This is just hate-driven. Nobody is obliged to say ‘Under God’ so this case amounts to a claim that it is offensive for OTHER people to express a religious belief, which seems contrary to the 1st amendment
"An atheist couple in Acton, Massachusetts, are suing a local school district and claiming that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “under God” discriminates against their children. The parents, who wish to remain anonymous, are identified only as John and Jane Doe. They have three children in the Acton-Boxborough school system — one in high school and two others in middle school.
In Middlesex Superior Court on Monday, David Niosie, the family’s lawyer asked that the words be taken out of the expression of loyalty to America. According to the attorney, the term “under God” forces the children to engage in an activity that “defines patriotism according to a particular religious belief.”
“Every day these kids go to school and the pledge is recited declaring that the nation is in fact under God,” Niosie went on to tell a FOX25 reporter. “That marginalizes them and suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.”
The school district, though, argues that the pledge is constitutional and that it is voluntary, thus the children are not being forced to participate. Dr. Stephen Mills, superintendent of the Acton-Boxborough school district, reiterated these views in commenting on the matter.
The words “under God” were added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954 under then President Dwight D. Eisenhower. They were included as a response to Communism and the Cold War.
The judge has not indicated when a decision on the matter would be made, although it should be noted that atheists have previously lost this same battle in other parts of the country.
Source
14 comments:
Here we go again another bunch of these self centred athists demanding the whole nation abide by their narrow minded rules
The words were pushed by the "Knights of Columbus" in a nation wide campain. My Cub Scount Wolf Handbook printed in 1954 had the pledge without the phrase. An interesting side fact is that when I was sworn into the US Army, the mention of god was optional. So if it was good enough for the military to make in optional it should be good enough for the Pledge to be optional.
If saying "God" bothers you so much, don't say it. But don't dare demand that i can't say it.
Because we now live in a Marxist country, atheists and other left-wing vermin feel empowered, which is why we've heard so much whining from them in the last three years under Obamunism.
I have never tried, nor would i ever try, to force my religious beliefs on anyone, and i certainly will not tolerate anyone forcing their non-religious beliefs on me. And that is exactly what atheists are attempting to do, do away with my beliefs and replace them with theirs.
Beware atheists, for there are "many" of us who do not subscribe to the "turn the other cheek" mentality.
thanks for posting this. We always had the option of saying the pledge growing up here in the US. I think though you might have been required to stand up, but you didn't have to say it. By the time we got to high school absolutely nobody said it, just the person on the loudspeaker said it. But the fact this leftist pc wiener wants to deny everyone else the ability to say the "under god"part shows what jerkoffs these people are. If you dont' like it THEN DO NOT SAY IT. This is why I hate liberals. If a conservative dislikes something, he doesn't partake. If a liberal dislikes something they get i banned.
The attorney literally makes the statement that the children making this statement of faith 'marginalizes' them!
Proof again that they're not so much protecting their own kids as rescuing the poor defenseless children of bullying believers from a life of meaningless belief in a non-existent God.
I actually have no problem with kids not saying the pledge. If they don't mean it, saying the words only makes them liars, and forcing them to say it won't bring them to believe any quicker.
When I was a teenager, as an unbeliever, I stood silent during the 'under God' part, and the caring response of my teacher was a big part of my finally coming to the Lord as an adult.
By the same token, denying children the ability to make a daily public statement of their faith - and somehow suggesting that it's wrong to do it - infringes on the same rights they claim to be protecting - the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit.
If these wackos dont like ONE NATION UNDER GOD then tell them to GET A LIFE Darn products of the ME GENERATION
The government's inscription of the phrase "In God we trust" on coins and currency, as well as its addition of the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and adoption of the phrase "In God we trust" as a national motto in 1956, were mistakes, which should be corrected. Under our Constitution, the government has no business proclaiming that "we trust" "In God." Some of us do, and some of us don't; each of us enjoys the freedom to make that choice; the government does not and should not purport to speak for us in this regard. Nor does the government have any business calling on its citizens to voice affirmation of a god in any circumstances, let alone in the very pledge the government prescribes for affirming allegiance to the country. The unnecessary insertion of an affirmation of a god in the pledge puts atheists and other nonbelievers in a Catch 22: Either recite the pledge with rank hypocrisy or accept exclusion from one of the basic rituals of citizenship enjoyed by all other citizens. The government has no business forcing citizens to this choice on religious grounds, and it certainly has no business assembling citizens' children in public schools and prescribing their recitation of the pledge--affirmation of a god and all--as a daily routine.
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
By making them remove the words "under God", wouldn't the government be prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
Why are the Godless worrying about the word God anyway? I thought they did not believe. I am insulted by seeing odumnasses name everywhere,but i do not want it removed. Idiot family, parents going to bring their kids to hell with them.
Anonymous,
It is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Anonymous (other),
A word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that--REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives--small government conservatives--should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with "standing" (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government's failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.
That being said, we should close down the Department of Education and return complete control of our school systems to the State and local communities thereby removing any involvement by the Federal Government.
No Federal involvment would seem to make the legal issue go away since the teachers and staff would no longer be agents of the Government.
"return complete control of our school systems to the State and local communities "
Your pal Bush came up with the "No child left behind" program. And recently when Obama let 10 states "opt out", guess who complained about that? The Republicans.
I suggest that you repugs get your story straight.
Doug Indeap - your insightful remarks are probably too 'deep' for the majority of simple-minded religious bigots here. Some of those see it as simply a battle of wills - their religious intolerance against the intolerance they perceive from any voice that dares to oppose their undeserved dominance in social and political affairs.
Time to get the NEA away from our kids
Post a Comment