Removing Religion from Schools: No Choice for Students

[Blahness]

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1673.htm

Remember, students aren't forced to say it. It's their choice if they want to say it or not.

Yay for removing a possible choice for students!

Now if ONLY they'd ban ALL religions equally, and we'd be set.

</portionsofsarcasm>

 

[SOS2008]

Since I don't believe God has borders, maybe it could be changed to "One World Under God?"

 

[Pengwuino]

Since I don't believe God has borders, maybe it could be changed to "One World Under God?"

And since I am a self-centered penguin, maybe it could be changed to "One Penguin, Under God"

 

[loseyourname]

Well, we're not pledging allegiance to the world.

Anyway, some of this article is more than a little bothersome:

"We will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," wrote Judge Fernandez, 63, who was appointed in 1980 by President Bush's father. " `God Bless America' and `America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while the first and second stanzas of `The Star-Spangled Banner' will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third."

I was under the impression that a ruling judge is not supposed to use slippery-slope arguments. Your job is to uphold the constitution, your honor, whether you like the social consequences of doing so or not.

But criticism of the decision was swift and, mostly, harsh. The Senate halted debate on a military bill to work on a resolution criticizing the ruling.

That's great, because interfering with the judiciary is so much more important than actually legislating, or what is supposed to be their job.

Politicians of all political stripes reeled off faxes to reporters condemning the decision. Gov. George E. Pataki of New York called the decision "junk justice." Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, called it "nuts."
Steve Duprey, the retired chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, who is still active in national Republican politics, said that the decision was "so out of tune with what Americans believe, I don't think it will be a hot political issue in this campaign, because I don't think Republicans or Democrats will agree with it."

Even better. So apparently the supreme court is supposed to rule according to what Americans believe, and not according to what the constitution tells them. It's a good thing that these men with such vast knowledge of constitutional law - apparently more than the justices themselves - are the ones we have confirming judges.

"This is probably the worst ruling of any federal appellate court in history," Mr. Falwell said, adding that he had started a petition drive this afternoon to gather a million signatures by Friday to urge the Supreme Court to reverse the panel's ruling immediately.

I guess Falwell supported the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions.

 

[BobG]

I predict Newdow's case will lose in the US Supreme Court. The Court won't actually address the Pledge of Allegiance - instead they'll rule that Newdow doesn't have legal standing to bring a case against the school since he is divorced and his wife has legal custody of the child that is confronted with the daily Pledge of Allegiance.

This is kind of an old article to be debating, isn't it?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/

 

[SOS2008]

Well, we're not pledging allegiance to the world.

Of course not, but the concept that God belongs to anyone nation is absurd. Such notions, and religion in general is at the basis of most conflict in the world.

This is kind of an old article to be debating, isn't it?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/

It is indeed, and probably why most members are not participating in this thread.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Now if ONLY they'd ban ALL religions equally, and we'd be set.

I agree wholeheartedly, but that won't happen for quite some time. Unfortunately, your article got me a bit excited for no reason. I thought it was banned recently. That would've been a step in the right direction.

 

[wasteofo2]

Remember, students aren't forced to say it. It's their choice if they want to say it or not.

Untrue.

I've been yelled at by several teachers, wasting quite a bit of class time, for refusing to say the pledge in a few different classes. Beyond that, I've been physically grabbed by my classmates in an attempt to get me to put my hand on my heart, and have been threatened to be thrown out the window by one of my more patriotic peers, all for simply not pledging.

After all that, I got into the habbit of at least standing up so as not to stand out blaringly against the rest of my classmates. However, just 2 or 3 weeks ago in my school library, I was castigated by the librarian for just sitting down too early during the pledge. She threatened to kick me out of "her" library next time I didn't stand for the appropriate amount of time during the pledge.

 

[pattylou]

Wow. Seems that a call to the ACLU is in order!

Thanks WofO2 for standing up for your beliefs! Quite refreshing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Since I don't believe God has borders, maybe it could be changed to "One World Under God?"

"One Universe Under God"?

 

[pattylou]

One universe of which God might be a part?

 

[Pengwuino]

One universe of which God might be a part?

Yah that's it, it's going to eventually become

"One nation, whether or not you support it as long as you are proud of your non-American heritage, under a possible God although we are not allowed to tell you whether or not to believe in one, indivisible...etc etc"

 

[wasteofo2]

I'd like it a lot better if it were just shortened to this:

"I pledge allegience to liberty and justice for all."

 

[pattylou]

LOL I could go for either of the above two options before the one that we currently have...

 

[loseyourname]

Of course not, but the concept that God belongs to anyone nation is absurd.

I think you have it backward. The idea is that the nation exists 'under God,' and is thus presumably beholden to him in some way, not the other way around. Of course, if you believe in God, then you believe that every nation exists under him, as part of his kingdom, so the phrase is a little extraneous. The real point of putting it in was to iterate the fact that our nation is a nation that acknowledges its debt to God, as opposed to the atheist Soviet Union.

 

[Blahness]

Untrue.

I've been yelled at by several teachers, wasting quite a bit of class time, for refusing to say the pledge in a few different classes. Beyond that, I've been physically grabbed by my classmates in an attempt to get me to put my hand on my heart, and have been threatened to be thrown out the window by one of my more patriotic peers, all for simply not pledging.

After all that, I got into the habbit of at least standing up so as not to stand out blaringly against the rest of my classmates. However, just 2 or 3 weeks ago in my school library, I was castigated by the librarian for just sitting down too early during the pledge. She threatened to kick me out of "her" library next time I didn't stand for the appropriate amount of time during the pledge.

Congratulations on having your freedom of speech/choice imposed upon! =D

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/][/PLAIN]
While legal precedent makes reciting the pledge voluntary, <snip>

Anyway, I had no idea that the article was old, I googled an article about it and posted it because I had seen it in my school newspaper.

 

[SOS2008]

I think you have it backward. The idea is that the nation exists 'under God,' and is thus presumably beholden to him in some way, not the other way around. Of course, if you believe in God, then you believe that every nation exists under him, as part of his kingdom, so the phrase is a little extraneous. The real point of putting it in was to iterate the fact that our nation is a nation that acknowledges its debt to God, as opposed to the atheist Soviet Union.

I'm not fooled by the way it is worded. In God We Trust is similar from this perspective. As you state, Christians had these words added to the pledge primarily to rebuff the godless communists (used against an evil enemy, i.e., unbelievers). Most religions believe their religion to be the only true religion, and many Christians in this country believe God favors our nation (oh yes they do). And by combining God to nationalism they create a wedge for inevitable conflict. Has it not resulted in conflict? Of course it has.

 

[Skyhunter]

I'm not fooled by the way it is worded. In God We Trust is similar from this perspective. As you state, Christians had these words added to the pledge primarily to rebuff the godless communists (used against an evil enemy, i.e., unbelievers). Most religions believe their religion to be the only true religion, and many Christians in this country believe God favors our nation (oh yes they do). And by combining God to nationalism they create a wedge for inevitable conflict. Has it not resulted in conflict? Of course it has.

Here is the Newdow's next lawsuit that is a current event.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - The atheist who's spent years trying to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools says he'll file a new lawsuit this week.
Michael Newdow says he'll ask a federal court to order removal of the national motto "In God We Trust" from U.S. coins and currency. He says it violates the religious rights of atheists who
belong to his "First Amendment Church of True Science."

http://www.wltx.com/news/news19.aspx?storyid=32301