I’m as happy as a moderately happy clam.
Hopefully this is the first step towards loosening the stranglehold that religion has on this country’s government.
Flashback to the days when I stood and had to recite the PoA. What did I think about? The kid next to me? The homework I’d forgotten to do? An itch? Pretty much anything but the words pouring out my mouth. It was just a thing to say. I eventually stopped saying “Under God” because I didn’t believe in one, but it never bothered me to hear other people say it.
Now the main thrust of the lawsuit is “think of the children, unjustly being forced to hear about religion!” and that’s silly. A parent should damn well be able to explain one’s religious position and that other people will have differing viewpoints. Those words are just an example of that difference.
I’m surprised that this ruling was made, but not unpleased at the outcome. It is a violation of the separation of church and state, but such a minor violation that I’d never worked up the rightous indignation to complain.
The first time this was mentioned, I felt afraid. The thought of removing God from my pledge of allegiance was a frightening thought. But then as I gave it a second thought, I remembered when the words “under God” were first added to the Pledge. It was during the Eisenhower administration when fear of communism was greatest. It was hard for me to remember to add those words. I believed in God. I learned that at home before learning the pledge. I loved my country. I learned that at home too, before learning the pledge. So the belief wasn’t the problem, just adding more words to something that HAD to be said everyday.
As I sat here the other day thinking about my concern over this issue, I realized that it sounds like many people were having a fearful reaction, just as I had. But afraid of WHAT? I believe in God, my faith, my country, my family. What has been happening here and in the world is also a frightening time. I think that when we are afraid of some unknown evil, we tend to want something to protect us. The point is, memorized words spoken blindly can’t do that!! We have to do that ourselves. As a nation, as a people, united in the belief that we are all the same and yet each of us is unique. Our laws are made to protect us in that way.
So, now what do I think of this decision?
Nothing wrong with it.
It’s not taking anyone’s rights away.
It hasn’t said that we should close down our churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, religious schools, etc. What it says is that we can’t make everyone pray the same, recite the same, or believe the same.
Afterall, isn’t that what our forefathers wanted. A country of the people, by the people, for the people. Some of them came to escape religious persecution. Religious injustices have been committed everywhere, even here, for generations. The Native American had his whole belief system stolen and revamped when the europeans came. The Salem witch trials murdered innocent people in the name of religious belief. Communism caused fears and condemnations that people who are alive today, suffered from.
The Bill of Rights was created to protect us from losing common human rights. There are times when we feel our own beliefs are threatened and fear takes over. As long as our laws and lawmakers maintain those rights, we have nothing to fear. We are the guardians of those rights. There must be separation of church and state, else we rob our society of it’s unique quality of being diversity.
I end with a quote from my Christian bible. A quote which loudly comes to mind is:
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God those things that are God’s. 
rjung applauds and salutes GrannyJoy’s post.
Granny, may I have permission to reproduce your message on my web site?
I, too, applaud and salutes GrannyJoy’s post.
Like BraheSilver, I “stopped saying ‘Under God’ because I didn’t believe in one,” but even as a kid I understood that this was a violation of the separation of church and state. I also realized that this was similar to people’s reaction to the word “communist”: there was just no reasoning with people. I still to this day fail to really understand the nations utter contempt and hatred towards the idea of “communism.” It’s just a type of government. I understand the hatred towards the Russian communists, because they were our enemy. But defeating some sort of public program because it was “communist” or invalidating someone’s life work because they had suspected “leftist leanings” always seemed to me the epitomy of mindless brainwashing. But there you have it - you just could not reason with people, let alone carry on any kind of intelligent discussion.
So it is with the Pledge.
Clearly this violates the separation of church and state, but that seems to be OK with most everyone. If you had to move because of your job, and ended up in a state where most people were satanists (bear with me, it’s just an extreme example, but Utah is not that far removed from the idea that one state can have a majority with different religious leanings than the rest of the country) and YOUR KID had to recite a pledge that said “one nation, under satan…” would you think it’s that harmless? When you told your kid that “we didn’t believe in that” would you be able to console him for feeling different from everyone else at school, for getting picked on by the other kids, for having to explain to some teachers why he was “protesting” against saying a pledge to his country?
Yes, it’s an extreme example, but that is what the separation of church and state protects us from.
Up to now, it was a minor point, and we could all just ignore it. As Umbriel stated, the pledge is not a matter of law. So the fact that every single school in the entire country says it does not make it a “federal case.” We could just ignore the fact that it violates the constitution, and we did, because it didn’t (to most people’s thinking) really hurt anyone. Kind of like nativity displays: as long as everyone was Christian, no one cared that it violated the constitution. But one Jew or Hindu gets offended, brings it to court, and viola, no more government sponsored nativity scenes.
BUT NOT ANY MORE. Like it or not, someone has finally said that this is wrong, this is unconstitutional, and brought it to court. Unless this does not make it to the Supreme Court, in which case we may still have some wiggle room, the issue will be decided. It will be a “federal case”. If the Supreme Court affirms the decision, “the government,” in the form of school boards, will not lead students in a pledge each day containing those words. But if they strike it down (as I unfortunately believe they will), it will have ammended the constitution to allow this form of government sponsored religion. Like that famous case when the Supreme Court ruled a “free state” could not protect a slave who had escaped there from a “slave state” because that would deprive the slave owner of his property, this will establish the ability of the government to “sponsor” at least the idea of religion (as long as it’s not too specific, I guess). I’m probably getting some facts wrong here, but it took the Civil War and three constitutional ammendments to fix that one.
The separation of church and state has just taken a major blow with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling allowing school vouchers to go toward paying for religious schools. As MEBuckner quoted from another Supreme Court decision in 1947,
It was noted in the dissenting opinions of the 5-4 decision that something like 97% of the private schools that vouchers would be used for are religious schools. So even though the majority said that since there are choices for voucher users as to what schools their children would be sent to, thus there is no government sponsorship of religion, it seems to me that our tax dollars (which is what pays for the vouchers, after all) would be used to pay a large number of religious schools, which would seem to directly violate the court’s previous interpretation of the first ammendment. Unless of course, as a condition for using voucher funds, the school would have to agree not to teach or sponsor any kind of religion. Yeah, right!
Maybe since it was a close decision, one more justice will find the government-sponsored pledge using the words “under god” in a school setting, where the student’s choice is either reciting or protesting, a clearer example of government sponsorship of religion.
I certainly hope so.
By the way, I agree the other “ridiculous” examples of ‘In God We Trust’ on our currency, the oaths of office for our elected officials and the pledges said before congress are also in violation of the separation of church and state, and should also be removed, but they are not nearly as eggregious as the pledge. No one has to affirm or agree to anything to spend money. Not nearly as bad as a pledge. The oaths and government pledges are also “officially” sponsoring government acceptance of religion, but only responsable adults (who could theoretically choose to change the wording) have to say it. Not as bad as every school child in the country being led in those words every single school day.
Thank you for indulging my rant. You may go back to work now.
I don’t understand all the upset?
I’m a non-believer, but I don’t mind people praying before dinner at my house.
It doesn’t kill you to say god, does it?
GrannyJoy is my new favorite poster.
For those who don’t see the problem, let me explain. It certainly is a minor issue to me, but calling the pledge voluntary is a joke. When I went to school I actually saw kids get in trouble for “not participating”, I would assume that many people of my generation saw the same thing. I always just said the real pledge after I found out it had been changed (I was about 10 before I knew about the change), but I admire the guy who stood up for his daughter and wish some of our elected representatives had that much strength to their convictions.
I object to the recitation of any sort of loyalty oath. Must one make an oral, public declaration in order to be a good citizen? Does one who refuses to make said declaration immediately become suspect?
I mouthed the pledge for years, never really thinking about it. It’s just what one did. The day I finally thought about the words and what I was saying - that day still makes me cringe. And now, all of the political posturing that’s accompanying it today is making me angry. I listened to some Senator on the radio blathering on about this - he never shut up but he didn’t say anything of substance.
What saddens me is that there are real problems to be solved in this country, real issues that demand attention, yet we get our panties in a wad about something as inconsequential as the pledge. Pathetic.
I’m of the opinion that children in public schools should receive a yearly review of the Pledge of Allegiance and flag etiquette and a comprehensive study of the Constitution (tailored to their age and skill levels, of course) and that, at age 18, all citizens of the U.S. should be made to take and pass a citizenship test incorporating all of the above and THEN be granted “full” citizenship, at which time they would then recite the Pledge of Allegiance and mean it. I do not think we educate children enough on the history of our country and our government, and that people take for granted all the rights we have. That said, I think kids should learn REAL U.S. history, as opposed to the revisionist versions they get, but one can’t have everything. While I agree with FCM that we have bigger problems to solve, I think doing the above would go a long way toward solving some of them. Getting to my point, I think the phrase “under God” should be removed from the Pledge. It IS unconstitutional. (As for cash, I do not make a vow to or with it, and the makers of said cash may indeed trust in God, and that’s their right.)
All this discussion brings about a lot of sharing of ideas, and that’s great. I think the major point we need to remember is that free will and expression of thought/belief is what we are all trying to preserve.
I may be wrong but I believe there are some religions in our country that do not profess allegiance to any nation, only to their God. I applaud that as well.
As for school vouchers to private schoolsl–why not? It’s not just religious schools, but all private schools. Vouchers help give parents and kids a choice. It tells public schools to shape up or we’ll ship you out. AND, those parents pay taxes too, but if their school is so bad that the kid can’t get an education, why should that taxpaying parent pay for a lousey education for their kid. Religion has nothing to do with that. It’s a choice between ignorance and a better society through quality education.
Anyway, I’m for human rights with dignity. Thanks.
P.S. God bless everyone!
there is no missing link. no-one’s looking for a missing link because the theory doesn’t rely on any missing link.
in school part of the science lessons tell us that tiny little germs make us sick. i don’t believe that. isn’t ignoring science fun.
guess what, science and religion aren’t equivalent. religions isn’t just an alternate theory. science is grounded in fact, you get taught it in school because school is about fact. it’s not about reinforcing the religious beliefs of the majority.
It doesn’t kill you to not say god, does it?
Besides, the issue here is not that people are saying god, but that it’s the government telling people to say god.
Little Timmy saying “I love Jesus” is one thing; the public school teacher telling all the students that they should love Jesus is another.
Upon hearing the news
Me: It’s about time!
My girlfriend: That’s stupid.
Me: (prudent silence)
Y’know, if the Pledge was good enough for the Queen of England (anyone else remember that after September 11th?), it’s good enough for me.
This is a silly non-issue that is taking up our time and energy simply because one glory-hounding evangelical athiest (and I have the deepest scorn for any evangelist of any belief system…or non-belief non-system…) wants his fifteen minutes of fame. In the process, he has introduced an issue to divide otherwise rational people in a time when we should be concentrating on what we have in common and standing together.
Two thumbs up!
I wrote my Sen. and Rep. today in support of the opinion. I don’t expect it to hold.
[size=1/4] I wonder if I’m now on the list of Atherist/Heathens that need relocating :rolleyes: [/SIZE]
Cool. Since you don’t have any strong feelings about it, let’s just delete the “under God” and go have a beer.