Pledge of Allegiance is back in court

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Brotherly Kindness SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 24, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    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 Constitution.

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    Nov. 9, 2012 6:38 a.m.

    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?

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 7:36 p.m.

    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.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Nov. 7, 2012 5:26 p.m.


    It 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 government?

    Nov. 7, 2012 12:17 p.m.

    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?

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 6, 2012 3:42 p.m.

    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

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 6, 2012 2:03 p.m.

    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!!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 6, 2012 1:00 p.m.


    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.)

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 6, 2012 12:30 p.m.

    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 at the exclusion of all others. Its called neutrality not oppression.

    Nov. 6, 2012 12:28 p.m.

    @Liberal Ted

    I 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.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 6, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    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.