The pledge ruling and Michael Newdow

[Skelron]

First off all as a British person my knowledge of the Pledge of Alliegence is limited, and perhaps I am less entitled to debate this, but I will make a few points. (first a little context for my argument's I am a Liberal Christian, have been all my life, I have questioned my beliefs but they've not faltered. I am also a firm defender of the Democratic Ideals In full through not in part. see later)
1.) The use of the term 'Under God' does imply to me a Religious context.
2.) The fact that it is said in school is a pertainent point, School's form minds and opinion's (The Jesuit's have a saying that goes something along the lines of 'Give me a child till the age of seven and I will give you the man.')
3.) I am doubtful about how much impact the Pledge actually will have through BUT if it has any impact no matter how small the word's that imply relgion should be removed.
4.) As for Democracy. It has been argued that democracy is about the will of the majourity, very few such views of democracy have ever been presented. Those that have, have been limited to states the size of say a City and the surronding territory. (as they have always included a section on complete participation in the running of the state, of the population voting on every matter
5.) Democracy is in fact about avoiding the dictatorship of the Majourity upon the minority. Certain things must be forbidden to the majority in order to protect the Minority. A Silly example would be the following:-
Lets say in a small community of 100 people there are 30 people who like flower arranging and 70 people who for some reason passionatly oppose it, they are filled with hatred for the past time and want to see it banned!
The View of Democracy where the majourity may pass any law they see fit would have iyt that, despite being able to protest, if a law was passed banning Flower Arranging then they would have to cease. But this is not the case, democracies may not pass certain types of laws, they must always defend not just the right to free speach of the minority but the right of the minority to live their lifes as they wish, in so far as in doing so they do not cause harm to others. It is why for example it would be anti-democratic to make a law banning Homo-sexual relation's and the like.

6.) I believe that religion should be removed as much as possible from state institutions. This does not mean I belive religion ha sno place in Politics, but that they have no place in the state, they should be free to say and influance their member's as much as they like.

Finnaly I have a favour to ask, a few people have pointed out a link between the words 'Under God' and the Mccarthy era. Could anyone tell me where they got this information, as I am entering my third year of a Politics degree, and my dissertation will be on the Mccarthy era, and whether or not it was inevitable in a Liberal Democracy.
This link to the Pledge was not something I was aware of and may become very useful (or may not, I havn't started it yet, but will be starting to gather information during my Summer Holiday's)

[Martin Blank]

Finnaly I have a favour to ask, a few people have pointed out a link between the words 'Under God' and the Mccarthy era. Could anyone tell me where they got this information, as I am entering my third year of a Politics degree, and my dissertation will be on the Mccarthy era, and whether or not it was inevitable in a Liberal Democracy.
This link to the Pledge was not something I was aware of and may become very useful (or may not, I havn't started it yet, but will be starting to gather information during my Summer Holiday's)

It's actually covered in the decision, but here's the basic premise:

During the post World War II years, as it became more obvious that Stalin's Soviet Union would become a real menace, efforts came about to differentiate the United States from the USSR. Since both governmental theories claimed to be for the people, and nominally are, a way needed to be found that would win the hearts of the people. Pointing out that the Soviet's Communist government was officially atheist turned out to be a powerful way, as who would doubt that the power of God would be on the side of the believers?

One of the sponsors of the legislation, Rep. Louis Rabaut, stated in his testimony to House Judiciary Committee, "...the children of our land, in the daily recitation of the pledge in school, will be daily impressed with a true understanding of our way of life and its origins." (Page 9118 of the decision)

In addition, at the signing ceremony, Eisenhower stated, ""From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." (Page 9125 of the decision)

While there is no mention of McCarthy in the decision, that time was firmly within the era where Joseph McCarthy wielded his considerable influence. I've not been able to find the information on the voting record in the House and Senate, but I imagine it was overwhelmingly in favor.

[Skelron]

thanks! I believed the evidence but needed to know where it was from... Diss work must be referenced etc

[LMSx]

(Page 9118 of the decision)

Nine thousand, one hundred and eighteen?

Most of the legislators probably read halfway down page 1 and then put it in their desk for "future reading".

[David]

Pigeon-holed for later refernce.

[Nick]

Wow, J can really cook an ad hominem when he wants to. You must be so happy you think you can shut somebody up by comparing them to Pat Robertson. And if you think I'm anything like Pat Robertson just because I disagree with you on what constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion (and sorry to tell you this, but interpretation of the Constitution is almost as thorny a field as interpreting Holy Writ), well, how about if I give you a spoon and you canEAT MY ASS?

Gee, if there was any board where I didn't expect to see such a blatant abuse of the phrase 'ad hominem', it's the Science and Logic board on SDN.

Here's a reminder Ice. Ad hominem fallacy: to attack the person holding a particular view, rather than attacking the argument.

Notice that 'rather than' in there, Ice? It doesn't look anything like 'as well as'. When the phrase is 'as well as', then the personal attacks are just abuse. Ice, people have called you a bigot, and told you _why_ your arguments are those of a bigot. If you don't want us calling you a bigot, then perhaps you need to remove yourself from your current bigoted stance. If you don't want to change your stance, then learn to accept the fact that you are bigoted. Those are your only options.

Now, the articles attacking Newdow (like the one you posted on SB) are perfectly good examples of ad hominem attacks. The fact that Newdow may, or may not, be an asshole (What's with that pronoun shit he goes on about, anyway?) has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of his arguments about the fact that the American Pledge of Allegiance is discriminatory. (Yes Ice, I'm going to attempt yet another rephrasing of the ridiculously simple point Newdow was trying to make. Who knows, maybe you'll get it this time.)

It is one thing for given politicians to be religious (they've got the same rights to their beliefs as everyone else, and if you don't like a particular politician's beliefs, then don't vote for them). It is something else entirely for an endorsement of a particular belief system to be enshrined in law.

The American Pledge of Allegiance states "one nation, under God" (as has been mentioned many times, this is a relatively recent change from 'one nation, indivisible'). The American coins all say "In God We Trust" (again, a recent addition to help inspire the American people against those 'Godless Commies').

Now, suppose that I was an American. I'm an atheist, so I do not trust in God. Nor do I live under God. Therefore, there would be at least two omnipresent parts of society telling me that I was not a _real_ American. Because, according to the Pledge and the coinage, real Americans are those who live under God and trust in God.

The exact same arguments apply for anyone who does not believe in a monotheistic spiritual tradition.

Now, the original phrasing of the pledge and the coins without the motto say NOTHING about what Americans believe. They apply equally to _all_ Americans, be they Christians, Taoists, atheists, or whatever.

The present situation gives the monotheists a warm fuzzy, because they have at least two official endorsements of their religions. For most other people, it really isn't likely to bother them much.

The fact remains that official endorsement of ANY belief system (be it atheism, Christianity, Buddhism. Islam, whatever) by a modern democracy is undesirable, as it immediately creates the potential for state-sanctioned discrimination. The example Newdow cites is that of forcing a child to choose between saying something they don't believe in, or else not say it and make themselves markedly different from their peers. Not a nice thing to do to a child (whether or not Newdow's daughter was actually in that position is irrelevant).

Now consider the effects of reverting to the pre-WW2 phrasing and lack of motto on the coins. Societally, the monotheistic religions lose their state endorsement. But that's OK - it's just they're suddenly back on a par with everyone else, instead of enjoying a special privilege. Losing privileges is always going to hurt, but the way people are raving about this you'd think being religiously neutral is a capital crime.

(Someone's sure to bring up belief systems which disagree with accepted scientific fact, such as young earth creationism. On those, the state is perfectly justified in officially endorsing the empirical evidence. It's only when empirical evidence is unavailable or genuinely debatable that the state needs to butt out)

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm pretty sure that anyone should see why "under god" is not right in the land of the free(with justice and liberty for all, not just the majority), that the guy that started this is a moron is pretty irrelevant isn't it?
Now lets all calm down.

[Nick]

Edit: I thought I should probably throw the link in, as a courtesy to those who wish to read the decision.

Thanks - it's an interesting read. Seeing the actual precedents being cited is much more enlightening than pissing on the wind amonsgt ourselves :>

The dissenting opinion did seem somewhat disingenuous, though. I mean, he's certainly right that the actual harm is minimal. But, by the same token, the harm of reversing it should be equally minimal. He commits the slippery slope fallacy twice, firstly by suggesting that songs with religious content would also become inappropriate at public event (ignoring the existence of distinct differences between performance of a song which contains religious references, reciting an official statute which codifies a religious belief and an actual religious ceremony) and secondly by suggesting that this may lead to a need to change the coinage (the majority opinion quite correctly notes that there is a big difference between a motto which sits silently on a piece of metal and one which is daily recited in schools).

He also makes a misleading remark "Those expressions have not caused any real harm of that sort over the years since 1791, and are not likely to do so in the future", which could give the impression that those expressions were present since the founding of the USA . To be fair, he also references the correct information, even if it was in a footnote: ". . .it is difficult to see any signs of incipient theocracy springing up since the Pledge was amended in 1954" (Although, if he hasn't seen any signs of increasing religious influence in the government of the United States, he hasn't been paying attention) .

His argument seems to be that the harm caused is _insufficient_ for the 1954 amendment to the Pledge to be ruled unconstitutional, not that there is no harm at all. The alternate position (reversion to the original wording) is utterly unassailable from a constitutional point of view (not to mention an ethical one). No doubt, that's why the dissenter was in the minority

I'm reminded of a quote from corporate ethics training: "It is not enough to merely be ethical. It is also necessary to be seen to be ethical."

If Newdow's case gets struck down on a matter of standing (he might not have had the right to sue in the first place), that at least leaves the door open for someone else to sue on the same matter. Given the Supreme Court's history of ducking the issue (referenced in the link our Grosse Point Blank fan provided), if the case does get struck, the question of constitutionality would probably remain undecided.

[Nick]

I'm pretty sure that anyone should see why "under god" is not right in the land of the free(with justice and liberty for all, not just the majority), that the guy that started this is a moron is pretty irrelevant isn't it?

I think it's _because_ it's so obvious why it's wrong, that I just can't get my head around someone not getting it. Hence the "Yet another rephrasing of the argument".

Now lets all calm down.

I'm calm. Generally

[Mr Bean]

As I've said a thousand times before but no one cares to listen(I can't get no respect in this thread )

IF Under God where poofed tommrow would anyone TRULEY say they could care?
Exluding the Fundmentalist my way or burn em at the stake
The answear is a resonding no

However if it WHERE there tommrow would people care?
The Honset answear is yes they would, From the Athesit groups to the Hindius to the tons of other religions we have in the US they would care

Thus an act which no one can truely say offends them and pleases alot of other people
Would be wrong why?

In otherwords
No one likes whats happing because of it, No one is willing to strap a bomb to thier chest and give the president a Hug, It would make more people happy to have it gone then it would offend people(Read 0, Fundmentalists don't count as I said )
Just take it out and be done with it

[IDMR]

*rings bell*


Moderator?

Mod..Mod...Moderator? Anyone? IDMR?

I am here. The flame retardant on the thread is on red, but still holding.

[IDMR]

Oh, and Ice, I am in favour of the pledge ruling for one reason and one alone: One nation, under God line simply smacks too strongly of a state religion and is thus have no place under the Constitution and the separation of Church and State (of course whether this should be interpreted as the separation of religion and state might be cause for discord).

[Iceberg]

Oh, and Ice, I am in favour of the pledge ruling for one reason and one alone: One nation, under God line simply smacks too strongly of a state religion and is thus have no place under the Constitution and the separation of Church and State (of course whether this should be interpreted as the separation of religion and state might be cause for discord).

This is what people fail to get. I *agree* with removing "Under God" from the pledge. I just think that Newdow is a hateful little fuckmonkey.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that the majority rules in this country, and for the minority to change the rules, they have to first convince a majority that their position is correct.

[Martin Blank]

(Page 9118 of the decision)

Nine thousand, one hundred and eighteen?

Most of the legislators probably read halfway down page 1 and then put it in their desk for "future reading".

That's not page 9118 of the decision. The decision itself actually starts with page 9105, so 9118 is about 14 pages in.

Shortly after I left the computer, I became aware that this could cause some confusion and that I should have clarified it the first time around. Decisions are not paged on their own; rather, they are sequentially paged as they are written for release. The newest decisions are in the 10,000 page range, for example.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Martin Blank]

I'd like to correct a mistake I have seen in a number of posts about the exact wording of the pledge. Many of us grew up speaking it as we first heard it, which is "...one nation, under God...". However, this is incorrect. Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 4 of the United States Code is entitled, "Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery" and is presented below in full:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, ''I pledge allegiance to
the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for
which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention
facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in
uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and
hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart.
Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render
the military salute.

Note that the correct phrasing is "...one nation under God..." which may seem like a very minor difference but which can be construed differently as a declaration rather than a description. "...[O]ne nation, under God..." would be a description of the nation, whereas the true wording could be seen as a declaration. Consider that the phrase, "the knights of England" could be declaratory in nature, showing that the knights represent England, whereas "the knights, of England" could be seen as merely stating where they are from. Granted, the particular word usage is a little outdated, and I'm sure that given more time, I could come up with a better example, but I thing most people should see the point I'm trying to make.

The placement of a comma may seem a triviality, but it can make worlds of difference to the interpretations that must follow.

[Durandal]

If you want religious tolerance to be practiced by anyone, then you must practice it yourself. I realize that would be a major change for you.

You seem to enjoy making vague, sweeping statements, but you've never once shown any instance where I've displayed religious intolerance. I've never said that Christians, Jews or any other religious people should be banned from practicing their religion. I've only said that religion should be strictly separated from the government, because as public servants, they serve more than just their religion. If this is an unreasonable request of some people, they shouldn't be in office. John F. Kennedy didn't seem to have a problem with saying that he would not let the Church influence him during his tenure as president.

Did somebody forget to give Durandal his fucking rabies shots or something?

Aw, wassamatta, IceBerg? Can't take the flaming when you start insulting people and telling them to "Eat your ass" or when you tell a certain minority to "suck it up" and deal with the injustices dealt to them and that they shouldn't strive for legal change?

This is what people fail to get. I *agree* with removing "Under God" from the pledge. I just think that Newdow is a hateful little fuckmonkey.

Perhaps you should make your position clearer next time. Your personal opinions of Newdow are irrelevant to the topic of this thread, and you engaged in ad hominems against him, so what are we supposed to think?

On the other hand, I acknowledge that the majority rules in this country, and for the minority to change the rules, they have to first convince a majority that their position is correct.

Would you mind explaining why, then, you told atheists to "suck it up" and deal with it? You said that we shouldn't get our "opinions enacted into law." That's precisely what Newdow is doing: trying to convince the majority that his viewpoint is correct, and it is, and you're telling atheists everywhere to shut up. Your ad hominems against him have nothing to do with the position he advocates.

In light of your clarification, I'll forget all the bigoted nonsense (minorities should tolerate injustice, the majority is always right) you've been spouting.

Note that the correct phrasing is "...one nation under God..." which may seem like a very minor difference but which can be construed differently as a declaration rather than a description. "...[O]ne nation, under God..." would be a description of the nation, whereas the true wording could be seen as a declaration. Consider that the phrase, "the knights of England" could be declaratory in nature, showing that the knights represent England, whereas "the knights, of England" could be seen as merely stating where they are from. Granted, the particular word usage is a little outdated, and I'm sure that given more time, I could come up with a better example, but I thing most people should see the point I'm trying to make.

I fail to see the distinction between "one nation, under God" and "one nation under God." No offense, but this is a weak grasp for a very thin straw. All the politicians know what it means. All the people know what it means. It was brought forth by the Knight of Columbus, so do the math.

[Martin Blank]

I fail to see the distinction between "one nation, under God" and "one nation under God." No offense, but this is a weak grasp for a very thin straw. All the politicians know what it means. All the people know what it means. It was brought forth by the Knight of Columbus, so do the math.

It's a subtle difference, I will grant you that. The position of the comma can be seen as significant point in the meaning of it. Take the entire section there:

"...one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

This can be construed as bespeaking a declaration that the nation officially professes a monotheistic belief.

""...one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

This format can be construed as being less declaratory and more descriptive.

In the context of this discussion, it's a very minor point, and probably more confusing to the issues at hand than it needs to be. Consider, though, that the interpretation of the Second Amendment (merely an example here, and not meant to start a tangent [gah, too late!]) hinges in many minds on the placement of the comma.

I brought up the point solely because I like everyone to argue from the same set of documents when possible. It tends to lessen confusion that way.

[Durandal]

It's a subtle difference, I will grant you that.

So subtle as to be virtually meaningless.

The position of the comma can be seen as significant point in the meaning of it.

We're not interpreting ancient documents and syntax here, where we have to play guessing games with grammar. The people who were responsible for placing "under God" in the Pledge are well known, and their intentions were obvious. How it's written down is irrelevant. We know who added it and why; that's all that matters.

Take the entire section there:

"...one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

This can be construed as bespeaking a declaration that the nation officially professes a monotheistic belief.

Which is precisely what it was meant to do, and it is precisely how virtually every American interprets it. The problem is that no one sees what's wrong with it.

""...one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

This format can be construed as being less declaratory and more descriptive.

Descriptive of what? The nation isn't "under God," nor was it founded on that premise. In either case, it's still wrong.

In the context of this discussion, it's a very minor point, and probably more confusing to the issues at hand than it needs to be. Consider, though, that the interpretation of the Second Amendment (merely an example here, and not meant to start a tangent [gah, too late!]) hinges in many minds on the placement of the comma.

The difference is that all the people who wrote the Second Amendment are dead, so we can only make educated guesses as to their intent. We know what the intent of the 1954 Congress was. We know what the intent of McCarthy was. We know what the intentions of the Knights of Columbus were and still are. Focusing on a comma is worthless.

[Martin Blank]

Focusing on a comma is worthless.

I admitted that it was probably too minor an issue to focus on in the context of this discussion, a point which you seem to be willing to expound upon at length. I'm a stickler for details, but I'm willing to ignore the gramatical issues on this one.

[Durandal]

I like to be thorough. :)

[IDMR]

Oh, and Ice, I am in favour of the pledge ruling for one reason and one alone: One nation, under God line simply smacks too strongly of a state religion and is thus have no place under the Constitution and the separation of Church and State (of course whether this should be interpreted as the separation of religion and state might be cause for discord).

This is what people fail to get. I *agree* with removing "Under God" from the pledge. I just think that Newdow is a hateful little fuckmonkey.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that the majority rules in this country, and for the minority to change the rules, they have to first convince a majority that their position is correct.

Then we are in almost complete agreement.

[Admiral Felire]

You know in all my years I have actually never thought that if they removed that line how would Ifeel the next day. Well after giving it some thought (though I must say I do want it included) I actually would go on with my life the next day as if nothing changed. This is not the way it is as the line is currently.

This is just my .02 cence.

[yellow clouds]

I don't agree with the court ruling and here is why...

Michael A. Newdow thought the first amendment backed him up on this. This classic assumption as to the meaning of the first amendment clause, turns out to be common ignorance. There is a fundamental misconception of the original intent of the first amendment; the meaning has become twisted and distorted over the years. Lets take a look at first clause of the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

In contrast to the present confusion about separation, the First Amendment is startling in its clarity! In fact, it was rewritten twelve times to make clear its intent. The First Amendment restricts the government, not its people. Jefferson’s erected a one-way wall. In the last 50 years, “non-establishment” has been redefined as “separation,” and "establishment" has been redefined as "endorsement".


This is a critical distinction that needs to be established before addressing an issue such as this. We share religious freedom in America; no one is forced to believe or disbelieve in a God. But one can not deny the historical fact that America's founding fathers believed in a deity. Our history/heritage and religious freedom are two different things. Consider this quote from Bill O'reilly

"...minority thought must be protected in this country, but there is no danger to anyone reciting a pledge that says, "one nation, under God." That's offensive to you, don't say it. But don't intrude on the history of this country because you don't like the concept of God. That is tyrannical and unacceptable, even in a place like San Francisco where these pinheaded judges practice."


Obviously, "god" is a mention of a deity. Essentially, it can mean whatever people want it to mean. The single word "god" is not favoring any given religion. Muslims can think of god as Allah, Jews: Jehovah, Christians: Jesus, Atheist: self, etc.

After all, no one is being forced to say the pledge (or the words "under God"). If coercion to say the pledge is unconstitutional, so is coercion to go to school in the first place. Should federal laws and practices be enacted or revoked based on emotional offences or objection from a minority group? I am sure if you tried hard enough, you could find an objection to any law or practice within America.


The number of false assumptions and incoherent reasoning that this case is predicated on is striking! But there is a greater problem at stake here. The cost of judicial tyranny and the perversion of truth is great. Decisions such as these degrade the authoritative role our courts hold. Consider the following quote from Alan Keyes:

"There is widespread determination to keep the Pledge no matter what the courts say. And in this reaction we may finally be seeing the dangerous fruit of decades of judicial irresponsibility and tyranny, bringing us at length to the point where law abiding American citizens view the formal opinions of the federal judiciary with active contempt."

[/b]

[Genovas Project]

Yello Clouds, I've already previously replied to this posts on gp4ts.

[Mr. B]

In contrast to the present confusion about separation, the First Amendment is startling in its clarity! In fact, it was rewritten twelve times to make clear its intent. The First Amendment restricts the government, not its people. Jefferson’s erected a one-way wall. In the last 50 years, “non-establishment” has been redefined as “separation,” and "establishment" has been redefined as "endorsement".

Congress put the under god in the pledge. Wouldn't congress endorsing the obvious christian god be a endorsement of religion.

This is a critical distinction that needs to be established before addressing an issue such as this. We share religious freedom in America; no one is forced to believe or disbelieve in a God. But one can not deny the historical fact that America's founding fathers believed in a deity. Our history/heritage and religious freedom are two different things. Consider this quote from Bill O'reilly

The founding fathers may have been religious but they put the 1st amendment there for a reason. To keep religion out of govt. And some children in schools are FORCED to read the pledge. And they may have a right to not say it, but that would mean alienation from other children and hazing.

"...minority thought must be protected in this country, but there is no danger to anyone reciting a pledge that says, "one nation, under God." That's offensive to you, don't say it. But don't intrude on the history of this country because you don't like the concept of God. That is tyrannical and unacceptable, even in a place like San Francisco where these pinheaded judges practice."

First of all reilly is an asshole. It's easy to just not say it. But again some schools require the receiting. And this is not aginst god but the establishment of religion in govt. And what is tyrannical and unnacceptable is how people shove religion down peoples throats. As an atheist I find this violates my civil rights.

Obviously, "god" is a mention of a deity. Essentially, it can mean whatever people want it to mean. The single word "god" is not favoring any given religion. Muslims can think of god as Allah, Jews: Jehovah, Christians: Jesus, Atheist: self, etc.

But the Knights of Columbus (a christian group) lobbyed for the under god.
This means that congress had christianity in mind why they added it. And atheists do not have a god and most consider this "under god" offensive.

After all, no one is being forced to say the pledge (or the words "under God"). If coercion to say the pledge is unconstitutional, so is coercion to go to school in the first place. Should federal laws and practices be enacted or revoked based on emotional offences or objection from a minority group? I am sure if you tried hard enough, you could find an objection to any law or practice within America.

So forcing religion down childrens throats is similar to making children go to school. They can get religion at a church, they go to a school to LEARN FACTS not myths. The govt and it's laws/regs is in place to protect the minority from the majority. And of course you could find an objection to any law. They are there for a reason, to protect from the tyranny of the majority.

The number of false assumptions and incoherent reasoning that this case is predicated on is striking! But there is a greater problem at stake here. The cost of judicial tyranny and the perversion of truth is great. Decisions such as these degrade the authoritative role our courts hold. Consider the following quote from Alan Keyes:

So a man exercising his right to freedom from religion is not worth fighting for. These courts are there to decide if laws are constitional not to make laws. These cases help keep the seperation of church and state alive. And now the judicial dept is trying to punish the 9th circuit because of this.

"There is widespread determination to keep the Pledge no matter what the courts say. And in this reaction we may finally be seeing the dangerous fruit of decades of judicial irresponsibility and tyranny, bringing us at length to the point where law abiding American citizens view the formal opinions of the federal judiciary with active contempt."

Again the govt is there to protect the minority. Just because people consider the "under god" nonoffensive doesn't mean it isn't offensive.


And the pledge is not some set in stone thing. It was edited in the 50's with the under god adding. This becasue of the red/atheist scare. And we should change it back to it;s original meaning without god.