parkdalian

The harm may occur by the tying together of a theological concept with patriotic sentiments.

An innocent child may get the impression that he/she is not as patriotic as a religious, god-believing person, in refusing to recite or only partially reciting. So even if the child remains atheist, his/her sense of patriotism and self-esteem may suffer. It's an unreasonable dilemma to force on a young mind, ruining the full unadulterated and proud feeling that comes with participation in the pledge.

And that is beside the ostracization that may occur.

chrislee

This was just plain nasty. I have never understood why so many believers (to put it bluntly) lie about us.

Darwin's Finch

May I take your last post, Rev. Mathews, as an admission that you really don't have anything relevant or interesting to say about the Court's decision? I will ask you one more time: What analysis of the decision can you offer us? Can you bring anything to the table, or are you just parroting things you've read in the newspapers and heard on TV? I won't hold my breath, but I will continue to watch just in case you have the decency to answer a reasonable, direct question that has been put to you at least four times.

Spazmatic

Uhh, Dave...

No... I believe you misunderstand the statistics. 12/17 (I think that's the number) of the appealed cases this year have been overruled. How many cases do you think the 9th circuit has ruled on?

I thought you just stated what sort of harm they'll come by. It's called indoctrination, made all the worst because the teacher is supposed to be a trusted educator to your children, and the school a place of learning. So, they are of course learning they should be god-fearing, god-worshipping people if they are good Americans (no doubt what the Fundies want). This is the harm. You tell you kid to recite that God does not exist every day in a classroom setting, led by a trusted educator. Let's see what happens.

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

M.C. Busman

David Mathews originally wrote: "There is little doubt that the appellate court's decision will be overturned. Citizens of this great country have every right to disagree with and criticize the decision of those judges."

Of course folks have the right to disagree....that doean't make them moral, or correct. The question is...why? If protest of the 9th cir.cout's decision is based on other than a feeling by believers that they religious convictions are being threatened by the removal of "under god", wouldn't this just further reiterate that this phrase does not belong in a National, Inclusive, Patriotic pledge?

David Mathews wrote: "The use of "God" in the Pledge doesn't infringe on atheists and others who do not believe in God. Those people who do not believe in the God and those who have a polytheistic or pantheistic concept of God can easily substitute their own definition for that word."

David, if this is so...why can't we just drop the words "under god"? If they are harmless and meaningless, highly interpretive, why are they there? After all, aren't we all, Christians, atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, Pagans "...One Nation Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All?" Where is our justice, our liberty in all of this? Can't people just think the words of their choice if they wish...god, christ, thor, vishnu, mother nature? Why the big whoop over "under god"?

David Mathews typed: "Given that your children will most likely attend schools in which the Pledge of Allegiance will be spoken on a daily basis, what sort of harm will they suffer as a result?"

Honestly, David? My spouse & I have a child together. I worry that our little one might suffer through many of the same things I had to during those "happy and innocent days of childhood" (ha!). Kids can be awful mean to one another, and too often, teachers and administrators will ignore (tacit approval) this sort of discrimination against "minorities" like us. I do not want our kid to be called "commie", "traitor", "satanic", "evil", Anti-American", "devil-worshiper", "Christ Hater" or any of the more unseemly but popular combinations of words myself and other agnostics and atheists have suffered. I do not want my little one to be spit on or punched in the face, pushed by gangs or bullies, asked to leave the classroom by the teacher, told it was their fault "for creating a disruption" by a flatulent old principal (mind you, the "disruption" of &lt;b&gt;ommitting&lt;/b&gt; two words). I don't want our little one to have personal property vandalized or lunches smashed. I think this is reasonable for me, as an American, to expect.

I want for my kid: friendship, peace, laughter, education, understanding, beauty, wisdom, justice, tolerance, dedication, strength, freedom, empathy, love, wonder, compassion, appreciation, pride in self, charity, and liberty. I teach these traits by example, and I hope my kid learns them and passes them on to others through the years. David Mathews, there must be some part of your humanity that can empathize with our struggle for something as simple as respect. Not necessarily a respect of our beliefs (or lack thereof), but a simple respect for our humanity, our desire to be free of religious oaths in the patriotic affirmations we make concerning the nation we love. I Greatly respect the courage of Dr. Newdow and others like him. He stands up for what is right, and he does so with conviction. I will do the same when (notice I didn't say if) then need arises.

This is a nation which clearly separated between church and state. Now, lets practice what we preach, and go do the right thing.

One Nation Indivisibly Yours,

M.C. Busman

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: M.C. Busman ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello Darwin's Finch,

David: I am not a lawyer and won't pretend to act as a constitutional scholar. My response to the lawsuit is simply that it seems that Dr. Newdow is overreacting to a minor matter. The New York Times has the same opinion of this lawsuit.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello M.C. Busman,

David: I don't want any of these things to occur, either.

David: I support those virtues.

But I must say that opposition to prejudice and presection directed at atheists does not require a modification of the pledge to satisfy the demands of Dr. Newdow. I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that Dr. Newdow's child suffered any persection as a result of her unwillingness to say "under God" in the pledge.

For that reason, I suspect that the lawsuit was frivolous -- that is, initiated for a political end rather than to protect Dr. Newdow's daughter from harm.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Vorkosigan

I agree. When kids steal a candy bar from a store, the shopowner should just let them go. Why bother to install security systems? It's a minor matter. Heck, the storeowner's insured, right?

If some teacher grabs some 14 year old girl's boob, it's a minor matter, right? It's not like he raped her or anything. Why should we fire him?

If someone accosts a jogger at knifepoint in the park and steals her walkman, really, it is a minor matter. No harm was done, and walkmans are cheap. Why even bother arresting the guy? He probably needed the money anyway....

Oh and Dave, since it is a minor matter, then let's just delete those offensive words. It is, after all, a minor matter.

Vorkosigan

lpetrich

How is that lawsuit supposed to be done for the heck of it?

And what political end could that possibly be?

SERIOUSLY.

There are some good reasons for removing "under God":

It is contrary to the separation of church and state.

It is an attempt to establish a "Divine Right of Kings" presumption

Defending it as a reflex gesture makes it meaningless

Defending it as a reference to whatever one believes rules the Universe is specious pseudo-syncretism

Finally, David Mathews, I'd like to see if you'd like it if the Pledge was amended to have

There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet

added at the end.

lpetrich

Dishonest pseudo-syncretism. David Mathews, would you like the words changed to

"under all the gods"

or

"under whatever gods"

?