Atheists sue N.J. school over ‘under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance

[OutHouse]

I live in a country where I don't have to worry about stupid references to god(s) on my currency or any ridiculous loyalty oaths either.

then why do you give a flying fuck about us currency having something you dont like?

 

[OutHouse]

Once again, you can't see/understand the difference?

On the one hand we have a national anthem that nobody has to pay any attention to. On the other hand you have loyalty oaths and references to the Christian God on your country's currency (among other things).

And you really can't see a difference?

Your superiority complex is really getting annoying.

 

[Victorian Gray]

then why do you give a flying fuck about us currency having something you dont like?

Did you not read this thread from start?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Your superiority complex is really getting annoying.

If I had one I'd try and do something about it. As it is, tell someone who cares?

Anything to actually contribute to the discussion or are you just visiting to eat popcorn and throw spitballs?

 

[Zaap]

I'm not an atheist.

I wasn't actually referenceing you, just the type of paranoid athiest nutball that goes around jousting at words in a pledge. Those types are just as much extremists and just as fucking annoying to everyone else as their extremist religious counterparts. (Although Matt did expose your small.govt jab for the dumb comment it was.)

 

[Zaap]

The fail is you saying "And, fortunately, I live in a country where I don't have to worry about stupid references to god(s) on my currency or any ridiculous loyalty oaths either" when your National Anthem says "God keep our land glorious and free!"

LOL! That's hilarious! The spin he tried to put on that was almost eskimopsy-ian! But then, the guy is dumber than a box of rocks.

Too funny!

 

[Victorian Gray]

LOL! That's hilarious! The spin he tried to put on that was almost eskimopsy-ian! But then, the guy is dumber than a box of rocks.

Too funny!

That added so much more insight to the discussion. Care to contribute an actual thought? For example, explain how they are the same thing?

Or, just go back to throwing high school insults. Whatever works for you.

 

[Zaap]

If you had an ounce of sense (well first off you wouldn't have made a smug ignorant attempt at a slam while being completely wrong) you could have just acknowledged that was a complete fail, laughed it off and moved on. Instead, you'll just double/tripple/quadruple down on stupid and keep proving that you're dumb as fuck.

You're really not one to talk about adding anything to a discussion. Its rare you can even figure out what any discussion is even about.

 

[Vic]

I wasn't actually referenceing you, just the type of paranoid athiest nutball that goes around jousting at words in a pledge. Those types are just as much extremists and just as fucking annoying to everyone else as their extremist religious counterparts. (Although Matt did expose your small.govt jab for the dumb comment it was.)

And why is it a dumb comment? Because pledging loyalty to a federal government is typically non-statist? Oh wait..

 

[Zaap]

And why is it a dumb comment? Because pledging loyalty to a federal government is typically non-statist? Oh wait..

The pledge doesn't pledge allegiance to the federal government. It also has nothing to do with the size of government and certainly nothing about it is enslaving anyone. And of course there's your usual flailing around a terms you don't actually understand with your attempt to define statism as anything other than flat out anarchy.

But leave it to you to also double down on stupid.

 

[Victorian Gray]

If you had an ounce of sense (well first off you wouldn't have made a smug ignorant attempt at a slam while being completely wrong) you could have just acknowledged that was a complete fail, laughed it off and moved on. Instead, you'll just double/tripple/quadruple down on stupid and keep proving that you're dumb as fuck.

You're really not one to talk about adding anything to a discussion. Its rare you can even figure out what any discussion is even about.

So, juvenile insults won. Ok, knock yourself out.

 

[Meghan54]

The pledge doesn't pledge allegiance to the federal government.

Really? And do you understand what the Pledge actually says? Let me remind you.....

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation......"


I only ask because to most people, the word republic (bolded above) refers to a system of government, and in this case, our national government as noted by the "one nation" part. What else could it possibly be referring to? Hate to break it to you, but our nation IS our form of government......what else could it be? A monarchy? A fascist right-wing regime? A hippie commune?

Also, this notion of reciting the Pledge affirming allegiance to the nation and government, a type of government upon which the nation was founded as opposed to a monarchy, was reinforced by the Supreme Court decision requiring everyone to recite the Pledge despite any objections to it in its decision of Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 1940.

The Supreme Court held that, over the objection Jehovah Witnesses had to reciting the pledge, national unity is the basis of national security and required the Pledge to be recited by everyone, no exceptions, no free speech.

"To deny the legislature the right to select appropriate means for its attainment presents a totally different order of problem from that of the propriety of subordinating the possible ugliness of littered streets to the free expression opinion through handbills."--Felix Frankfurter, Justice.

The flag, the Court found, was an important symbol of national unity and could be a part of legislative initiatives designed "to promote in the minds of children who attend the common schools an attachment to the institutions of their country."

So, when the highest Court of a nation rules that the Pledge must be recited by everyone, seems to me that the government is also being spoken about, simply because the nation is nothing without its government.


Oh, and here's how you recited the pledge from the late 1890's until the 1940's.....

Nice, eh?



Of course, the Supreme Court stupidity was overturned 3 years later, but only after rampant violence against Jehovah Witnesses had gone on after the original decision noted above, such as burning JW churches, Litchfield, Illinois police jailed all of that town's sixty Witnesses, ostensibly protecting them from their neighbors, members of the American Legion forced Witnesses from a trailer camp in Jackson, Mississippi and escorted them across state lines to Louisiana, where they were "...passed from county to county, finally winding up in the vicinity of Dallas, Texas." A Nebraska Witness was castrated. Little Rock Witnesses were beaten with pipes and screwdrivers. West Virginia Witnesses were forced to drink castor oil and then tied together with police department rope. Witnesses were jailed for sedition, jailed for distributing literature, jailed for holding a parade, jailed for canvassing without a license, etc., etc.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I agree, personally. However, why are they trying to force their views onto others?

Why not fight to exclude, for instance, the children of atheist parents from saying the "under God" part?

A much simpler case, IMO, where both parties can win.

Who forced their views on who, here?

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes it is divisive.

Add to that the fact that there was no states or national referendum, no popular vote, and very little if any debate (or courage) by various federal courts. It was quite simply a move by several Christian groups to include the phrase into the pledge, thereby separating us, at least in their minds, from the "godless" communists.

Up until the advent of credit and then debit cards the only alternative was to move to a country whose citizenry and government weren't groveling at the feet of some imaginary deity.

So yeah, it is different.

I do find it quite telling how these atheist organizations aren't suing to improve the quality of the education here in the US, but they'd spend all kinds of money making sure a 3-letter word cannot ever find its way into a classroom...while kids would still graduate behind other developed countries despite getting "god" removed.

If its that important, then its that important...I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

I do find it quite telling how these atheist organizations aren't suing to improve the quality of the education here in the US, but they'd spend all kinds of money making sure a 3-letter word cannot ever find its way into a classroom...while kids would still graduate behind other developed countries despite getting "god" removed.

If its that important, then its that important...I guess.

So wait, your argument is that atheists can't sue over government violations of the first amendment until we have the best schools in the world?

I for one don't really care about the pledge. Sure it is an anachronism, quasi fascist, etc, but you don't have to say it. Still, if someone else does care about it I hardly see why they shouldn't be able to act.

 

[Retro Rob]

So wait, your argument is that atheists can't sue over government violations of the first amendment until we have the best schools in the world?

I for one don't really care about the pledge. Sure it is an anachronism, quasi fascist, etc, but you don't have to say it. Still, if someone else does care about it I hardly see why they shouldn't be able to act.

Fwiw, I don't care for the pledge myself, but I'm saying that of all the things to sue over, its the mentioning of God? That isn't the same as a Church of England type deal.

They can actually have a better chance of making an exemption for their kids, IMO.

...and what about the rest of the kids who may feel ostracized by the atheist parents whose students imposed their views on them?

I guess no one cares, as long as they get what they want.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The fail is you saying "And, fortunately, I live in a country where I don't have to worry about stupid references to god(s) on my currency or any ridiculous loyalty oaths either" when your National Anthem says "God keep our land glorious and free!"

Hmmmm I could have sworn that Canada had currency (suspect many are still in circulation) with "D. G. Regina" on it. Translated from Latin "Dei Gratia Regina" means God Save the Queen.

 

[soulcougher73]

The phrase and the pledge itself should go away. I aint pledging to no flag or country. WTF is wrong with people

 

[fskimospy]

Fwiw, I don't care for the pledge myself, but I'm saying that of all the things to sue over, its the mentioning of God? That isn't the same as a Church of England type deal.

They can actually have a better chance of making an exemption for their kids, IMO.

That's already something that is on the books. Nobody is required to say the pledge as I understand it.

...and what about the rest of the kids who may feel ostracized by the atheist parents whose students imposed their views on them?

I guess no one cares, as long as they get what they want.

Not allowing a school-led pledge to god and country is not atheists imposing their views on other people, it is preventing other people from imposing their views on them. Would you say that Muslim children are being ostracized because the school doesn't lead the student body in daily prayers towards Mecca?

 

[soulcougher73]

One nation, indivisible.
Get over it.

Except that darn secession.

 

[fskimospy]

"Under God" divides the nation into believers and non-believers.
So "One nation, under God, indivisible" is not logically consistent. Get over it.
One nation, indivisible.

Indivisible unless Russia wants a part of it, right?

 

[Retro Rob]

That's already something that is on the books. Nobody is required to say the pledge as I understand it.

Well, I don't see the problem then.

Not allowing a school-led pledge to god and country is not atheists imposing their views on other people, it is preventing other people from imposing their views on them. Would you say that Muslim children are being ostracized because the school doesn't lead the student body in daily prayers towards Mecca?

If the school was previously allowing mecca to be mentioned and now it stopped because 3 of the 30 are "offended" at the mentioning of Mecca, then yes.

You can use the "What if it was a Muslim" deflection all you want, but imposing is imposing no matter who the victim(s) are/is.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I don't see the problem then.




If the school was previously allowing mecca to be mentioned and now it stopped because 3 of the 30 are "offended" at the mentioning of Mecca, then yes.

You can use the "What if it was a Muslim" deflection all you want, but imposing is imposing no matter who the victim(s) are/is.

I genuinely don't get why NOT allowing someone to impose their standards on people is then in turn imposing your standards on them. This is the same sort of logic that Christian conservatives use when they say they are being persecuted because they aren't being allowed to persecute gay people.

 

[soulcougher73]

Its also funny that a pledge goes against everything the founding fathers wanted for this country. May as well go back to England and pledge themselves to the King.

 

[soulcougher73]

I do find it quite telling how these atheist organizations aren't suing to improve the quality of the education here in the US, but they'd spend all kinds of money making sure a 3-letter word cannot ever find its way into a classroom...while kids would still graduate behind other developed countries despite getting "god" removed.

If its that important, then its that important...I guess.

Your kind fought to put it there in the first place. Forget histroy much? Or just a typical religious hypocrit?