Published: Tuesday, Nov. 6 2012 10:11 a.m. MST
What a ridiculous lawsuit.If they remove "God" from the
pledge of allegiance, coins, and other documents etc.Then I can sue
the atheists and the government for taking away my freedom of worship.There needs to be a certain level of tolerance from every group of people.
Atheists need to respect that there are people of faith and this country was
founded with many of the leaders being people of faith. People of faith need to
understand that there are people who don't believe and don't want to.
Just accept it.If you don't want your kid reciting the pledge
then let them stay seated. If I want my kids to recite the pledge then let them.
If they ask each other questions, then that is wonderful. Talk openly and
discuss why or why not. It's that simple folks. What a great time to
learn that there are people that think differently and we should treat each
other with respect.
@Liberal TedI must disagree. The word God should be taken out of the
pledge of allegiance, and off our currency. Not only is this a violaton of our
constitution, but they are not the original words used. The word God was not
added to our currency, and to the pledge, until the 1950's - a time in
which our country was run by fanatics. The US Constitution states
that the government cannot endorse a religion, nor can they prohibit someone
from practicing theirs. As public schools are essentially part of the
government, I would assume that you can see why this is an issue. If your child
wishes to recite a pledge or a primary song - no problem - the school simply
cannot endorse it. If you do not like this, then send your child to a private
religious school, in which this would no longer be an issue.
@tedyour right to your freedom t worship does not extend to requiring your
version of god be included in the pledge or on our currency at the exclusion of
all others. Its called neutrality not oppression.
Ted, I am confused.Can you please expand on how the
words "God" on our money has a bearing, one way or another, on your
"freedom to worship"?(as a side note, I do see a huge
connection between Money and today's organized Religions.)
Re: Tolstoy salt lake, UT"your right to your freedom t worship does
not extend to requiring your version of god be included in the pledge or on our
currency ...."And what version of God does "In God We
Trust" imply?Some folks have such thin skins!!
The Taliban blew up historical monuments because they were not ideologically
pure - I find it fascinating how American leftists, who claim to be
"tolerant", behave so remarkably similar (yet claim they are the
oppressed ones) I was always under the impression that tolerance
actually meant tolerance of things you may not choose or like - not merely
censorship of things that you cannot tolerate
This isn't about freedom of religion, it's about equal protection (the
14th amendment, not the 1st). The kids are being treated unequally by the
government (public school) by imposing a daily Pledge that they can't
participate in. Could it be more ironic that the Pledge divides the
country along lines of belief, right after it swears we are "one nation"
and before it claims it is indivisible?
@TheRealUIt does NOT violate any of the constitution.It
matters not when something was added.The government can endorse
religion,just look how much religious involvement was in government
when the founders governed.IT is Congress that can NOT make a law
concerning a specific religious establishment.Which specific
religious establishment does 'under God' apply to?School
are not the government, they do make law, enforce law nor adjudicate law.They local institutions, the only serve the local community.Most
importantly, the phrase 'under God', underlines that God and
government is the foundational basis of our constitution.Our rights
come from God, and our nation and ultimately our constitutional government were
created to secure those rights.Just read the the declaration of
independence.As one very wise founding father noted, Our
constitution was created for a religious and moral people and is wholly
inadequate for any other.If you remove God from the foundation, then
government can usurp all rights and powers from the people.What
principle would stop them? What atheistic principle has ever stop tyranny by
The extremely disturbing thing about this article is the following paragraph:But Niose claims opting out of saying the pledge doesn't prevent
religious discrimination. “It's hardly a consolation that they get to
sit down and watch while their class conducts this disparaging exercise,Assuming that the kids who sat down, did so during the entire pledge,
they would not only be marked at non-religious but also as non-Americans.
Perhaps this could be alleviated if the instructor would follow up with the
non-god-pledge with the non-religious kids while the religious kids sat down.
Or, the instructor, prior to the saying of the pledge, could explain
that the word God for non-religious people simply means “the natural
world”. That way everybody says the pledge using the same words but
having their own personal meaning. The instructor could follow up
with an explanation of religious freedom in America as meaning that each
individual can believe as they please, and still be Americans.
Our nation ranks religious freedom as its first freedom, tied with freedom of
speech and freedom of the press as the most important of our freedoms. How is
it possible in such a nation to either force schoolchildren to recite the phrase
"under God" or to mark them as different by having them sit out the
pledge? Our founders recognized freedom of conscience - the right to follow
one's own ideas about which religion, or lack thereof, is correct. To
force conformity to the idea that there is a God is un-American. I've
never understood how one can think otherwise.To "the truth"
- The Supreme court has long recognized that the 14th Amendment extended the
protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to restrict the actions of the
various states. This is why the right to gun ownership cannot be prohibited by
a particular state, for example. It is why the right to publish one's
views cannot be prohibited by either the federal, the state, or local
governments. And yes, public schools are run by the government, so these
restrictions apply there too.
Did anyone ask David Niose what he meant when he was referring to the
nonexistent "Equal Rights Amendment" that he says should be the basis of
a court ruling?
Everyone worships some being, object, or ideas, whether they know it or not.
Atheists simply worship humanity and their own intellects. If they
want to believe that America is one nation under the god of secularism, and
pledge their allegiance to the flag on that basis, let so do. The
court should therefore rule that the Pledge of Allegiance's principal or
primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion and does not foster an
excessive government entanglement with religion. The plaintiff has no right to
suppress a lawful expression and engendering of patriotism in youngsters which
is endorsed by the government, that does not violate equal rights or the
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments