Philosoft

We'll see. They don't have standing to hide behind this time.

Toto

The judge is Lawrence K. Karlton. Far from being a hippie, he's a product of the US Army, and is now on "senior status" - meaning essentially retired.

And he's in Sacramento - cow town, not the big city.

Dick Springer

Politicians respond to the intensity factor; religious extremists have it. Most politicians would ignore the 50/50 number, if it is accurate, which I question. As an example I cite the UNANIMOUS vote in the Senate in support of an abomination introduced by Republican majority leader and shameless panderer Bill Frist. It would require continuing government support of the Boy Scouts of America, with its religiously discriminatory policy excluding anyone who does not believe in god, in spite of court decisions based on the First Amendment and civil rights laws. Every senator you thought would be more responsible voted for it.

An amendment preserving "one nation under god" and doing much more significant damage would pass in an instant.

Dick Springer

Unfortunately, those with this attitude make up for their lack of intelligence with their sheer numbers.

Lunawalk

Sure I'll volunteer I don't mind sacificing for the cause. I am sorry but this issue is not worth the fight. Opportunities to say the pledge rarely come up after school. I think kids should not be punished for refusing to say the pledge. God is so loved in this country that striking those word will cause an firestrom.

Clutch

What issue really would matter, if not atheists being compelled to either lie or abstain from what is (for good or ill) the conventional expression of patriotism in school?

And whatever issue you think that is, will it be easier or harder to take a stand on it, if the precedent of marginalizing atheists without a struggle has already been set on issues like the Pledge?

I understand the reluctance to spend precious PR and political capital on an issue that may seem trivial (especially, perhaps, to those out of school and without children). But (i) it may not be trivial at all and (ii) it's entirely unclear that drawing the battle-lines elsewhere will be any more effective. Indeed, one might think that this is a good place to fight precisely because it's two little words. Establishing a precedent here would make it easier to fight other battles. If it's true, as lunawalk says, that "striking those word will cause an firestorm," what on earth would lead one to think that any more weighty issue will be a better place to start making inroads into the current tyranny of the religious majority?

Mathew Goldstein

I am responding to this post only because it is currently the last one. My response is directed at both sides of this counterproductive debate.

Anyone who is a lawyer or who can afford a lawyer or who can recruit a charity that provides lawyers for free can bring these lawsuits. This lawsuit and others like it are going to happen sooner or later. For better or worse this is happening now. A productive debate would focus on how to make the best of it. What can we do to improve the odds of a more favorable outcome and/or reduce the odds of a less favorable outcome? Lets go our graves knowing that we did the best we could instead of engaging in a wasteful and unproductive debate about whether they should have or shouldn't have brought this lawsuit.

strobe

Personally, I don't see this case having a main goal of changing the pledge. I see it as a well targeted law suit going after a constitutional violation that is the most simple concept compared to all the other religious issues (plus it has the emotional ammo of involving children). It seems to me the intention is to get a toe in the door with this case and set a precident. I see this case as a very important first step in the path to reaffirming the First Amendment and the establishment clause.

I would be willing to take a beating from a religious mob if it helped this case through the Supreme Court.

Lunawalk

Speaking for myself I am out of school and have no kids It hard for me to relate to people who feel oppresed by this issue. I have the view so you don't believe in god is like I don't belive in santa claus. so what.The public has an distorted view of atheists.Like we have no morals worship satan and insenive to deeply held belefs. Many people are deeply religious The passion of the christ was one of the most bestselling movies .

So if this issue goes forward it will confirm the public view of atheists. Making harder for other battles. I think the supreme court will reject this case. because by than the court will be domated by conservatives. I just atheists should show the public we are normal people just like them. Than it will be easier.

themistocles

This is exactly why this issue is ridiculous. Nobody's civil rights are being violated with the Pledge of Allegiance. Most people don't care about the Pledge itself. This is strictly a matter of political correctness.