The "Under God" ruling is a stunt right?

[Must_B_Free]

I think it is a signal to incense the christian right and make them feel persecuted. The timing is too suspect. All these years and it finally gets ruled to "take god out" when they are about the change the court?

[Ladyhawk]

1. Makes sense to me.

Maybe Walt Starr is right and we should give the pubbies this one. :shrug:

[Book Lover]

7. Thanks so much for your support

Days like this are when you see who stands behind you with helping hands and who's got a knife.

[Az]

10. Imagine a life boat

It can only hold so many people. So the question is who do we throw overboard. The atheists? The gays? Blacks? Who do we sacrifice? Or instead of looking for easy solutions do we struggle to find a way to do the right thing and find a way to keep the boat afloat without having to sacrifice anyone?

[Ladyhawk]

24. Actually, I've been against the "under god" clause for a long time.

It's just that I'm not sure this is the right time for this. In fact, I'm sure it's not. It's a ploy, for certain.

We know how it will play with George's base. They will support the clause no matter what. How will the ordinary person on the street see it? Should we care how the ordinary person on the street will see it? If we don't care, then how are we better than Georgie's base at the other end of the spectrum?

It's just a question.

As an atheist, I've wanted to get rid of the "under god" clause for a long time, but in a lifeboat situation the "under god" clause doesn't equal the atheist, but perhaps an item in the atheist's luggage.

Please bear with me. I'm still thinking this through.

[CatholicEdHead]

25. It did come about in the 1950's by the Knights of Columbus

the Catholic men's fraternity in the "anti-communist" scare times. That fact gets ignored all the time. The pledge never had that in before it was ammended this way.

[Ladyhawk]

28. Yes, I know this and have known it for a long time. It's a McCarthy era

add-on that actually messes up the cadence of The Pledge (which I think is pretty fascist, anyway).

That doesn't mean that this isn't a wedge issue brought up at an extremely suspicious time. As an atheist, I'm asking myself how important this issue is to fundies, how important it is to me and other atheists and how important it is to the general populace.

Fundies get very angry when they think they are being persecuted. I sincerely doubt any of them would abandoned their great leader or the Republican Party under any circumstances, so I'm not worried about pissing off the fundies.

Likewise, I don't know too many atheists--except those of the Ayn Rand "greed is good" variety--who support the Republicans on this issue. I also don't think atheists would change their minds about Republicans based on this one issue.

Moderates and "regular folks," on the other hand, might think this is nit-picking. They are the people who don't know that the clause was added to The Pledge during the late fifties, and given their disinterest in such things, they are not likely to find out. These are the folks who will think that those behind the push to eliminate the clause are ideologues who will push their views on others no matter what. This is what concerns me.

Right now, the important thing is to make sure that the president's poll numbers continue to drop and that the whole damn Republican Party goes down with him. The regular folks are starting to get it. I don't think they need us to piss them off right now, to get them thinking (again) that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans.

That's all I'm saying.

One stupid phrase in a stupid pledge is too stupid a thing to be bickering about right now...and I say this as someone who has wanted it OUT of the pledge for years.

[nonconformist]

2. Of course it is.

Anytime anything gets too "icky", they start talking about god, abortion or gays again.

They're getting especially predictable.

[Erika]

3. The ruling said an atheist shouldn't have to swear to

confirm a religious belief. Hello? What is wrong with that?

If atheists pay taxes, they have the right for a say in this government.

[Must_B_Free]

8. Oh I agree with the ruling

it flies in the face of the basis of our nation to force kids to say under god...

[kittykitty]

4. It was already thrown out by one court. because the father

didn't have legal custody of the child on whose behalf it was filed. The 9th court in San Francisco today ruled it was illegal. The father got other parents to file with him. This court has had most of it's rulings reversed.

[applegrove]

5. Who cares. God can mean many things. As JS said this was put

into place when U.S. was fighting godless communists who repressed religion.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. The fact that it was tacked on during the McCarthy era

and not part of the original pledge as written is MORE reason to remove it, not less.

[texpatriot2004]

6. I heard that was old news too. That happened some time ago

not this week.

[strategery blunder]

9. Why are two words within the pledge such a big deal?

No child should be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, with or without the words "under God." Those two words are immaterial as far as I'm concerned.

Forcing someone to say something that person doesn't really believe in is equivalent to censoring that person imo.

[Az]

11. Because there is a culture war under way in this nation

There are a group of people that have abandoned the social contract. By that I mean they no longer hold to the notion that our society is made of a diverse set of people each with the same rights and access to the system.

Instead they have come to the conclusion that the truth they happen to believe is the one and only truth and that abiding the positions of any other positions amounts to abiding evil. There is no more compromise in them. There is no acceptance of diversity. There is no tolerance.

[strategery blunder]

14. Yes, I understand that.

But my point is that it's wrong to force the pledge down kids' throats regardless of whether or not it contains the words "under God." To me, the entire pledge is akin to being forced to say "Saddam is great" (or more to the point, "Bush is great") every morning in school. The "culture war" is a distraction from this.

[Oeditpus Rex]

13. The idea is to GET them to believe it

by making them say it five mornings a week, nine months a year for 12 years.

They might not understand it, but they'll believe it.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. And about fucking time. Only right wing "christians" would consider

not being able to force OTHER people's kids to acknowledge THEIR deity "persecution".


Fuck yes it's unconstitutional-- and it doesn't belong in the pledge.

[UTUSN]

15. Yip, Just in Time for '06

Funny how they didn't need it from '02 to now. They had Gay-marriage for '04. Yaas, these "values" issues are MUCH more important than people dropping like flies in illegal aggression, the rape and pillaging of the treasury, the robber-baron cronyism, and all the related little things like that.

[Walt Starr]

16. Democrats should immediately sponsor a "Save Our Pledge Act of 2005"

It won't be any more or less constitutional than the Pledge being recited in public school, but it would be "feel good" legislation and would neutralize the issue.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Yeah, screw the Atheists, right? Who Needs 'em!

Hmmm. Why not sponsor some anti-Gay legislation, and throw some abortion doctors in jail, while we're at it...

[Walt Starr]

21. How the fuck does it "screw the atheists"?

It doesn't. All it does is allow the Democrats to have political cover. Such legislation would CHANGE NOTHING, other than the perception that "Democrats hate god".

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

23. "political cover" my ass... Bottom line is, it's WRONG to force kids to

have to recite the pledge and doubly wrong to include references to a specific RELIGIOUS ENTITY OR DEITY. If it was "under buddha" or "under Mohammed" or "under Zeus" perhaps some people would be able to grasp that simple concept.

I'm sorry you can't see how forcing OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS to say a prayer every day to YOUR INVISIBLE MAN IN THE SKY doesn't amount to "screwing" them. "Political Cover" or no, I would like my party to stand up for and clearly enunciate the proper constitutional position on that, as opposed to playing some craven political game.

Nobody "hates God", but frankly some of us are pretty fucking sick of seeing our party's pathological INCAPACITY to show some friggin' SPINE on issues that have to do with what is fundamentally RIGHT and CONSTITUTIONAL.

Oh, yeah, I forgot- we're supposed to see which core concepts or constituencies we can jettison or otherwise give the finger to, you know, because we have to win over those elusive "values voters".

That kind of tack has really suited us well in previous elections.

:eyes:, yourself.

[Walt Starr]

26. Yes, it is wrong, BUT KIDS ARE NOT FORCED TO SAY IT!

You should bone up on SCOTUS opinions. Kids CANNOT be mandated to say the fucking thing!

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Maybe not according to the SCOTUS. The reality "on the ground" is

something else, and I'm sure you're aware of that as much as I am, Walt..

Just a month or so ago we had a HS student poster who was facing disciplinary action for refusing to stand during the pledge. He wasn't given the option to leave the room, either.

[onenote]

31. thank you Walt

There is so much misinformation about this. If the law required students to say the pledge, it would be one thing. But it doesn't. Yes, I know all about peer pressure. Growing up in the South and being one of only a handful of Jews in my classes, I know all about the pressure of deciding not to participate in Christmas caroling etc etc. But I think if a kid's beliefs are strong, he/she will have the fortitude not to be cowed into reciting the pledge (or to simply not say the words "under God" when the do. Would I like prefer it that there was ritual reading of the pledge? Sure. But in the great scheme of things, as long as its not forced, I think there are bigger fish to fry.

onenote

[Modem Butterfly]

20. Yeah! And we should repudiate Johnson's Civil Rights foolishness too

Otherwise we'll lose votes in the south...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Yes. And, demonstrate what they stand for - nothing.

Pandering to the right is sooo effective.

[pepperlove]

17. I want it left in

BUT, yes... the timing is VERY VERY VERY suspect... hide and watch this one.

[Skidmore]

29. Does anyone know about the judge who made the decision?

Is he one of them there "activist judges" they fear so much?

[ComerPerro]

30. I think so, completely

Bush's aproval numbers haven't really recovered. The public is starting to realize that he is an apathetic douchebag, and even the Christian right is realizing that he won't promote all of their agenda exactly the way they want it.

So, just as the talibornagains start to realize they are being used,



HEY! LOOK! THE PLEDGE IS UNDER ATTACK! BY ATHETISTS!