"The state statute that requires daily recitation — sponsored by
school, led by teacher — of the Pledge of Allegiance, obviously
discriminates against atheist and humanist children."This is a
bold faced lie. Recitation of the pledge is not "required" under New
Jersey state law. Any child may opt out of saying the pledge. I hope
they use this in their lawsuit as it will be immediately dismissed.
First of all any student has the right to not say the Pledge based on the 1943
case. As to whether or not this violates the Establishment Clause it
becomes an issue of what religion is the State establishing. Various Christian
sects, Jehovas Witnesses, Jewish sects, and Muslim sects, as well as others all
have a belief in "God". Obviously they do not all use the common English
designation for naming the Creator. But here in the US we use English as our
common language and therefore use the English designation.
I disagree Barfolomew, Recitation of the pledge is voluntary and although it is
regular part of the day proceedings in every school I have taught at it
accomodates both religous and non religous patrons as long as it is not forced.
1st amendmant expressions of belief does not mean that you are free from being
exposed to religious expression if so Atheism and Darwanism should be removed
from the school as well.They are after all secular theologies. I have had
students recite the pledge and leave out the under God part which is fine, I
have had students refuse to even state the pledge which is fine too although I
think it is hypocritical to live in a country and enjoy all the priveledges and
rights of being a citizen of such a nation but oweing nothing to it just because
you disagree. A little mutual respect should be shown to both sides here. I
won't force you to pledge to a God you don't believe in but don't
take a way my public right to do so. Give and take people.
I actually think having "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under
God" is a complete farse in today's America and these phrases probably
should be removed. America is certainly NOT 'one nation' anymore nor
is America a God believing and respecting nation anymore. America has turned to
the Marxist model of atheism at the national level at least and Christians are
being attacked at every turn. America is only a pale shadow of what it once was
during the 1940's and 1950's which repesented the BEST of America. The
real question is how much longer can this country survive in tact before it
tears itself completely apart? Obama has ushered in the most polarized and
divided culture in history to this nation and has done so NOT by accident by on
President Eisenhower extraordinarily wise when he said "we are reaffirming
the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in
this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever
will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."As we continue to weaken our spiritual weapons in America over such
ridiculous notions put forth by these athiest plaintiffs we will forever damage
our most powerful resource!.We Americans who sit on our duffs and do
nothing while small minorities trample on the principles that made this country
great will come to rue the day when we lost our freedom of speech and freedom of
religion.Alas, our grandchildren will ask us how we could allow this
to happen to a once great nation.
@patriot"and Christians are being attacked at every turn."Interesting..., as a Christian myself I seem to have avoided any of
these attacks..."Obama has ushered in the most polarized and
divided culture in history to this nation"Recency bias (kinda
like how Clinton and Reagan score well in "best president ever" polls).
Clearly Lincoln's presidency was when we were most divided. @Meckofahess"We Americans who sit on our duffs and do nothing while
small minorities trample on the principles that made this country great will
come to rue the day when we lost our freedom of speech"Freedom
of speech doesn't include freedom from criticism. And besides, what
principles are being trampled?
This conversation is obnoxious. Religion is not under attack. Whether or not we
say "under god" does not matter. As soon as people start limiting my
ability to worship then I will agree that it is under attack. The 40s and 50s
were not a better time. People were outright racist and weren't embarrassed
by it. 40s and 50s were better for white Christians but not so much for everyone
else. Does anyone want to argue that black people were treated better in 1945
There are those who don't believe that there should be any restrictions on
government. This can only be accomplished if people are convinced that
government can do anything they want. In order to accomplish this they must
convince people that rights are granted by government and not by God.If rights are granted by government, then government can rescind those
rights.If the people believe that "all men are endowed by their
creator with certain unalienable rights" then the task become much more
difficult.Ironic that the rights of atheists are bound to the
majority believing in God.
An atheist friend once asked me if I thought that the words "Under God"
constituted an unconstitutional establishment of religion.My
Answer:Who can create a law? He replied; Congress.Can the
President create a law? NoCan the courts create a law? NoWhat is a
law? A government imposed rule, that usually carries a penalty.Article 1, Section 1 Paragraph 1 of the constitution grants ALL legislative
authority to a congress consisting of a House of representatives and an Senate.
The first amendment state; "Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."Since only Congress can create a law and Congress has also been prohibited
from touching religion, how in the world did the Supreme court ban Prayer in
School? If Congress had passed a law prohibiting prayer in school it would
violate the 1st Amendment. How could it not? How then did the SCOTUS prohibit
prayer in school when congress could not and it is their job to legislate?Further the Pledge of Allegiance is not a law, it was passed as a
congressional resolution. The President did not sign it.
Only in America and in some Muslim nations. In nearly all advanced Western
countries there is a strict separation between church and state. Let God be
praised in the religious sphere and leave him out of any political statement.
Give unto Cesar ...
"Recitation of the pledge is not "required" under New Jersey state
law."It's a reference to the NJ state law 18A:36-3(c)(c) Require the pupils in each school in the district on every school
day to salute the United States flag and repeat the following pledge of
allegiance to the flag: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," which salute and pledge
of allegiance shall be rendered with the right hand over the heart, except that
pupils who have conscientious scruples against such pledge or salute, or are
children of accredited representatives of foreign governments to whom the United
States government extends diplomatic immunity, shall not be required to render
such salute and pledge but shall be required to show full respect to the flag
while the pledge is being given merely by standing at attention, the boys
removing the headdress.The statute requires students to exclude
themselves, plus it still unconstitutionally requires them to show full respect.
@The RockThank you for that bit of Constitutional analysis,
unfortunately for you, facts and the Supreme Court both disagree with you.
Let's look at the facts first, SCOTUS never prohibited prayer in school,
SCOTUS prohibited school-led prayer. Part of the separation of church and state
is that the government does not promote one faith over another. This is why I
personally believe the "under God" in the Pledge to be unconstitutional.
When you say "under God" you are automatically excluding Muslims as well
as Hindus, and many other religions that don't believe in "God."
Muslims worship Allah, Hindus have millions of gods, are we to exclude them from
the public space? One could even go as far as to argue that "under God"
is exclusionary to Jewish people as well. Technically the god they believe in
and worship is Yahweh. "Under God," as is being pointed out in this
court case, also excludes atheists and humanists as well. If you
would like to engage in debate with me on Constitutional theory, go right ahead.
I welcome the opportunity to prove you wrong.
As a high school student, I was taking a certain class where we were going to be
taught sexual education in a way that I still feel was inappropriate. Permission
was needed to attend. Thank goodness my mother allowed me to opt out. None of
the other students teased me about my choice. If you don't like the pledge,
just don't say it. As a teacher, I NEVER forced any child to do so.
Sometimes I wonder if people have nothing else to do but cause unnecessary
things to waste time. If you want to help this country, do something to support
your local schools. Leave the pledge alone.
Everyone has a God. For some it is money. For others it is the things money can
buy. For Humanists, it is humans. For others, like Environmentalists and
Atheists it is nature. For those who are religious, it is the Deity they
worship, who may be called Allah, or Jesus, or any number of other names. God is generic and applies to everyone, even though Atheists don't
like to think of it that way.
@lonepeakstudentYour are correct that the SCOTUS prohibited
school-led prayer. A law is a government imposed rule. Only congress can
create a law. This action by the SCOTUS violated the constitution. They
legislated from the bench.SCOTUS has acquired the power (not granted
in the constitution) of judicial review. They can declare a law
unconstitutional; and the law becomes null and void. In this case there was no
law in question, just a practice engaged in by virtually 100% of schools and
supported by a large majority of the people.This ruling created law,
and article 1 section 1 paragraph 1 specifically states that only Congress can
@lonepeakstudent:You are correct that in different languages the
name we use (God) to name the Creator is different. Some say Yahweh, some Allah,
some say El Senor, some say Jehova etc. So when we say God here in the US we are
referring to the God of Abraham aka Ibrahim that both the Muslims and the Jewish
people worship. The differences in beliefs of these groups is whether or not
they believe in Jesus as the son of God, as a great prophet prior to Mohammed,
or as just another man who lived around 2000 years ago.
"Under God" is a key phrase. Besides more fully embodying the American
spirit, it helps seperate the pledge from its somewhat communist-inspired
root.To those who complain about it enforcing religion on you, I ask
why you lack concern about your forcing irriligion on me. "Seperation of
church and state" does not mean "elimination of church from state":
It means not upholding any particular church or way of thought for state
sponsorship. Religion in a general sense, however, is a key founding element of
the nation; insisting a lack of religion is equally inappropriate to insisting
one particular one.This is one nation under God. In God we trust.
God bless America.
@techpubsFirst, it is still exclusionary for those who do not
believe in god. Second, when the name of the god is changed, the god takes on
slightly different aspects. Even though the Abrahamic religions all
superficially worship the same god (the god of Abraham), their concepts of deity
are all slightly different. Furthermore, 'God' with a capital G refers
specifically to the god of Christianity.@The RockThe
court case in which SCOTUS overturned school-led prayer was Engel v. Vitale in
1962, which did in fact have a law at the root of it. "The respondent Board
of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York,
acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School
District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each
class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day." I
would also refer you to McCollum v. Board of Education, in which SCOTUS found
religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause
and therefore unconstitutional.
@techpubs I'd also like to point out that Jehovah is another
name for Christ. Not another name for the Abrahamic god.
@lonepeakstudent...I fear you may not be aware that your view on the
identity of Jehovah (presumably inspired by your own faith tradition) is not the
same as that of millions of others. Please be respectful to those whose beliefs
may differ from yours.Jehovah (Yahweh) is Hebrew in origin. Ask most
Hebrew-speakers if they agree with your stated interpretation. (Hint, they will
not.) Nor will most adherents to many main-stream Christian denominations.
Yours is in fact a minority viewpoint. As such, though it still deserves
respect, please don't lecture everyone else.
@UtahIndyPardon me, I was not actually aware that Jehovah is an
etymological derivation of Yahweh. Thankyou for correcting me.
Although I agree that the words "under God" don't belong in the
Pledge, the larger problem is that the Pledge is simply a loyalty oath more
suitable to a totalitarian country than to a great free country.We'd be much better off if people recited the preamble to either the
Constitution or the Declaration of Independence in place of the Pledge. Frankly, although I love my country, my allegiance is to God, not
country. When a conflict arises between God and country, wise people choose God.