You can believe anything - if you ignore enough

This is an op/ed piece in my local paper. Some parts of it make me question rather our editors even pay attention to the news, so I put a couple of my own comments in [bold brackets].

We won't take this pledge

Published Monday, Sep 19, 2005

We pledge nonallegiance to the ruling

Of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Nor to the appellate judge, who took the same stand

One notion, to undo God

Indefensible, with lunacy and injustice for all.

You'll have to pardon the parody on the Pledge of Allegiance, which isn't meant as a sign of disrespect.

Quite the contrary.

Americans once again must deal with a ridiculous court decision that's placing in jeopardy one of the great symbols of their country.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled last week that citing the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional. He said the phrase "under God" violates children's rights to be "free form a coercive requirement to affirm God." [Ok - I'm trying to see why this is "ridiculous", which isn't explained]

It's another unfortunate judicial ruling in the mission of a Sacramento-area atheist who first began pushing the issue. Michael Newdow of Elk Grove first got a favorable ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002.

The U.S. Supreme Court threw out Newdow's challenge, so he filed an identical case. [Please note the editor didn't find room here to explain it was thrown out on a technicality, not on the merit of the case]. Karlton, based in Sacramento, came through for him on Wednesday with his ill-conceived decision.

For now, the ruling applies only to the Elk Grove, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts.

What's next?

The often out-of-touch 9th Circuit could affirm the ruling, in which case it would apply to nine Western states. If the Supreme Court eventually confirms the ruling, it could stand nationwide.

Newdow obviously is passionate about his belief, which is out of touch with mainstream America. [Mainstream America=Automatically correct?]

There are so many issues to deal with in education, from test scores to funding to overcrowding.

It's comforting to think that for more than two centuries students have put their hands over their hearts and pledged their dedication to our great country. [But didn't have "under God for the first 170]

Those students whose families don't want them to participate aren't made to, in most cases. [In MOST cases!]

Lincoln High School senior Na'eel Cajee, who leads the student body in the Pledge over the loudspeaker, offered these poignant thoughts:

"I see the Pledge of Allegiance not as some outlandish tradition -- but just more of the tradition that affirms the tradition of unity and brotherhood." [Please note that Lincol High School is the school that taunted and harrassed one of the plantives in this case to the point that the family dropped the case and fled town; another item the editor must not have had room to note]

A restructured Supreme Court with two openings to fill could have the final say on the issue.

The next target could be our money.

What are we to do with the discriminatory "In God We Trust" phrase on the back of our currency? [IMHO:Yes, but I think this is supposed to be inspire reactionism]




Needless today, I'll be cancelling my subscription post-haste, but should I bother writing a letter to the editor, or will I just be wasting my time? What really gets me about this is that it's not just written to inspire a gut-level reaction, but it's being selective in the facts - which to me is inexcusible for journalism.

I hope you write a letter. Your points are valid and you seem to be able to stick to the facts.

I hope you write a letter but don't hold your breath on the reaction. It won't be a waste of time on your part if the editor has the sack to publish your writings. Good luck.

Less that 250 years old and already the US has traditions to afirm their traditions.

If the students there didn't spend so much time reciting the pledge they might be albe to spend more time in english comp class.

I think this editor should consider changing the tradition of looking for traditions to affirm traditions and get back to traditional journalism.

And yes, I think you should send a letter to the paper.

Not Necessarily...

However, we really do have a problem with activist judges (on both sides of the fence) legislating from the bench and bowing to the pressures of what a few want rather than what the majority have already decided through the proper, constitutional manner. (ie - Legislature makes the laws, Judges enforce them).

If you don't like the way something works, you change the law, not keep sueing until you find some wimpy, simpathetic judge whos more worried that 1 person might be offended than on what most people want.

v_v

Upholding the right of every American to be free from religion if they so choose not seem to be activism to me.

If you would be so kind as to define the term "judicial activism" I would be most appreciative. Perhaps I am just ignorant of this terminology.

I hope you do write a letter, Taco. I find the "any Atheist who thinks his rights are equal to a Christian's has another thing coming!" attitude to be extremely offensive. It's amazing the kind of insensitivity and hostility people can justify through indoctrination in a fake persecution complex.

Poor poor persecuted Christians. They only comprise 70% of the population, control all three branches of government, and have forced their religion into the public square and public schools for two hundred years... it must be difficult living under that kind of oppression! That lone atheist is a monster I tell you!

^_^

I think you SHOULD write an extremely offensive letter in favor of keeping God in the pledge, include a line similar to "any atheist who thinks he can have equal rights to a Christian has another thing coming," and see if it gets printed. If it does, then submit the article to some hyper leftist blogs as proof of rightist extremism, which will put heat on the paper for fomenting hate and possibly also get the editor in trouble and/or fired.

We both know that writing an honest reaction will get you nowhere.

Reciting the pledge of allegiance takes about 15 seconds. Time is a non-issue here.

Maybe on Earth, but what if they recite the pledge on Mercury? What would the Mercurians think if we're standing around all day praying to a God that not all of us believe in?

What would Stringfellow Hawk do?

I need to be less subtle....

Hehe.. we were made prey in the morning, before lunch and before we went home in the evening in Primary school.. and as far as I know its still like that and is wasnt even meant to be pseudo Nationalism... just prayers!!

I had a friend who worked for a small town (population ~10,000, circulation unknown) newspaper who would occassionally insert "The Onion"-like total fabrications because it amused him. The editors would also print garbage editorials and op/eds likely from a service similar to this under their masthead. Why? Because Hometown America loves to read tripe like that (when they choose to read at all).

This is a bit off. You dont seem to get the point of having a judicial branch in government.

Judges dont *enforce* laws, that is the role of the police lining your streets.

A Judges duty is to interpret the laws against the measure of the constitution, and to throw out unconstitutional laws. Judges don't "decide" anything in the way you suggest.

They determine if the law as given to them violates the contitution or the web of other laws that already exist. Forcing people to recite religious phrases (as children!), is clearly unconstitutional and should be banned.

Personally I find the whole idea of forcing kids to be forced to recite some semi-religious dogma about their country everyday to be kind of fascist. In Canada we had a similar situation with the "pledge to the queeen" being a staple of elementary schools, but it was banned quite a few years ago, and the country did not fall apart or anything!

the editorial reads like it's from the high school paper.

The opening lines to Lord of the Flies 2: Conch in the City.

kill the pig. spill his blood.


and sucks to your ass-mar

Prey indeed.

The perfect word for this scenario.

Hah. I say that to my girlfriend all the time.

and she's still your girlfriend? just kidding

Well she has to be, otherwise I won't give her the inhaler.

For those of you who have obviously never read this before:

Amendment I



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to keep the government from establishing a National religion. In other words, Congress cannot pass a law stating that all Americans must be Christians. Can someone please explain to me what religion the pledge endorses?

We have been given freedom of religion in this country (Not freedom from religion as some wish it were). That means we are all free to worship as we see fit (including having the right not to worship at all). Whether you like it or not, over 80% of the people in this country believe in some form of god. Our government has no constitutional right to endorse one religion over another, but there is nothing in the constitution that prevents them from encouraging the practice of religion.

The bottom line is this...The pledge is not unconstitutional because it does not endorse a national or state religion. It is purely giving citizens their right to practice their religion, whatever that may be, as they see fit. If you don't want to say Under God...just don't say it, but don't tell me I can't because you don't want to.