Sz: So long as it’s a forced recitation, on a daily basis, of a religious utterance, it’s a daily religious exercise. Don’t like it? Tough; change the workings of logic then.
Public school teachers are state employees.
Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge.
Yeah, I feel for you. But don’t forget you just have to put up with it when the gibbering loons join your side in the argument. We have to love them!
Tris
“We have met the enemy and it is us.” ~ Walt Kelly, Pogo ~
What kind of self-respecting hippie weirdo utopian sends his kids to public school anyway?
Home schooling, Mr. Newdow, home schooling … where you can pull that “size-challenged Ms. Muffet sat on rer tuffet eating rer curds and whey - now let’s sing” routine to your heart’s content.
Avumede makes an excellent point, while gex gex makes me laugh the laugh of the witness to the dangerously subversive (for one brief moment, I thought I had finally seen the fnords.)
To draw an analogy, let’s say that schools everywhere adopted the Black pledge of allegiance (about halfway down the page), and the teacher led the class through a recitation every morning. Would you consider this malicious? Regardless of whether or not it was malicious, would you consider it violative of anyones rights?
You don’t think there’s harm in those two words?
Just look at all the insults being thrown at the people who want them out of the pledge.
Calling them asshats and troublemakers and worse because they chose to exercise their First Amendment right of government redress of grievances.
If those two words are such a tiny, minute, barely even there detail that don’t mean anything and can’t do any harm to anyone, why so much outcry against removing them from law?
Those words do harm atheists, and the evidence for it is in this thread. Sad enough there are people right here at SDMB saying that if you have enough of a problem with ‘under god’ being included in a pledge by act of congress that you exercise your First Amendment right to do something about it (redress of grievances), you’re an unpatriotic asshat nutjob who does understand the fabric of the country and is making a big deal out of nothing. And then we have a dickweed who’s willing to state in the Congressional record that he doesn’t want any atheists running his country and if they don’t like the Christian tenor they can get out.
So much for an indivisible republic with liberty and justice for all.
There was an incident a couple years ago where a public school student was forbidden to wear a pentacle. “What about all the WWJD stuff other kids wear?” she asked. “Oh, that’s not offensive,” the school board loftily replied.
Christian propaganda is offensive to some. Not everyone worships the Christian god. Not everyone believes that we are “under god”.
And I’m amazed that people are citing Red Skelton on this. He was joking when he said that; he had to have been. He was born in 1919. The Pledge was instituted in 1942. Therefore, he cannot have recited it “as a schoolboy”.
Could someone please amplify the Red Skelton reference?
For many of the world’s population he is that man with his hat on sideways, pulling goony faces, and selling Guzzler’s Gin.
Any light that can be shed is welcome
Redboss
[hijack]
I just wanted to pop in a say “Hi Redboss, good to see you!” Haven’t seen you around for a while.
[/hijack]
Here you go, Redboss. I hope you aren’t diabetic, (Or a thinking person) because it may make you sick.
I was watching some July 4th celebrations yesterday and saw the Prez reciting the Pledge (no, not his AA Pledge, the other one) with a bunch of people at some huge gathering. They all screamed the “UNDER GOD!” part at the top of their lungs. I know they weren’t literally saying “all you godless atheists can get the hell out of OUR Christian country,” nut that’s sure as hell what I heard . . . I just muttered, “oh, fuck you people,” and switched to the Twilight Zone marathon on the SciFi channel. Not as scary.
Even better, the National Education Association managed to attack the school voucher program as unconstitutional and then yell “Under God” when they recited the Pledge, in apparent opposition to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. I think you could have cut the cognitive dissonance in that room with a knife.
I think you can argue that both decisions were correct, but if you support the Pledge decision I really don’t see how you can attack vouchers as unconstitutional.
Yes, but it was written in 1892, by a Christian Socialist. One of my favorite quotes on the ‘under God’ subject, from the link above:
Sounds like he could have been a welcome member of the SDMB!
Actually, the question to be asked is, “If those two words are such a tiny, minute, barely even there detail that don’t mean anything , why were they put in in the first place?”
If you didn’t think “re” was a nutball before, read this CNN article which states:
So, what y’all (some of y’all, actually) are saying is you don’t give a whit about the parental responsibility to look out for the child unless the parent just so happens to believe exactly like you do. Thanks for clearing that up.
This is absolutely brilliant. This is why PETA/Greenpeace/CauseDuJour is soooooooooo popular with high school and college kids. Because they don’t have a mortgage to pay, bills to shuffle around and ducking Milton’s calls about his Swingline Stapler. It’s impossible to care about the three toed one eyed sloth from Upper Madagascar when your muffler just fell off your car and the phone bill is over due.
I’m sorry to disapoint all of you Athiest relion-haters (well not really, now that I think about it), but your folk hero, Michael Newdow, is also a grade A liar that commited a fraud and perjury with the court. I hope he sees the inside of a jail.
“Furthermore, the girl’s mother, Sandra Banning, has sent a statement to members of Congress that spells out the conniving of this father in the high-profile case.”
“In her discussions with me, [my daughter] expressed sadness about the decision,” said Banning. "I assured her that this was a long process and there were many steps before the Pledge would be changed and the words ‘under God’ removed. Hearing this, she told me that it was OK because she will still whisper ‘one nation under God’ and no one will hear her and know she is breaking the law," she said. Banning added that she was concerned that “the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist.”
Yep! That typifies your average lying atheist that will twist reality to perpetrate a tyranny of the minority.
-
Your “average atheist” is no more a liar than your “average Christian” is.
-
I find it striking that so few theists are at all concerned that the U.S. Congress, in 1954, passed a law under pressure from a special interest group that had no purpose other than a religious one. Doesn’t this bother you at all, Apache? Don’t you find that, you know, unconstitutional?
-
I’m curious as to why Ms. Banning thinks it would be bad if people thought her daughter was an atheist. Wait, let me guess: Atheists are evil. :rolleyes:
-
How exactly is asking our Congress not to pass laws with a strictly religious purpose executing a “tyranny of the minority”? It’s asking them to abide by their friggin’ enumerated powers! You know, those things in the Constitution? Nobody is asking anyone not to believe in God, or requiring them to never say the words “under God” – they’re asking that nobody else be required to say them, and that Congress keep its collective nose out of people’s religion, period.
-
I’m sure that the mother’s indoctrination of the child into Christianity has no bearing on the child’s strong concern about this matter. No, sir. Remember, it’s OK to indoctrinate your children into religion, but not into nonreligion.