Wyrdsmyth

Frankly, I'm angry, too.

I'm angry at all the spiteful feedback I'm reading on the Internet, the willful misrepresentation of this ruling and the issue at large.

Once again, the overwhelming majority of people are displaying their inability to separate reasonable judgment from a stereotypical image of Marxist liberals on the West Coast who are out to destroy red-blooded America and everything that's good about it. Atheists are all communists, pot-smoking hippies and pale academics, and they're out to destroy our country. They must hate America. And they've controlled enough judges now to get the ball rolling.

Wake up.

Just because someone has different beliefs than you do, doesn't mean they hate America. Haven't we yet outgrown the "Only White Christian Protestant Republican Males are Good People" mentality yet? Let's face it, that's nothing but bigotry in a suit and tie. And deep down, we all know it, don't we?

You may ask: Well what does it hurt having 'God' in our pledge of allegiance, in our coinage, on plaques in our government buildings and schools, and in our oaths? After all, it's just part of our heritage. Why should it be threating to anyone? Anyone objecting to such a thing must not even have a life, if that's all they're worried about. Why don't they get a life?

Why should anyone stand up to bullying? The nerve.

Because, let's also face it: the era of McCarthyism was nothing but an era of bullying. It was the majority bullying the minority. And back then, the bullies won. They shut up the opposition. They shoe-horned 'God' into the government, and successfully breached the thin idealogical wall of church and state. The era of McCarthyism was not an affirmation of traditional American values -- it was a betrayal of them. It was a witch-hunt. Oh, but wait... that's part of our heritage, too, isn't it?

Didn't World War II teach us not to placate bullies? That the rights of minorities must be cherished and protected? Didn't we learn that? After all, any of us can end up in the minority eventually.

Do you Christians ever think of that?

To quote the article published on AOL today:

"Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is ``one nation under God'' is as objectionable as making them say ``we are a nation `under Jesus,' a nation `under Vishnu,' a nation `under Zeus,' or a nation `under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion,'' Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote."

Before you spout off any more about how Pinko Academic Liberal West Coast Atheists are "destroying our country," think about this, just for a minute -- how would you feel if your pledge of allegiance had, bound up with it, a belief in an entity you didn't believe in? In your country, a country that upholds freedom of religion and the alleged separation of church and state? Remember, you Christians may not always be in the majority in the U.S. How would you like it if we atheists made you swear "One nation under no God" and told you if you objected to swearing such an oath, you must not be good, loyal citizens? Now, think about that, and consider if you agree with the following:

The pledge of allegiance should be a pledge of loyalty to our country. Period.

Autonemesis

I'll go further than that. No private person should be forced or encouraged to take any Pledge or Oath to the country, nor should taking one be a thing to praise. WE ARE THE COUNTRY. We do not need to take an oath of loyalty to ourselves. That is absurd. Any oath of loyalty to the institutions of government is fascist in nature.

Mageth

Some of the crap I heard on the telly last night scared the s**t out of me. In particular, Alan Keyes went off on how the establishment clause only applies to the U.S. congress - HE thinks states and communities should be allowed to adopt and enforce any law that conforms to their constituent's particular predominant religion (I'm almost certain he would only stand for xian religions). That's just about the scariest, most divisive, most unconstitutional idea I've heard.

The rational guest on the show properly pointed out that the 14th amendment extended the protection/limitations of the bill of rights to apply to state and local gov't as well - and was promptly shouted down.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Read Clarence Thomas' opinion in the voucher case just released. He says pretty much the same thing.

Mageth

That's even scarier.

Wyrdsmyth

I agree with this. If our nation is truly "We The People," then we don't need to swear loyalty to ourselves. What are we swearing loyalty to, anyway? Yes, ourselves. We're not swearing loyalty to the current government, or a bunch of men and women in the White House, Capitol building and the Supreme Court. They work for us. They're our employees. They represent us, and that's it.

Good point. Still, I don't have any problem with the pledge of allegiance. Because technically, we're not swearing allegiance to any institution or even a cloth flag, but the ideas the institution is charged to uphold and which the flag represents. That's what I'm swearing loyalty to, when I say the pledge. The republic is an idea we all have, not a bunch of men and women in power suits giving speeches in big buildings with marble columns.

Quatermass

The Constitution clearly states that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. But now the President is saying that the belief that human rights are given from God is a litmus test for his judicial appointments. It boggles my mind that these kinds of comments are being made as arguments in a constitutional controversy.

I had a discussion where the person admitted plainly that they believed the phrase "under God" IS unconstitutional but they didn't care because they happened to agree with it! They added that they would be very unhappy if it was to say “under no God.”

lpetrich

I'm sure that he'd scream his lungs out as if he had been sodomized wiht a red-hot poker if the leaders of some New-Age sect got their sect declared the official religion of some town. Complete with considering Jesus Christ a misunderstood New-Age guru and looking down on Xianity as spiritually backward.

Mister_Rational

Hell, I'm so angry I canceled my gods-damned subscription to the local rag!

Bad enough they prominently display II Corinthians 3:17 on the front page of EVERY issue, but their Thursday editorial (idiotorial) and cartoon were beyond good taste--especially for a newspaper!

<a href="http://www.starnews.com/article.php?editpledge27.html" target="_blank">So Help Us God if Ruling Stands</a>

<a href="http://www.starnews.com/opinion/varvel/?section=varv%2Cthursday" target="_blank">Varvel's Cartoon</a>

I wrote three letters to the idiot editors and one to the idiot cartoonist. Doubt they'll get printed because I was pretty steamed!

Considering that there is about 1 billion Muslims, 800 million of no faith, 300 million Buddhists, and roughly 14 million Jews, I have to wonder what "anchor" and what "faith" these morons are speaking off? Good grief! None of this would have happened if someone could have/would have/should have, stopped them from rewording the Pledge back in 1954.

After watching Bush and the Congress all but declare Christianity as the "God" mentioned in the Pledge, I have to wonder why other faith groups have not pitched a fit? In light of our multi-ethnic and supposedly pluralistic country, you'd think the leaders of the land would have enough common sense and good taste to try and respect everyone's beliefs.

Ragnarok

I tend to agree. But insofar as we have to have fascism, I want my fascism to be religion-neutral.


[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Ragnarok ]</p>