US Judge allows "under god" in the pledge of allegiance

[Firebird]

Superior Court judge affirms use of Pledge of Allegiance 'under God' in Mass. schools

Disappointed, but can't say I'm surprised, nor by the ignorant comments underneath the story, even in Massachusetts. The political pressure is just too great.

[Ali]

From the article:

"If conducting a daily classroom exercise that marginalizes one religious group while exalting another does not violate basic principles of equal rights and nondiscrimination, then I don't know what does,'' he wrote.

Totally agree with this.

I don't understand how keeping "under God" is not a violation of the Lemon law.  What secular purpose does it serve, exactly?

[fester30]

The people at work are mostly Christian conservatives.  Every once in a while I hear somebody getting upset about how the liberals want to take away the Pledge of Allegiance and take away In God We Trust from money.  Of course, I simply ask why it's a problem.  Then these coworkers say we should keep the pledge and the money the way it's always been... it's tradition.  I love seeing the looks on their faces when I recite the ORIGINAL pledge and show them how that motto wasn't on money until the 50s, so if it's tradition we are looking for then I agree, we should go back to the way these things were at first.

[AnimatedDirt]

The people at work are mostly Christian conservatives.  Every once in a while I hear somebody getting upset about how the liberals want to take away the Pledge of Allegiance and take away In God We Trust from money.  Of course, I simply ask why it's a problem.  Then these coworkers say we should keep the pledge and the money the way it's always been... it's tradition.  I love seeing the looks on their faces when I recite the ORIGINAL pledge and show them how that motto wasn't on money until the 50s, so if it's tradition we are looking for then I agree, we should go back to the way these things were at first.

I agree and have no issue with change in this matter.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"

[markmcdaniel]

I realize that not having read the judges opinion I am at some what of a disadvantage in understanding it's nuances. However, it seams to me that if the pledge of allegiance is a patriotic act only than nothing is changed by removal of the phrase under God from the pledge. However rather than continuing to bash or heads against this particular wall we should change our tactics to one of inclusion. that is we require the pledge to be changed to include the revised phrase under God, Odin, Jupiter, Zeus, Ra, Shiva, Hera, Isis, Kali, Flying Spaghetti Monster, or none of the above. I realize that this fails to be all inclusive and a bit cumbersome but it will allow them to keep their God in the pledge.   

[Recusant]

I realize that not having read the judges opinion . . .

Damn, I had found and looked through the text of the decision days ago, and thought I'd posted it here.

Jane Doe et al. vs. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District et al.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PARTIES' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT (PDF file)

In my opinion there's already too much judicial precedent for any other sort of decision on this to come out, barring the Supreme Court of the US taking it on, which seems extremely unlikely.

[fester30]

Fact is, the exact wording of the constitution doesn't mean a lot.  This is very much a majority Christian nation and will continue to be likely for the next few decades.  Despite small victories won by American Atheists or the ACLU, it's going to be a very uphill battle to lessen the impact of religion on the country's politics over the course of time.  I don't usually have a huge problem with seeing examples of religion around, such as ten commandments in front of a courthouse, or a manger scene or menorah in a public park.  The difference with the pledge and the motto on money is that these are national symbols of our country, so we announce to the rest of the world that we are beholden to an ideology that they may not support, even if that ideology leads us into unpopular wars and the appearance of hate and bigotry toward certain groups.  I hear Americans talk about how backward the people in the Middle East are.  At the end of the first millenium CE, they were at the very forefront of science and mathematics due to their location as a trade hub between China and Europe.  We've been falling behind the rest of the civilized world in education, and our position at the leading edge of advancement is certain to follow if we don't right the ship.  How much of our advancement is stunted by these sort of things, allowing under god into our lives, allowing religions to slow our learning and our progress?

Wow I really need to figure out what the word "concise" means.

[Sweetdeath]

Fact is, the exact wording of the constitution doesn't mean a lot.  This is very much a majority Christian nation and will continue to be likely for the next few decades.  Despite small victories won by American Atheists or the ACLU, it's going to be a very uphill battle to lessen the impact of religion on the country's politics over the course of time.  I don't usually have a huge problem with seeing examples of religion around, such as ten commandments in front of a courthouse, or a manger scene or menorah in a public park.  The difference with the pledge and the motto on money is that these are national symbols of our country, so we announce to the rest of the world that we are beholden to an ideology that they may not support, even if that ideology leads us into unpopular wars and the appearance of hate and bigotry toward certain groups.  I hear Americans talk about how backward the people in the Middle East are.  At the end of the first millenium CE, they were at the very forefront of science and mathematics due to their location as a trade hub between China and Europe.  We've been falling behind the rest of the civilized world in education, and our position at the leading edge of advancement is certain to follow if we don't right the ship.  How much of our advancement is stunted by these sort of things, allowing under god into our lives, allowing religions to slow our learning and our progress?

Wow I really need to figure out what the word "concise" means.

Yup, the US likes to feel it's okay to say a big "fuck you" to all non-religious and non christians.
we need to keep religious private to the person and not 'we as a nation...under god."
i am not under god.
but if i were to be, it would be myself.
....like a doppleganger.

[Harmonie]

I don't even want to read it.

I have no clue how this could even possibly be allowed. Let me guess, the typical "It doesn't have to be the Christian God" nonsense? I will not take that nonsense, and nor should anybody. Everybody knows it's the Christian God they're talking about, and it's flat out ridiculous that something like this can not be seen by our court systems. How is it even possible?

This reminds me of this really ridiculous image that my sister posted on Facebook a few days back saying:

One Nation, Under God!
If you find it offensive, then simply don't say it, but don't you DARE take away MY right to say it!

I hate to say that this is one of those times where I have seriously had to question somebody's intelligence. And my own sister, with that.  There is just sooooo much wrong with that I don't even know where to start. And to further my disappointment she got comments saying "Amen.". Oh how I really need to get out of this terrible state. At all costs.

[Sandra Craft]

One Nation, Under God!
If you find it offensive, then simply don't say it, but don't you DARE take away MY right to say it!

It always baffles me that some people completely miss the point that what's being removed is not their right to say whatever, but their right to try to enforce religious practices on others.

[markmcdaniel]

One Nation, Under God!
If you find it offensive, then simply don't say it, but don't you DARE take away MY right to say it!

It always baffles me that some people completely miss the point that what's being removed is not their right to say whatever, but their right to try to enforce religious practices on others.

But its their religion which makes all difference.

[Sandra Craft]

But its their religion which makes all difference.

Which puts paid to the legal argument that "god" on money or in pledges isn't particular to any religion.

[Guardian85]

This may be a little derailing, but where did this whole reciting of the pledge come from in the first place? I have lived in a fair few countries and associated with people of very differing nationalities, and nowhere else in the western world have I heard of such a practice in schools.
Are americans so star-spangled awesome that the only way to make their kids respect the country is to drill american awesomeness into their tiny, little skulls from age 6?

As for the original "Under God" thing, of course it's unconstitutional, discriminatory, and simply wrong.

[Sandra Craft]

This may be a little derailing, but where did this whole reciting of the pledge come from in the first place?

My guess would be it started up during that McCarthy nonsense in the 50s, but I'd have to double check.  I do know a lot of this god-inserting foolishness started up then.

[fester30]

This may be a little derailing, but where did this whole reciting of the pledge come from in the first place?

My guess would be it started up during that McCarthy nonsense in the 50s, but I'd have to double check.  I do know a lot of this god-inserting foolishness started up then.

The pledge was written by a Baptist preacher, Francis Bellamy, in the late 19th century (1898 I think).  It was originally written WITHOUT any reference to God.  Over the years, small parts of it changed, but under god wasn't inserted until the 1950s.  This was around the same time In God We Trust was officially declared by Congress to be America's motto.  In God We Trust had been around for a long time, but prior to the 50s wasn't America's motto or on the money. 

You're right, it had a lot to do not necessarily with McCarthy himself, but with the fervor he helped encourage during the early days of the Cold War.  We had to prove we were the polar opposites of the Soviet Union.  Their rulers called themselves Communist?  Communism must be EVIL and we must create perjury traps so we can catch Communists lying about being Communist and throw them in jail.  Their government forced people to give up religion and become atheist?  We must be more religious than religion has ever known!  We must but God on our money and in our schools with a religious-indoctrinating pledge.

I have noticed that in conservative speech and, of course, with certain Fox News commentators like Hannity, they still try to play on the old Cold War feelings and language.  They talk about Communism or Socialism like it's the 1980s.  They throw around the word Socialist like it's a bad, evil thing, instead of just another idea.  They do the same thing with the word atheist.  The atheist socialists are out to destroy America and our way of life.  The only thing missing is that they aren't calling Obama a red, commie bastard.