It’s a damn shame this country is to the point we have to entertain the petty attempts of atheist to control even our pledge.

The question is ” Just WHOSE god would we be talking about? The RC god, the Protestant god, one of the Pagan Gods or Goddesses, the Muslim god, ….those 2 words were added after I was born…but very young. I just don’t say ” under God” them when I do the Pledge. I so diagree with the court’s ruling!! That doesn’t make me any less patriotic. Those who don’t believe in a god? Stuck with the words, or do like I do…refuse to say them.
As to IGWT…that too is ridiculous….and the say question applies…Whose god would that be?
I know, cknuck. This country was founded by Christians etc.etc etc. Riiiight!

I also don’t say “under God”, and hence I finish a little sooner than others in the room.
Judge Reinhardt is correct.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic pledge to our country as Americans. Under God was added during the “cold war” with Russia. When God is mentioned in pledges, money, on buildings, etc. People can put their own emphasis on whatever God is to them as people. If you exclude God from your understanding as some do than just don’t think it or say it as nnmns and pagansister don’t. The far-left can be as annoying as the far-right about issues they don’t agree with.

I think there are more important issues facing us than the phrase “under God,” which was inserted when I was in grade school. I had learned the pledge in its original form, and I thought the inserted phrase just interrupted the rhythm and flow that I had gotten used to.
If there is any importance to this case, it is not that the court’s ruling against Dr. Newdow’s complaint “establishes” a religion. Quite the contrary, what it establishes is a state-sanctioned violation of the commandment against taking God’s name in a cheap or worthless manner. If the phrase “under God” is taken seriously, then it DIS-establishes atheism as a valid attitude for Americans. But if, as the court has ruled, it isn’t about religion, then the phrase is a cheap and worthless mention of God’s name.
Take your pick, folks — the court’s ruling is EITHER a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution OR a violation of the Third Commandment.

This is a perfect example of how in our society today it is perfectly acceptable to disrespect athiests. Sad.

Here’s a challenge for ‘Christians’:
For the next week, every time you go to say the word “God”, replace it with the word “Zeus”. It will give you an inkling as to just how inappropriate some find your imposing your religious beliefs onto the general public (who may not be of the same – or any – faith as you).
Would you accept “under Allah”? Or “under L. Ron Hubbard”?
Thought not. Which, imo, proves you really do not actually believe in freedom of religion at all.

The whole world has always claimed our creator as God, it’s a little ridiculous to compare all the other religious heads mentioned in God’s place. Other generations of Atheists, and other religious beliefs did not turn green and drop dead when they heard the word God, and visited Wash. D.C. with all the paintings and word God here and there. Grow up and worry about something more important.

confess quote, “This is a perfect example of how in our society today it is perfectly acceptable to disrespect athiests. Sad.”
Or atheist are overly dramatic. this country in it’s growth phases, sometimes to my dismay, has gone out of its way to respect all peoples.

I agree that this is NOT an important case. But as for attitudes of atheists today versus atheists a generation ago when confronted with public expressions of piety, I submit that two things have changed:
1. Second-class status for certain groups used to be more widely accepted, even within those groups; women, racial minorities, immigrants, and non-Christians were less apt to protest about being treated as second-class citizens in eras past, even if they accepted their treatment grudgingly.
2. Since about 1975-1980, American politics and political commentary has become increasingly infested with right-wing demagogues whose stock-in-trade is loud, empty religious noises, alternating between piteous whining about “wars on Christianity” and being “hated for their faith,” and chest-thumping triumphalism about being “Number One” and playing on “Team Jesus.”
These factors do not make the Newdow case more important than it is, but they do explain why atheists are apt to be more belligerent now than in the past.
And I repeat the point I made earlier: Why are religious people happy or relieved that the court ruled to allow the “Under God” phrase to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance? The basis of that ruling was that the phrase did not have any real religious meaning, which reduces it to a empty and vain use of the name of God, in violation of the third commandment. Do religious people consider that a good thing?

“The whole world has always claimed our creator as God, it’s a little ridiculous to compare all the other religious heads mentioned in God’s place.”
?? I’m not at all sure what you mean. If it’s that believers in this god or that god all call it “God”, I don’t know. Apparently some call it Allah. Do Hindus talk about “God”? Beats me. I’d want more documentation.
If you mean the whole world claims a Christian god as “God” well that’s just wrong.

And “under God” is stupid because it’s divisive. A significant number of us absolutely disagree with it. Why put it there when it’s divisive? What does it do for a believer? Does he or she think we’re more “under God” if we say so in a pledge of allegiance? To our nation?

actually H4C the whole conservatives piece you tried to promote is nothing more than a buzz word to attack folk who think differently than you. You whole presentation on conservatives is no more than hate speech at its best.

Actually, cknuck, I do not hate true conservatives. In fact, some of my views and values are quite conservative — while others are quite progressive. I score poorly on ideological-purity tests of all types.
The ones I hate are crypto-fascists who call themselves conservatives while they cynically pander to religious people, preaching hatred and resentment against those who disagree with them, accusing them of being anti-American and anti-Christian.
And it would perhaps be more instructive if you pointed out specifically where you think I have misstated any facts concerning the court’s ruling in the Newdow case, instead of just denouncing what I wrote as “buzz-words” and “hate speech.”

And cknuck you’ve spewed your share of hate speech toward liberals. It’s hypocritical to accuse others of doing what you do regularly.

nnmns most of what you percieve as my hate speech is in response to your hateful claims concerning Christianity.

Friends nnmns and cknuck,
As long as we are already off-topic concerning the Pledge of Allegiance, here is a point worth pondering concerning “hate speech”:
Much as you two disagree with each other regarding faith, you share a common hostility toward Israel. Those who defend Israel are too often ready to shout “Anti-Semitism!” at criticisms of the Jewish state; from my perspective, that charge is only occasionally justified. (For example, criticism of the current Israeli plans for new housing construction has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, and even I, a defender of Israel, regard these plans as lunacy.)
The point is that when what we cherish — a religion, a sovereign state — is criticized, we are apt to think that its critics hate it. Not so! Criticism does NOT equal hatred. I am sorry to say that even at my advanced age, I am still plagued by hatred of certain people who have sullied and defiled what America has traditionally represented, and those people have had the gall to wrap themselves in a cloak of faux-patriotism. So I denounce them and their hypocrisy and demagogy. And when America has acted in ways that sully and defile its own history, I have hated those acts and criticized them. Some people have mistakenly interpreted my criticism of certain things America has done as hatred of America. That is a knee-jerk response, a defensive reflex.
And now here, in these exchanges about “hate speech” — cknuck’s accusation that nnmns makes “hateful claims concerning Christianity,” nnmns’ accusation that cknuck spews “hate speech toward liberals” — I see that same kind of defensiveness. I suspect that nnmns’ criticisms of Christianity do not represent hatred of that faith but contempt for certain acts and statements made by loud proponents of that faith. (In the case of my own criticisms, it amazes me that serious Christians themselves do not denounce fanatics who claim to be Christian but whose words and acts defile the faith; similarly, that serious Muslims do not denounce the fanatic clerics whose hate-filled preachings defile that faith.) And I also suspect that cknuck’s criticisms of liberalism do not represent blanket hatred of a sociopolitical perspective but contempt for certain liberal conceits.
I hope I am not wrong.

H4C some of my best friends are Christians .

Newdow’s frivolous lawsuit is just another example of the war on Christianity being waged by atheists and pagans.

If you’re trembling in your boots, interpreter, you have extremely bad judgement. If you aren’t you are just trying to divide us by making some people mad at atheists and pagans.
In either case you need to re-think yourself.

War on Christianity, interpreter? No, because I’d have to make war on my 2 sisters and most of my relatives and many friends. I just don’t think it is necessary to praise a god in this country while saying a pledge to this country. Not everyone feels this is a Christian nation anymore than it is a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation or a nation under any particular religion, so why mention any god in a universal pledge to a democratic country without a nationally ordered god or religion? No reason…anymore than it makes sense to put IGWT on our money. I don’t trust in an imaginary being….nor do many, many Americans. We are no longer fighting the USSR…dropping “under God” would be great about now. Another kind of war is being waged now….and it isn’t as incidious as communism was supposed to be.

H4C you speak so well but in the defense of Christians we do confront fanaticism on all fronts even our own.
nnmns I don’t know interpreter and I don’t speak for anyone I don’t know well enough to speak for but clearly there is a war on Christianity by some atheist for sure and some pagans you and pagan are snipers in that attack. pagan you use you Christian sisters and friends for human shields much like Hamas terrorist as you attack over and over Christians that don’t do or believe what you think they should do or believe.

Human shield, cknuck? How long did it take you to come up with that thought? I don’t need a shield. As to the reference to a Hamas terrorist, that was just plain rude and uncalled for…but not surprising, considering the source.
Like you, I give my opinion. Simple.

cknuck your martyr complex is running on steroids. There are far more Christians in the US than atheists and pagans together, and no matter how badly organized Christians may be it’s nothing compared to how unorganized atheists, at least, are.
So, yes, I point out some of Christianity’s fallacies and failings; are you saying I shouldn’t? Shouldn’t be allowed to?
Well let me point out the much more serious war some Christians are waging on science and on people’s rights and on freedom in the USA. I imagine you are quite happy with that war.

nnmns as a person who has seen all sorts of wars let me tell you it does not make me happy on any level. But I will level the playing field concerning verbal assaults on God and followers of God. For too long Christians have been quiet.

Just what is it you are threatening, cknuck?
And doesn’t it concern you in the least that your god is so puny it needs your help to defend its?

I’ve seen no assaults on God. I have seen criticisms of vile statements made by some religious people, and critiques of the self-contradictory aspects of some religious doctrines. I have also seen angry and contemptuous words from religious people about the supposed lack of intelligence, lack of morality, lack of patriotism, and lack of decency of the critics of loud religiosity in public life.

It is not respectful to put a religious construct (i.e. God) into a saying that is meant to encapsulate love for country by all who belong to it. It would be just as disrespectful to put “under no God” in. No difference.
“One Nation, under no God, with liberty and justice for all.”
Go ahead, say it. How does it make you feel?
By the way, the whole “There are more important things to worry about” argument is so stale. It is an immature way of saying I don’t have a good defense and so I want to talk about something else. We do not prioritize news here. As far as I’m concerned, there is a child starving somewhere in this world right now and that trumps most of these articles but it is silly to think one can only think about morality in terms of the most egregious assaults.

As a life-long Christian, I certainly do not need “under God” in the pledge of allegiance in order to strengthen my faith nor, remind me that I believe in God.
Nor, do I have a need to show others that I believe in God….or, attempt to show them that I am more faithful/Godly than they are.
The God of my faith is all powerful and does not need me to offer defense.
I have been bothered since 1st grade with “under God” in the pledge. IMO, it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court ruled in this way.
Peace!

To Your Name (posting at 8:07 a.m.):
“Under No God” would indeed be equally inappropriate. The correct answer, therefore, is that there should be no such insertion about God at all in the Pledge. I learned the Pledge before the “Under God” phrase was inserted; the insertion of the phrase was wrong then, and its continuance is just as wrong now, for the reasons I outlined earlier. For if the court’s reasoning in allowing the phrase to stay is correct (that it is not a religious expression at all), then the Pledge violates the biblical commandment against taking the name of God in a vain or cheap manner; and if that reasoning is incorrect (that the phrase is, indeed, a religious expression), then the Pledge violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Really, I do not understand why religious people who claim to cherish both the Bible and the Constitution want this phrase retained — they should be at the forefront of the effort to get the phrase removed and have the Pledge restored to what it had been before “activists” inserted “under God” in 1954.
As for ranking the importance of issues, I plead guilty. I do think certain things are more important than others. But if I were to refrain from that kind of ranking and just state my views on each issue according to how I see its merits, then I would say that the Newdow case was a valid effort to curtail the burgeoning influence of religiosity in America’s social-political life. Notice that I did not say “influence of faith” — although I am not an atheist, I share the dismay of atheists as religion becomes politicized (conservative preachers and pastors telling their congregations that God wants them to vote for this candidate and against that one) and politics becomes religified (hack politicians hypocritically making loud pious noises to vilify their opponents as “ungodly”). It is disgusting; it sullies both politics (which is sullied enough already) and true faith. Dr. Newdow’s case, however, was foredoomed regardless of its merits. The court ruled that the inserted phrase could stay simply because it lacked the courage to rule on the merits of the case.
There, is that clear enough?
To JohnQ:
Thank you, as always, for reminding us that true faith does not require loud, showy public displays and affirmations.

John Q and HFC,
Both excellent posts. And thank you HFC, for pointing out the hipocracy of “under God” for those that want to follow the commandments.
When I was at a Town Hall last year and we all stood for the pledge, I was in the second row and the “under God” was screamed in what seemed to me to be an expression of vehemence.
I think the phrase is politicizing religion and don’t most Americans agree that’s a bad direction to go?

By the way, YourName, if you quote the Pledge, don’t forget the word “indivisible.”
The original wording of the Pledge was “One nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” After 1954, the inserted phrase turned that into “One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
I mention this not merely for the sake of accuracy but also to point out that “indivisible” is a more vital concern than “under God,” notwithstanding all the furor over the “under God” insertion. The polarization of society — worse than I recall from the Vietnam Era — represents a genuine threat to national unity, as symbolized by our ceaseless references to “red states” and “blue states.”

cknuck,
“the point we have to entertain the petty attempts of atheist to control even our pledge.”
Was it equally “petty”, then, for the religious to have inserted the phrase to control the pledge (in their favor) in the first place?

JohnQ, HFC….well said…THANK YOU!
I too remember the before “under God” version. I’m for returning to it.

“just another example of the war on Christianity being waged by atheists and pagans.”
So that must mean, Interpreter, that the original insertion of the phrase back in the 50s was just another example of the war on atheists and pagans (and any other group that believes differently than you do) being waged by Christians.
Delusional as usual, I see.

“For too long Christians have been quiet.”
BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA.
ck, U 2 Funnee.

YN U 2 demonic, ugh!

What about the song “God bless America?” or “In God We Trust?” What to ban those also?

cknuck, “God Bless America” isn’t our National Anthem. IGWT could stand to be removed from our money. That makes as much sense as the “under God” phrase in the Pledge. However money is money…and all I do is pass it out to pay for stuff, not read it or pay attention to anything except what denomination it is.

Correct as usual ps. GBA is just a song; anyone can write any song they want.
IGWT should go off the money because it’s divisive on anything official, but kids aren’t required to either recite it from money, or not recite it, in front of other kids.
A kid who hears it recited every day might reasonably think there’s something to it, when there isn’t, but kids don’t typically read the money in their pocket. So I, also, don’t think it’s as important as getting it out of the Pledge.

This article didn’t mention what the Federal Court had to say about “In God We Trust”, on currency, etc. They said the phrase has always been meant to show Patriotism and be ceremonial, not religious.
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, better known as “The Declaration of Independence. When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And on and on.
Nature’s God and endowed by their Creator in the beginning of The Declaration of Independence shows that the first 13 states acknowledged God. This is part of the U.S.A.’s history, and Texas, and Newdow shouldn’t try to rewrite our historical past.

I have no doubt a lot of those folks believed in some kind of god and many were Christians.
But the phrase “Nature’s God” sounds at least as much like what ps’s folks might believe in, or what some nonreligious scientists could believe in, as it sounds like a conventional Christian god. And “their creator” would have seemed more obvious in the days before we knew about evolution and the details of life and modern cosmology and quantum mechanics which give possibilities for the universe and life to come into being “naturally”. Anyway, “their creator” surely does not restrict itself to a Christian god kind of “creator”.

wrong nnmns pagans folk believe nature is God.

“Nature’s God” sounds a lot like “nature is god”. But let’s let ps or another pagan say what they believe.

How a pagan or wiccan reacts to the phrase “Nature’s God” will reflect their beliefs, not those of the founding fathers. My interpretation is that the founding fathers, being mainly Deists, referred to God as creator of the natural world.

H4C correction the founders were not “mainly Deists” a minority of them were Deists but the majority were in fact “Christians”.

Nominally, the founding fathers may have been Christians. Deism was not and is not a specific and different religion or denomination in the sense that Christianity or Calvinism, for example, would be classified. Rather, deism is descriptive of a general type of belief about God — a belief that God exists, that God is the creator of the universe (so far, same as in any monotheistic religion), but that God can be discerned by rational observation of the physical universe, without need for faith, dogma, or clergy. A deist perspective tends to reject the notion that God intervenes directly in human affairs, hence there is little concern with or belief in supernatural manifestations (miracles).
Among the founding fathers, several, including some of the most prominent, were clearly deist in their orientation and thinking, notwithstanding whatever formal affiliation they may have had with Christian churches. That is only to be expected, as these men were steeped in the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment.

I count at best four that leaves over fifty Christians.

cknuck,
It depends on whose website you trust. Christian websites portray the FF as mostly born-again Christians who intended for America to be a Christian nation with Bible-based constitution. Almost all serious historians reject that notion. The most widely accepted view is that they WERE Christians nominally (that is, they were not atheists and they were not Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Pagans), but their sense of Christianity was quite different from today’s Protestant fundamentalism, and better described as deist.
But that is an issue on which people can believe anything they want to believe. So instead of trying to classify them religiously, why not look at what they wrought — the Constitution. If one believes that the FF intended for America to be a Christian nation, explain:
*Why the words “God,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Creator,” “Bible,” “Scripture,” “holy” and “sacred” do not appear anywhere in the text, and the single use of the word “Lord” is in ritual language giving the date above the signatures.
*Why the First Amendment specifically forbids the “establishment of religion” — it is not just the establishment of a particular church or religion that is forbidden, but the establishment “OF RELIGION” in general.
*Why Article VI says, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Believe what you will about the Founding Fathers, but their work itself — the Constitution — belies the claim that they intended for America to be a Christian nation. If that had been their intent, the Constitution would be written quite differently.