UNDER GOD!

I agree, this is like when they took prayer out of school. They could have done the same thing by excusing the child from the prayer. The separation of Church and State was not intended to be interpreted the way it has been by all of these ideologically based atheist.

Well you know what, in essence, the judge's ruling violates the free exercising there of.

In what way?

"Under God" was not implemented by our founding fathers. Removing this phrase from the pledge in classrooms is actually a move that protects religious freedom.

It violates no one's rights. Children are still able to say "under God" all they want. They just can't be compelled to say it by an educator.

I agree, this is like when they took prayer out of school.

Prayer has NOT been taken out of school. Children are free to pray throughout the day. In fact, many schools allow things like group prayer around the flag pole and student-lead bible studies in empty classrooms.

Children can no longer be compelled to pray or be forced to listen to prayer lead by teachers, staff, or administration.

This protects our religious freedom. Muslim children are not forced to recite or listen to Jewish prayers. Christian children are not forced to recite or listen to Muslim prayers. And on and on.

This gives PARENTS the choice about the religious instruction of their children. Their children are no longer subject to the religious beliefs and affiliations of school employees.

I guess what I'm getting at with the prayer thing, is that when I went to public school we said the "Our Father" prayer lead by students over the loud speaker each morning after we stood and said the pledge of allegiene. We also said the "God is Great" prayer before we lined up to wash our hands for lunch. This has been removed from the public school.

Have you been to an elementary public school lately? They don't encourage much prayer.

"Under God" was not implemented by our founding fathers. Removing this phrase from the pledge in classrooms is actually a move that protects religious freedom.

--One of my points was that our nation was founded by religious men/women, and some non religious men/women, but they ('atheists') were few.

It violates no one's rights. Children are still able to say "under God" all they want. They just can't be compelled to say it by an educator.

-And an atheist isn't compelled to say it either. This is just a stupid ruling, its isn't needed.


Also Link says that mr. Nedow said he aims to, "ferret out all insidious uses of religion in daily life" and:

The man who brought this court challenge, Michael Newdow, aims "to ferret out all insidious uses of religion in daily life," according to the New York Times. "Why should I be made to feel like an outsider?" he asked. The Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed that the words "under God" sent "a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community."

--This man seems to resent religion, to hate it. Are we to trust a man that seems to want to vehemently vanquish a thing. Sounds like another "Hitler" to me, only nedow is dealing with an ideaology.

Also, from the same article:

Newdow and the court majority got it right: Atheists are "outsiders" in the American community. Americans are one of the most religious people in the world, particularly compared to the peoples of other highly industrialized democracies. But they nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers. Unbelievers do not have to recite the Pledge, or engage in any religiously tainted practice of which they disapprove. They also, however, do not have the right to impose their atheism on all those Americans whose beliefs now and historically have defined America as a religious nation.Statistics say America is not only a religious nation but also a Christian one. Up to 85 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Brian Cronin, who litigated against a cross on public land in Boise, Idaho, complained, "For Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians in Boise, the cross only drives home the point that they are strangers in a strange land." Like Newdow and the Ninth Circuit judges, Cronin was on target. America is a predominantly Christian nation with a secular government. Non-Christians may legitimately see themselves as strangers because they or their ancestors moved to this "strange land" founded and peopled by Christians--even as Christians become strangers by moving to Israel, India, Thailand, or Morocco.Americans have been extremely religious and over-whelmingly Christian throughout their history. The seventeenth-century settlers founded their communities in America in large part for religious reasons. Eighteenth- century Americans and their leaders saw their Revolution in religious and largely biblical terms. The Revolution reflected their "covenant with God" and was a war between "God's elect" and the British "Antichrist." Jefferson, Paine, and other Deists and nonbelievers felt it necessary to invoke religion to justify the Revolution. The Continental Congress declared days of fasting to implore the forgiveness and help of God, and days of thanksgiving for what He had done to promote their cause. Well into the nineteenth century, Sunday church services were held in the chambers of the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives. The Declaration of Independence appealed to "Nature's God," the "Creator," "the Supreme Judge of the World," and "divine Providence" for approval, legitimacy, and protection.The Constitution includes no such references. Yet its framers firmly believed that the republican government they were creating could only last if it was deeply rooted in morality and religion. "A Republic can only be supported by pure religion or austere morals," John Adams said. The Bible offers "the only system that ever did or ever will preserve a republic in the world." Washington agreed: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." The happiness of the people, good order, and civil government, declared the Massachusetts constitution of 1780, "essentially depend on piety, religion, and morality." Fifty years after the Constitution was adopted, Tocqueville reported that all Americans held religion "to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions." The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, and, as the historian Sidney Mead has pointed out, Madison spoke not of "church" and "state," European concepts with little relevance to America, but of "sects" and "Civil authority," and the "line" not the "wall" between them. Religion and society were coterminous.

All discussion about how distasteful a fellow Newdow is aside, there is NO NEED to include "under God" in the pledge. While it may seem faith-affirming to some groups of religious children, public school is not the place to affirm faith.

One of my points was that our nation was founded by religious men/women, and some non religious men/women, but they ('atheists') were few.

And yet, they came up with this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Interesting.

Some of our founding fathers had slaves. Does that mean that the government should compel us to do the same? Are we to imitate these long dead fallible men in all things?

And an atheist isn't compelled to say it either. This is just a stupid ruling, its isn't needed.

As it stands, atheist children and other children whose religious beliefs vary from the "under God" concept ARE compelled to say it. It is part of the pledge they recite.

ADD Girl:

I guess what I'm getting at with the prayer thing, is that when I went to public school we said the "Our Father" prayer lead by students over the loud speaker each morning after we stood and said the pledge of allegiene. We also said the "God is Great" prayer before we lined up to wash our hands for lunch. This has been removed from the public school.

As it should be. Why should a PUBLIC school provide religious instruction or compel children to participate in religious rituals?

Have you been to an elementary public school lately? They don't encourage much prayer.

As a matter of fact, I've worked in a couple of elementary schools and my children both attend public school. No, they DON'T encourage prayer. And they shouldn't. Religious instruction is the responsibility and privilege of the parents.

As it stands, atheist children and other children whose religious beliefs vary from the "under God" concept ARE compelled to say it. It is part of the pledge they recite.

-They DO NOT HAVE TO recite it...period... The parents, if they are atheist, can go to the school and insist their child leave at the time it is said...

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Link

Why should a PUBLIC school provide religious instruction or compel children to participate in religious rituals?

-If the community is predominantly catholic, etc... usually the "public" school allows prayer,etc... occurs around some of the towns in my neck of the woods...


Again:

Americans are one of the most religious people in the world, particularly compared to the peoples of other highly industrialized democracies. But they nonetheless tolerate and respect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers. Unbelievers do not have to recite the Pledge, or engage in any religiously tainted practice of which they disapprove. They also, however, do not have the right to impose their atheism on all those Americans whose beliefs now and historically have defined America as a religious nation.

"Under God" was not implemented by our founding fathers.

True enough but read this:

The Constitution includes no such references. Yet its framers firmly believed that the republican government they were creating could only last if it was deeply rooted in morality and religion. "A Republic can only be supported by pure religion or austere morals," John Adams said. The Bible offers "the only system that ever did or ever will preserve a republic in the world." Washington agreed: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." The happiness of the people, good order, and civil government, declared the Massachusetts constitution of 1780, "essentially depend on piety, religion, and morality." Fifty years after the Constitution was adopted, Tocqueville reported that all Americans held religion "to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."

'-They DO NOT HAVE TO recite it...period... The parents, if they are atheist, can go to the school and insist their child leave at the time it is said... '
And how does that make those children feel? I would suggest there are two kinds of children at such schools - those that recite the pledge (whether they subscribe to it or not), and those that sit outside the room while the pledge is being recited inside, feeling marginalised.

Public schools are for education. End of story. Religious affiliations should be addressed elsewhere.

Here is something I don't understand.

According to the article I read on Yahoo, Newdow wants the wording returned to the version as it stood pre-1954. Had it been changed between its inception and 1954?
"Newdow is hoping to get the high court to remove the pledge's reference to God and restore its pre-1954 wording, "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." .Link


And in reality, if a nation is to have divided church and state as I understand the US is to have done, then really, how does that "Under God" fit in with that theory? If you are pledging to the state, are you not, by that creed, needing to avoid reference to religion, regardless of how religious the citizenry may be?

I don't know. I'm not an American and haven't had civics classes to see how you folks suss this out. But if you say one thing, aren't you supposed to do it instead of practicing another? Maybe there is something about that concept I am missing. I had understood that the founding fathers, having been persecuted in another country for their religion, tried to make a fairly open document that wouldn't have the same effect for others of any other belief system.

I think those fellas were pretty savy to leave things open enough for interpretation for the fact that time, values and beliefs change and that the guiding principals should remain but be elastic enough to guide without restricting.

I am in agreement with you about the founding fathers turning in their graves except for one small item. The words, Under God was not added until 1945. I know this because it came out in a report here in California. Neverthelless, as Christians, Saints and / or whatever else one wants to be called, if we don't act and counter act soon the phrase "IN GOD WE TRUST" will be next.

I am in agreement with you about the founding fathers turning in their graves except for one small item. The words, Under God was not added until 1945. I know this because it came out in a report here in California. Neverthelless, as Christians, Saints and / or whatever else one wants to be called, if we don't act and counter act soon the phrase "IN GOD WE TRUST" will be next.

They just can't be compelled to say it by an educator.

Believe it or not, that does happen. My daughter refused to recite the words 'Under God' and got sent to the principal's office. I had to go and stand up for her decision and argue her case with the school.

They DO NOT HAVE TO recite it...period... The parents, if they are atheist, can go to the school and insist their child leave at the time it is said...

What kind of a message is that sending to the child and the other students? Why should that child have to leave? why can't they just pledge alleigance to their country and leave the 'under god' part out?

Public schools are for education. End of story. Religious affiliations should be addressed elsewhere.

I am SO gonna run away with Furry one of these days.......either he can come to America or I'll go to Oz, but either way we're going to elope.

Btw, Furry, I went looking for your email addy and couldn't find it. Can you email me? ([email protected]) Thanks!

I guess the Constitution itself should be ruled "unconstitutional" since it makes a specific reference to Jesus Christ.

For that matter no teacher should ever use the year 2005... being based on "the year of our Lord"....

Or is it really just the fact that Newdow likes the limelight. ;~D

The words, Under God was not added until 1945.

-Looking back i think i should have re-worded some things, this was a reactionary article...

Believe it or not, that does happen. My daughter refused to recite the words 'Under God' and got sent to the principal's office. I had to go and stand up for her decision and argue her case with the school.

-And thats your right as a parent and hers as an american... (Unless you as a parent tell her she has to, don't know how you parent and don't want to get into that.)

What kind of a message is that sending to the child and the other students? Why should that child have to leave? why can't they just pledge alleigance to their country and leave the 'under god' part out?

-Thats my point, they have options/paths to solve the problem other than a (from what i read of mr. nedow) "crusade", but apparently mr. nedow isn't that reasonable... Anyway...

(Oh, Karen, btw, hope you weren't insulted by my last email, was a bit blunt was just kinda...put off...i guess...)

Also, a thinkg to look at is Mr. Nedow's attitude towards religion (according to a NY Times Article):

The man who brought this court challenge, Michael Newdow, aims "to ferret out all insidious uses of religion in daily life," according to the New York Times. "Why should I be made to feel like an outsider?" he asked. The Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed that the words "under God" sent "a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community."

Link

-What does this say of Mr. Nedow? Is he really being violated? Or is he, in his crusade, being narrow minded and stubborn?

It doesn't matter what you think of Nedow. The fact is the statement "under God" and "In God We Trust" were enacted to create a national identity opposite of that of the atheistic Soviet Union. If the founding fathers had felt something like this was necessary or even preferable, they would have done it themselves.

I think the founding fathers were spinning nicely during the 1950's when America suffered the witch hunts of McCarthyists. I think they would spin to think of us imposing a national religious identity as a knee jerk reaction to another nation that did the same.

You are correct, The words UNDER GOD were not added in 1945 but 1954. I put the wrong year. NEVERTHELESS, the real issue here is the fact that we are allowing the foundation of the U.S.A. to be taken from under us by those who have nothing better to do than to wage war on the Christian beliefs on which this country was founded. All I want to know is, from those who claim that there is No God, if that be true, Whay are they fighting against Him so hard? You are a fool to fight against something that you say is not real!!!!!!!

You are correct, The words UNDER GOD were not added in 1945 but 1954. I put the wrong year. NEVERTHELESS, the real issue here is the fact that we are allowing the foundation of the U.S.A. to be taken from under us by those who have nothing better to do than to wage war on the Christian beliefs on which this country was founded. All I want to know is, from those who claim that there is No God, if that be true, Whay are they fighting against Him so hard? You are a fool to fight against something that you say is not real!!!!!!!

"I put the wrong year. NEVERTHELESS, the real issue here is the fact that we are allowing the foundation of the U.S.A. to be taken from under us by those who have nothing better to do than to wage war on the Christian beliefs on which this country was founded."

The 1954 thing seems to be evading you. This has nothing to do with how the nation was founded, rather it is about a bunch of hateful McCarthyists who loved to witchhunt and blacklist, and who decided that we had better establish a national religious identity to set ourselves apart from 'godless Soviets'.

People yap and whine about Pat Robertson now, but they'd gag if they had to deal with the kind of people who spearheaded the changes that were made in the 1950's. Lives were ruined by rumor. People were persecuted and destroyed because of their religious or political beliefs.

If you want to call that the "Christian beliefs on which this country was founded", you have an odd idea of Christian beliefs.