 50s.

It's OK for them to challenge this but not for the left?

Hummm...

whether "under God" is in the pledge, I never recite it anyway nor do i stand when it's said at public gatherings. All that I am trying to say is there are solutions that don't require courtrooms, like parenting, there's a solution. I would still like to see these reports of children being dunked and stoned for not saying "Under God" that everyone is talking about, then I would have to change my mind.

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I realize that these words were added to the pledge in the 50's, but as much as we don't like it when we are in the minority. The minority doesn't rule the majority.

... as well as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and a plethora of right-wing front organizations. It has also been thoroughly debunked in liberal and progressive forums.

The addition to the pledge was a means of exclusion. Furthermore it moves into territory the Government (not the people) is expressly not supposed to enter into. Belief.

The first freedom is freedom of thought. This is expressed in the Bill of Rights by the very first part of the very first clause.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Its the very first thing. Above all others. The government is not to step into the fray on questions of religion or belief. That is for we as individuals to decide our own path.

I can never be free of religion in a free society. But I can demand to be free of religion foisted on me by the Government. I have to right to be personally free of religion. And again the Government cannot impose one on me.

Belief comes to us by way of emotional relevance. It is bolstered by repitition. Repeating it cements it in the mind. Continuously injecting it into our consciousness is a very effective way to make it part of us.

Parents have the right to map and guide their children's paths to belief. In sending them to school they have right to expect that the Government will not foist a particular religion or belief on their children. Their children may encounter such things in the world but it is not the Government's roll to be part of that function.

Thus it is clearly not the job of the Government to continue to support a clearly religious concept in a pledge that is repititiously stated by children under its care.

In fact, the Constitution was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Separation of church and state should not be up for referendum.

And the RW talking point of "Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" is so ridiculous I don't even know why you bothered to post it.

I first heard Jerry Falwel say that, then I heard Joe Leiberman say that, and it is exactly untrue in the context of the government. Madison and Jefferson both claimed the Constitution built an insurmountable wall between religion and government. While it's true that there is no gaurantee we are free from religion in our personal lives, we are gauranteed that the government will be free from religion.

A guarantee our government has failed to honor.

As for the minority not ruling the majority, right you are, but we are also gauranteed certain rights that protect the minority from even the najority. That's the whole point of rights. If the majority wants to make slaves of a minority, they can't. If the majority votes that we should murder a minority, they can't, not legally. Our rights are not granted us by the government, they are protected by the government from abuse by anyone, including the majority. We have the right to complete separation of religion and government. Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion. That's not a right the government can revoke When the government refuses to honor that right, they are the ones in violation of the law, not the individual whom the government violates.

I think the establishment clause does give us the right to freedom from government established religion which IS what we are talking about. Minority rights are protected thats why Black people can now vote in Mississippi.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. (Thomas Jefferson, "First Inaugural Address," March 4, 1801; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 364.)

Majority rule without protection of minority rights strips democracy down to mere mob rule.

You can bet if the Pledge had "under Zeus" in it, people would be up in arms....

Even if atheists are a minority, it does not give the majority the right to continue to perpetuate this silly "under God" issue, especially when it's been in the Pledge since the early 50s. Just as I don't want Christians to say "under Zeus", why should I expect Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, Zoroastrians and whatever else (including some Christians) to say "under God"?

This is a secular republic. Sure, you don't have to say the Pledge but, believe me, in some parts of the country you'll be shunned and an outcast if you don't say the "under God" part or recite the Pledge...

And why do we need a Pledge anyways? Are we so insecure about our patriotism that we need to reaffirm it "just in case" we forget????

If your classmates hear, or don't hear, (and they will) your ass is grass.

It is easy to say that this doesn't matter or it isn't important if you are a "believer". But to those of us that are on the outside it matters a lot. It sets kids and adults up to not only ridicule but to being lower than a second class citizen. With the pledge being said every where these days people who abstain or leave out the offending words are demoted by those present to non-important human status and their opinions are invalid.

It isn't a partisan issue, it's a human rights issue.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

children in your belief system and have them omit "Under God" then? If they are punished for it then you have a very good case. Have there been any cases where a child was punished for not saying it?

happens all the time. You can't prevent kids from ostracizing each other, so why give them one more reason to do so?

Kids beating up other kids for not saying "Under God"? If so how did the schools react/punish the children who did it? In the age of Nintendo is beating up the kid who didn't say, "Under God" a high priority for children?

But I can vouch for it personally. Not necessarily from not saying "under god" but from being found out.

After that, the pressure is definitely there to play along and say "under god" like a good little christian.

I mean, I didn't bother with "under God" for years. Nobody ever noticed. I said the rest of the various pledges, etc.; in various legal settings, as part of a group, even used "affirm" instead of "swear".

I told them I didn't believe in God. I've gotten used to the wide-eyed gasps by now, but at six years old, you really didn't know what to do with it, and that I was supposed to keep it a secret.

And so I was called a Satan-worshipper, told I was going to hell (at age six, keep in mind), and all kinds of other shit. Luckily, we moved when I was in fourth grade so I was able to start over knowing how to avoid being crucified by my peers, pardon the pun.

and there have been teachers that have pointed out kids that don't participate. It only takes on incident for the kids to tune in to it, to watch and listen for other kids to not conform. Once they catch someone not speaking the required oath that kid becomes marked, it may only happen once but it is never forgotten.

from peers and from staff.

This isn't back when you were in highschool anymore, this is now post 9/11 and YES I have been threatened, I have had shit thrown at me during assemblies for not saying Under God, I have been made to look like a complete fool for my lack of religious beliefs, and in a BLUE STATE. And this doesn't just occur during the point of saying the pledge, this follows you around for the rest of your stay in that particular school. I was also threatened by teachers to get suspended or recieve detention- which didn't stop me, but that made even MORE kids notice. Just because YOU haven't gotten shit on for it doesn't mean others don't!

it sanctions that bullies to attack and that the attack will not be "seen" by the authorities.

Sorry about what the low life's have done to you but you are so right it isn't about the 2 seconds that you don't say something it's about the 12 years surrounding those 2 seconds every morning.

of these people and how I was treated on a constant basis- by students and staff alike- because I was (and still am) non-religious, and because "obviously" I was a dyke for having short hair- so put that together, lol... Atheist Lesbo, so I was even more of a target when teachers and staff pointed me out, and teachers and staff did not do a damned thing when people threw shit at me, threatened me, ridiculed me, shoved me into lockers, etc. trust me it goes on. Funny thing is, I'm not a lesbian. But who would believe that from a girl who shaves her head? ;)

The one thing I can say- I stuck by my beliefs- being non-Christian and non-violent. But it got to the point where I couldn't handle it anymore. I dropped out. I was scared to go to school, I didn't want to get beat up. I am not a fighter (physically) and choose never to be unless it is in defense of my life or someone else's. Whether people want to realize it or not, this is a serious problem, and it needs to be acted upon.

When it comes time for me to be a parent, I would rather not have my kid go through the harrassment and pain I went through, all because of some holier than thou assholes whose religion is more important than human rights.

Sorry you had to drop out of school because of it. Things will get better...until you have kids. Then it all gets f'd up again. But seriously, don't give up or give in. I have hope that we have bottomed out in America temporarily and we are working our way back to the top again.

I'm always stunned by how much help their god needs from our gov't. That's some kind of sissy god that needs the supreme court for strength.

Oh, but there's always the option to just not say it, and all the christians will be just hunky-dory with our decision. Not.

Sorry all that happened to you. Welcome to DU.

Mind you this was 2002, when 9/11 was fresh on everyone's minds. I was opposed to the mandated pledge (we never said it before, every morning). When I sat down and didn't recite it, I was called un-American, disrespectful, an anarchist. The teacher that period would argue with me (I'd argue right back about how the pledge does NOT make you patriotic). She'd send me to the dean, and I'd GLADLY go. Fortunately, the school's administration sided with me, as the law says that teachers must lead the pledge, but students don't have to participate. Still, there was a problem of other teachers in the school kicking kids out of class, or giving kids lower grades because of their sitting down.

Mind you, the students who sat down were not stupid or lazy---they remained silent and respectful when the rest of their peers recited the pledge. It's all about mind control--fascists have never liked free thinkers.

All in all, my issue with the pledge goes beyond UNDER GOD. I think it shouldn't be mandated at all. A terrorist can say the pledge; does it make him as patriotic as the rest of us?

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16187573

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/466053

They emphasize the words "Under God" in my kid's class, as though that we the whole point of the Pledge. My daughter has no idea what the Pledge means, she has no clue what "indivisble" and "liberty" mean, but she knows that "Under God" has to be said loudly and proudly. Trust me, if they omit that phrase, everyone will notice. And yes, I do know parents who have told their kids to leave it out and have had their kids harassed for doing it.

That's the whole point. The Bill of Rights isn't there to protect the rights of the majority-- they don't need protecting. The BOR is there to protect the rights of the minority, the ones who get beat up, the ones who can't win in an election, the ones who shouldn't have to pretend they are someone else just to have equal rights in Americas. Ask gays or lesbians how it feels to have to "pass" to get along. Ask women how often they are silent at the workplace when some male employer grabs them, makes lude comments, asks them to climb the stairs in front of them, etc. Should they just be quiet? Who is really being hurt by some male lecher looking up their skirt?

Silence is the enemy of change. If you like the way things are, stay silent, and you'll be very happy.

Oh, that makes me sick, taught to say it loudly...and harrassed if they don't...

Silence and apathy are the real terror threats to America!

Fundamentalist teachers...:puke:

On a dog instead. or something. Nobody will notice unless the kid makes an issue out of it.

My wife and I aren't believers, but my two youngest go to a great church preschool. The people are nice, the prices are reasonable, and they are thriving. They like to say a blessing before dinner each evening, ones they learned at school. The blessings are cute, like one sung to the tune of the superman theme song. As long as the blessing is over while my food is still hot, I dont see any problem with it. I'm in agreement that you really have to pick your battles.

What I have advocated is speaking out, using whatever your belief system is when reciting the pledge. To further my point I suggest that families who wish their children not recite the pledge at all should have that right, that's certainly not advocating silence. As for as gay and lesbians rights no need for me to ask, I watched a little brother die of AIDS, no reason for me to solicit opinions there. About the only thing I have advocated is tolerance by all sides, all positions, there really is a simple solution and that is by instructing the children at home on how to handle the situation. I have asked many times in this thread for reports or stories on children being abused for not saying "Under God" or for children substituting the words for something else. If these "punishments" have occurred I'm sure somewhere there is a report.

You expect the religious right to be tolerant? Whatever...

Take the f***ing "Under God" out of the pledge then there will not have to be a stupid debate, or children harrassed, end of problem!

Put it back to the way it was ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, or get rid of the damn thing all together! It's very fascist anyway!

I pledge allegance to the Corporate Flag of the United States of America, wonderful.

in our own country? At no time in our future will children be able to choose to say the pledge or not to say it? They will not be able to be Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Druid, Native American, or any other religion beside Christian? Is tolerance really impossible? even when cooler minds discuss things?

If they just took the "under God" out, that would solve the problem..it should have never been put in there in the first place...and no you cannot have peace with the religious right or tolerance unless you see everything their way and turn our country into a theocracy!

No thanks! I'm all for peace, but not at the chance of living in a theocratic society...

what about the Christian family? How does this solve their problem? The real solution is just give the children and the families a choice, after all isn't that part of tolerance, choice?

the fucking religious right hadn't taken my choice away by putting the "under God" in the pledge thus changing it in the first place.

Yes, maybe it is about choice, like giving mine back to me. It wasn't the Christians choice that was taken away. It was their choice that was IMPOSED on the rest of us.

If you refuse to see that then, I'm sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree.

When John Edwards, or John Kerry says the Pledge in Congress does it offend you? Has the religious taken your right by adding the words? Did they take your rights by forcing you to say them? You all have me beat hands down when we are forced to say the Pledge with the words "Under God". So far no one has shown a case where punishment was issued for not saying it.

it does offend me, so does singing "God Bless America" at baseball games..AGAIN AND FOR THE LAST TIME...because the religious right changed it in the first place, that's what offends me.

I am seriously sick of them IMPOSING their Christianity on the rest of us..and yes we are punished, just look at who's president...if that's not punishment, I don't know what is...There's your case!

after 9/11, MLB asked teams to have that played during the 7th inning stretch. It went on for awhile, then virtually all teams stopped doing it consistently except for the NY Yankees, who play or have it sung at every home game. Most ticket buyers stand and sing, some stand and don't sing, & some don't stand. If you watch a Yankee game on a network other than their own, stations almost always cut to commercials during the 7th inning stretch.

The song took on a special meaning in NYC, whether you like it or not. (The Yankees flew one of the tattered flags recovered from the WTC during their 2001 games post 9/11.) That's why they play it. From time to time, you still see tears in the eyes of some of the players. And it usually isn't because they're losing.Hideki Matsui, who is neither an American nor (I am assuming) a Christian, Jew or Muslim given that he is Japanese, puts his hand over his heart when it is sung.

God Bless America is probably my least favorite 'patriotic' song'. But if the ticket buyers, who pay a lot of money to attend what is effectively a private event, don't stand up and walk out of the stadium when 'God Bless America' is played or sung, I'd say that they, as the paying audience for the game, have the last word. If you want to debate it, come to NYC and go to a Yankee game and argue with the people sitting next to you. I'd avoid the cheap seats in the bleachers though since the Bleacher Creatures can be a tad unruly.

Belief comes to us by way of emotional relevance. Children are in the process of forming their beliefs. It is their parents rights to instill them with these beliefs as best they can or wish. It is the Government's job to stay out of the belief business. By keeping the phrase in the pledge it creates a repetitive emotional reinforcement of the theistic view. This creates an emotional pressure that would not exist if it were not for the Governments actions. This is counter to the wishes of millions of parents.

When John Kerry or John Edwards recites the Pledge with the words "Under God" it further establishes a religious belief in God. That violates my First Amendment rights. That is punishment enough.

When John Edwards or John Kerry say the Pledge, it is largely because they know if they don't they will be blasted by the press and will lose their electability. Don't believe me, read this thread. Most of the objections to Newdow is that he will make us look bad and ultimately cost us. That's how Bush tried to use this case the first time.

And that's exactly, EXACTLY, what we are talking about here. That is EXACTLY the pressure put on EVERYONE. Kerry is expected to say it, whether he wants to or not. If he does not, his career suffers. Same with Edwards. Same with my children. Same with yours, or anyone else's.

And the problem isn't peer pressure. The problem is a government-imposed litmus test. If Kerry or Edwards or whomever skipped the phrase, people would notice. Those who skipped the phrase would face some retribution, ranging from a frown of approval from a classmate to the loss of an election. All because Congress added the words "under God" as a litmus test to the Pledge. They established a religion. They broke the law. They violated the rights of every American by violating the First Amendment. That's the issue, from top to bottom.

changed to satisfied folks like you.

....I really thought the religious right would allow a person to not say the words "Under God" without making a deal out of it. You know they would instruct their kiddies to report in on all those who don't say the phrase during the pledge.

Why is a pledge to god required in public schools at ALL?
Giving children a choice would mean giving my child a turn to declare that there are NO GODS, NO MASTERS, and having the teacher make it clear that EVERYONE should stand and put their hands over their hearts and PLEDGE it.
Now THAT would be a problem for the "Christian Family".

They mock the very word.

I any private context they wish. Not organized in school with the government primatuer. Believers have no right to demand that their beliefs be practised by everyone to satisfy THEIR agenda. No right to, in a government sanctioned environment have all people conform to THEIR beliefs, no right

You said a child should simply not say "under god." That's silence, and you advocated it.

There's no "tolerance" when one side shuts up because they are afraid of being harrassed. The first amendment was adopted specifically to create tolerance by creating equality. Government does not establish a religion, so all sides are equal. I accept someone else's religion, they accept mine, and government doesn't choose sides. Tolerance is not nearly as important as equality.

This person doesn't get it...I feel like I am arguing with a wing-nut, maybe I am...

Harris not you Jobycom...

I understood what you meant, no worries. And I have the same suspicions.

correct by the absence of further posts...

and no, not a freeper at all.

sound like one. I will not debate you on this issue because of it.

Have a nice day!

is pleasent to see that you think you can judge someone's politics based upon their religious beliefs, how refreshing and so un-biased of you.

someone's religious views cloud their thinking concerning the law and the constitution.

:eyes:

I wouldn't think that this would be a hot-button issue on DU, which has a special forum for atheists, but I guess anything can cause disagreements and flame wars, since we are in such splinters, these days. I happen to agree with you and am glad to see that you're still with us.

Rhiannon:-)

And another kick for Khephra, who would, no doubt, get a kick out of knowing that his post prompted a debate that still rages on.:kick:

....of the fact it was wedged in there by the "politically correct" Eisenhower administration and Congress of the 50's. It sticks out like a sore thumb because it never belonged there in the first place!

do you think that the schools actually give a rip about bullies, sometimes it's that staff that hassles the kids about the damn pledge. Once someone opts not to say "under god" they are branded for life with an ok to bully brand.

Being raised atheist means you have to stay in the closet and only date Jesus, to keep up appearences.

I would be happy to come to some sort of detente with the fundamentalists.

I would give them:

* The words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance

* Religious displays in the public square during Christmas and Easter times (think back to my post stating that every religion should be allowed to celebrate on the public square, using public funds, for two single-day high holidays or one multiple-day high holiday period...we'll think of something atheists can do so we won't feel left out)

* Displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses or other public accommodations as part of a greater tableau of documents and ideas important to our national heritage

* * * * * IF * * * * *

they would agree to the following:

* immediate revocation of tax-exempt status for any church that conducts political activity (although church buildings can be used as polling places without losing their tax-exempt status; oftentimes large churches are the most logical place to install a polling place because large churches have large parking lots)

* no stand-alone displays of the Ten Commandments or other religious doctrine in courthouses or other public accommodations

* termination of public funding for "faith-based" social services

I say we also revoke legal benefits for heterosexual marriage. They can be married in their church, but don't expect tax breaks for it. :evilgrin:

The RR want it both ways, cake and eat it too...bullshit...I say fight them on every church and state issue, INCLUDING this one.

If we don't they just keep implementing their violations of this amendment. If they want to violate I agree, no tax-exempt status.

I think it should be taken away anyway...fuck 'em, what makes them special? Everyone else has to pay taxes!

The Constitution builds, in Madison's words, an insurmountable wall between religion and government. We've built too many stiles over that wall already. Time to make it a little more insurmountable.

Brokering agreements with Republicans over which of our rights and which of our nation's laws they are allowed to violate is a bad idea. It's like telling the neighborhood rapist which women he can have and which he can't. Besides, they're Republicans, they wouldn't stick to any agreement you made anyway.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We are guaranteed that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. Congress legislated that the Pledge contains the words "under God." Professing a belief in a god is the establishment of a religion.

What the Bill of Rights guarantees is that we are free from government-imposed religion. That's the issue here. I can't shield my kid from street corner preachers or nativity scenes in my neighbor's yards-- and I have no interest in doing so, anyway-- but I should be able to shiled my kid from government officials telling her in their official capacity over her that there is a god. That's the freedom the Constitution gaurantees me.

And why is it an issue? If my kid's teacher-- her officially appointed gaurdian for seven hours a day-- can even know what religion my child has, or more appropriately in the case of my kindergartener, what religion her father has, that gives her the ability to judge my child based on something that should be private. Her teacher is a small-minded religious nut, how do I know that doesn't affect her treatment of my daughter? How do I know she won't pressure my daughter in subtle ways to alter her beliefs, or even pretend to change he beliefs to avoid some unnamed penalty? Isn't that exactly why sexual harrassment is banned? If a boss can make continued passes at an employee, that employee's response to those passes affects her job. She can keep saying no, but her answer may cost her a promotion, money, equal opportunity, etc. Same with forcing a kid to publicly announce their religion.

It's not government's business to establish a religion.

We do? I don't... and I'm not the only one. I thought our national motto was "E Pluribus Unum"

http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/unum.html

"We are guaranteed that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. Congress legislated that the Pledge contains the words "under God." Professing a belief in a god is the establishment of a religion."

I could argue that your phrasing allows "under God", since there's no single religion being established. After all, Judaism, Xianity, and some Muslims are fine with "God", so which religion is being established? They may have intended Xianity, but you can't tell from the text.

Original of Bill of Rights text: "establishment of religion". Drop the "a".

that means the Pledge, as written now, is in violation of the Constitution, because of its reference to god. This also violates equal protection as well as freedom of speech and religion.

I haven't read everything that Madison wrote, but what I have read suggests that he would not object to the Pledge. For starters, he was a big (correctly so) believer in the maxim that the law does not deal with trifles or matters that are diminimus. He gave examples, such as chaplins in the Army, etc.

Madison wasn't big on religion in government either, sorry.

That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business.
-- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, January 24, 1774

Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, June 20, 1785

The following two quotes don't lead me to believe he'd be too thrilled with the current form of the pledge.

The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
-- James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432

And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

It seems to me that you are avoiding the question and that is whether the pledge is a real threat to subvert the public liberty. It doesn't seem to me that it is.

without all of the ...

The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
-- James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432

I haven't been able to find it without the ... For all that I know it may say "The civil government always functions with complete success, by the dictatorship of the zucchini who enforce it by the total separation of the Church from the State.

Does anybody havve the complete quote?

Late in his life he wrote to his friend Robert Walsh with whom Madison conducted a steady correspondence: "It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." (Robert L. Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1987, p. 39.)

of a pin?

What a waste of time.

But who's counting.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Being forced to pledge allegiance to a faith that you do not is a
violation of your freedom of religion.

Being forced to say what you DO belive in is a violation of your
privacy rights.

Putting this in the Pledge encourages kids to lie.

"Under God" wasn't there in the original version. We should restore
the original version, if the Pledge were really necessary at all,
which it isn't.

The time spent reciting the "Pledge of Allegiance" would be better
spent teaching the kids what the words mean.

It was added during the height of the McCarthy era when they were seeking out dirty atheist commies. It was added at the suggestion of the Knights of Columbus who had been using the modified version in their pledge for some time. Its point was to out the commie atheists that were sapping society. It was and still is about exclusion from our supposed free society. It has no place in our pledge.

"Under God" My pet peeve with the pledge are three other words "One Nation Indivisible". Why cant we split up peacefully instead of going at each other like two increasingly bitter spouses who hate each others guts and are only staying together "for the children"

I went to public school for 12 years (1972-84) with a girl whose family was Jehovah's Witness. Every morning, during the pledge, she was allowed to step out of the room. Don't know how the adults might have felt about it, but she never faced any ostracization from the kids, we all thought it was neat that she got to do something different. This was in Columbus, OH, by the way. I'm wondering if there are any JW's here that could offer any insight, since obviously this is how they've done things for quite a while and it hasn't seemed to be an issue for them.

the pledge. They didn't catch any flack for this, but they did for not participating in Halloween celebrations in elementary school.

They've caught enough flack for not participating in halloween, valentine's day, etc., that they just stay home on those days.

As a teacher who tried to make sure what we did was inclusive of all, and not just the majority, I took a lot of flack as well.

As long as they stand in silence, they're ok. If they aren't facing the flag, or if they aren't standing, my administrator comes down very hard; he expects them to "show respect." Of course, he'd never know if anyone in my classroom was showing respect or not, but the teachers who are offended by someone who doesn't say the pledge report any incidents of "lack of respect for the flag." So I make sure mine stand and face the flag; if they get used to going about their business while the rest of the class pledges, the following year they're sure to be busted for it.

...We'll stop as you put it, "Indoctinating our children with Religous Dogma" if you'll stop exploiting your daughter to further your own agenda.

If a parent doesn't no one else will.

The 'under god' was put in during the red scare of the 50's to identify those that don't conform to the mandatory belief in god. Guess what it still works that way, picking on a kid for non-belief is sanctioned by schools.

You quit indoctrinating his kid, he'll quit suing to stop you from doing it.

As for exploiting, how about the parents and school officials who are using those kids who don't mind saying the Pledge as justification for violating the First Amendment. Tell you what, have those parents stop exploiting their children and allow my child her Constitutionally-gauranteed rights, and Mr. Newdow will stop suing to protect those rights.

Thats a bit mind blowing. His agenda is part and parcel of his daughters life. He does not want her growing up in a society with a government trying to force god down her throat.

Whatever the custody issues are that is still his daughter. It may well be breaking his heart to have her being raised in an environment he believes to be based on a lie. What would you do for your daughter in such a circumstance?

If you can. Please don't shy away from a challenge like sooooo many others.

...is to push, as far as possible, his atheistic ideology. I refuse to believe saying the words "Under God" amount to religious dogma. People like Mr. Newdow want any and all references to any religious faith removed from anything one might view as "public". In my opinion, this borders on cleansing history. What we're talking about here are two words, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't say, "One Nation, Under Jesus Christ", or "One Nation, under Mohamed". It's "God", and I think that word can mean many, many things to many, many people. We're not talking about forced religion classes, or requiring children to attend some sort of religious service. It's an oath of allegiance to ones country. I really don't see it as anything more than that, and I think the "God" part in the pledge of allegiance is almost insignificant to the overall meaning of the pledge. I know I'm putting myself out there because mine is not in line with the majority position on this forum, but I really don't understand all the fervor over this. If it were schools requiring "religious education", then that would be something else all together. And just for the record, I've never backed down from a good juicy debate. I've lost a couple, and I may very well here, but I've never backed down.

to back her up for non-pledge taking. I told her to wait until after the election, because I was too tired canvassing.
Her teacher has made it very clear that EVERYONE is to stand and recite the pledge, or give a religious (JV?) reason for not doing so.
I don't want to sue anyone. I mumbled the under gawd part as a kid, because I knew I'd get in trouble if I didn't.
Maybe it IS time to make some waves. As an adult, I am constantly abjured to prayer at public affairs. I still stand, but I don't say under gawd, and I don't pause either. I finish before the others. I can tell you that I get some nasty stares...

well, I guess not if you're Christian but object to the phrase for other reasons. but if you don't believe in God, your reason for not saying the pledge would be based on religion. that teacher's an idiot.

Whether it's worth it to you to take this on is up to you, but it sounds as if this might be something to consider, both for yourself and for your own daughter, who seems to feel as you do. I've never given it much thought, since it was a part of my day, since I started school, but I realize now that I should have. I don't have as much of a problem with the pledge as with the "prayer at public affairs," which you refer to. Unless it is at Sunday Mass, then I'd really be upset, if I were you. Why would anyone give you nasty stares?! There are laws separating church and state which are suddenly being tested under this current regime. We have to take back this country from a man who said that God told him to attack Iraq. This is not sane and it's beyond me why anyone would accept such an insane premise.:crazy:

because "under god" appears in the pledge of allegiance? If we're going to argue about the harm that it does, shouldn't we have some kind of statistics to back it up? After all, we've been saying this for more than 50 years. Certainly we must have decades and decades of scarred individuals who's lives have been damaged by this phrase. My argument is not that "under god" should remain in the pledge, but IMHO, Mr. Newdow's child will probably be more damaged by the experience of the lawsuit itself than she would have been by saying the pledge each day. If this is the case, then Mr. Newdow's primary concern would not be that of his child, but rather that of his agenda. If you want to argue that Mr. Newdow is doing what he believes in, that's fine, but I don't buy that he's doing it to "protect his daughter".

it's about the Christians ferreting out the nonbelievers and targeting them for bullying and retribution. When a person opts out of the under god part they are marked as nonbelievers and their opinions aren't valid or worthy of consideration. Kids that don't say it are subject to attacks both verbal and physical not to mention the social ramifications of shunning the nonbeliever.

When the local rabbi found out that we were atheists that was the end of his son playing with our son. These were two kids that were very good friends, not just playground friends.

I am really surprised that a Rabbi would act that way. Although, growing up Jewish, I have known quite a few Rabbis who were assholes! Most, however, prize knowledge and diversity of thought. What a shame! Just goes to show that ANY group has its nuts!

they would not have made good friends anyway. Look at how I've been attacked here. I'm not taking it personally at all, I just find it strange at how so many can judge a person based upon one thread. It's really kind of sad in a way.

it was when the rabbi's religious bias got involved that the friendship was prohibited. It does amaze be that someone would be so afraid of an atheist - to me in means they aren't very sure of their beliefs. I really liked this guy until his prejudice and bigotry came to the surface. Everyone still says he's a great guy and to all outward appearances he is, when I mention it to anyone they simply say "I can't believe that he would act like that" and pretend he isn't a bigot.

Atheist, so is my nephew. I don't see them any different than I see anyone else. If the people who you thought were close to you see you different because of your beliefs then they were never really friends at all, there are much better people in the world no matter what their beliefs are. I have a feeling I lost a few of those here today.

According to him, the only reason his daughter is involved is because he needed her for "standing", which he was denied. The pledge itself was offensive to him, because he felt God was being IMPOSED on his child...

Neville: At what point did your daughter come home to you and say she was ostracized for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance?

Newdow: My daughter is in the lawsuit because you need that for standing. I brought this case because I am an atheist and this offends me, and I have the right to bring up my daughter without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers. So she did not come and say she was ostracized.

His argument is that religion is being imposed on his daughter, and since this kind of behavior has been going on for decades, shouldn't we be able go gather some information on the negative effects of children being forced to say "under god"? Naturally, the most serious result of religion being imposed would be conversions. I'm curious to know how many have converted as a result. I'm also curious to know if the mother is religious. I wasn't able to find out about that.

Full Interview http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/Newdow.cnna/

I vaguely recall that she opposed his suit, wanting her daughter to believe in God. If his daughter's faith is going to formed in the home (a far from certain proposition), I'm not sure the presence or absence of "under God" makes a big difference to her. (Note I said "to her," not "to him".)

And she is in part resposible for the crisis in the case. She has tried to hobble his case from the start.