Shadow Wraith

Here is a list of some things that the local theists are using to gripe about the Pledge ruling. They aren't the typical "Christian nation," and "Pledge doesn't violate 1st Amendment" comments. These are some ones that aren't the usual ones that are thrown around. The list is as follows:

1. "Newdow is using his daughter simply to get his way." (see: <a href="http://www.acmepet.com/club/bboard/naar/messages/6422.html" target="_blank">http://www.acmepet.com/club/bboard/naar/messages/6422.html</a>)

2. "The ruling is violating my 1st Amendment right to say 'under God'"

3. (Corollary of #2) "I don't like the government telling me how to say the pledge."

4. "Why did atheists wait almost 50 years to say something?"


These are the most common ones thrown around other than the typical comments mentioned earlier. Could someone give a rebuttal of these xian gripes? They are really bugging me and I don't really know what to say in response.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Shadow Wraith ]</p>

Rev. Joshua

The issue here is not the ethics of the plantiff but the underlying constitutional issues.

No one said you can't say it, just that public school teachers (who are government employees) can't lead people in saying it or do anything that would compel such behavior.

Atheists don't like that either. No one is telling you what you can say or pledge to. What the court is saying is that the government-sanctioned, official version of the Pledge cannot include an implicit endorsement of religion or monotheism.

Why did Christians wait hundreds of years to oppose slavery? These sorts of things take time, and public opinion is certainly a factor. There were certainly always atheists opposed to "under God" just like there were always Christians opposed to slavery. It just took time to hit critical mass.

Joshua

Autonemesis

I don't want to touch that one with a ten-foot pole. But then, I am not a shameless gossip-monger.

These are easy. The 1st Amendment guarantees your right to say any version of any pledge that you wish. The establishment clause restricts what the government may do, not what a private citizen may do or say. The 1954 law that was struck violated the 1st Amendment by doing exactly that, and this is why you should support the ruling, not oppose it.

You must not have been listening. Atheists have opposed "under God" since it was first proposed. How many atheist opinions have you sought out on this subject? None? Well, that explains why you think atheists have said nothing.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Toto

The Rev Joshua hit the nail on its head.

I could only add about "using his daughter" - The courts have developed a number of complex doctrines called "standing" to keep people from filing too many civil rights complaints (a slightly biased view.) I could not go to court and challenge the pledge, because it doesn't affect me or my family directly. It is only the fact that Newdow has a daughter in public school that gives him "standing" to challenge the teacher-led pledge. He actually tried to bring the case before, but it was thrown out of court for lack of standing.

Which relates to why it has taken 50 years - The courts have not been very cooperative with these challenges to "ceremonial Deism". There appears to be a feeling that the issue is too trivial for the amount of ill will that it generates. A previous case by the Freedom From Religion Foundation attacking "In God We Trust" on money was thrown out for lack of standing. A lawsuit against Ohio's State Motto "With God All Things Are Possible" lost in the 6th Circuit en banc , in spite of the fact that the ACLU found a Christian minister to be the plaintiff, who explained to the court that that motto was from the New Testament and embodied a particular stance on Christian theology.

Many atheists see challenges like this as an unproductive use of scarse resources.

Alonzo Fyfe

1. Newdow doesn't have custody of his daughter and is using her simply to get his way.

Nothing in the article stated that Newdow does not have custody.

As it is, a parent has a right to be concerned with how their child was raised.

If Newdow was a Jew, and the child was required to recite a pledge that declared all Jews to be opposed to that which the flag and the republic stood for, Newdow would have a right to be concerned about the school delivering that message to his child.

Would his standing be any less if it were discovered that the child voluntarily and eagerly recited those anti-semitic slogans in school?


2. The ruling is violating my 1st Amendment right to say 'under God'

There are two possible responses to this; one soft, one hard.

The soft response: "Say 'under God' if you like. Nobody will haul you off to prison."

The hard response: "The Pledge, as written states that atheists are the moral equivalent of typrants and perpetrators of injustice, and that all equally stand against what the flag and the republic stand for. You have a right to say that atheists are no better than tyrants and perpetrators of injustice. But when the government says this, it amounts to the establishment of a religion and is thereby unconstitional."

3. I don't like the government telling me how to say the pledge.

Then the pledge should be stricken from the law. The wording of the pledge, whether it carries the words 'under God' or not, is determined by the federal government. If you do not want the federal government determining the words to the Pledge, then have the law struck from the books.


4. Why did atheists wait almost 50 years to say something?

They have been saying something for 50 years -- this is just the first time it made the front page of the paper.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Why did Christians wait 62 to stick God in it?

nogods4me

excuse me, put there is only one "Pledge of Allegiance" it is officially recognized and sanctioned by the US Government. You cannot add or delete words and still be saying the pledge. That is like saying I am going to sing the star spangled banner, but change the words. Well, it is no longer tha star spangled banner, is it? And if atheist's just leave out the "under god" it is really no longer the Pledge. It can't be omitted or ignored, it must, if we are to honor the 1st Amendment, be removed.

szcax

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hezekiah jones:
Why did Christians wait 62 to stick God in it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lol! Perfect comeback

oriecat

I think this is part of the problem with some people, they don't realize that the pledge isn't just a pledge, but its wording is stated in the US Code. <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/4.html" target="_blank">http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/4.html</a>
So when someone says "I don't like the government telling me how to say the pledge" that really shows how ignorant they are. The Gov't DOES tell us how to say the pledge. They tell what to say and how to say it. Hand over the heart, guys take off your hats! This is how it's supposed to be done. So instead of just omitting the offending words, they tell us we can just not say the pledge then. So much for indivisible!

Shadow Wraith

Thanks. This should be useful for debating the local fundies.