This stuff comes up from time to time, I remember 40 years ago when I was in High School we would say the pledge but you had the option to no speak the words "Under God" and there were some who did just that, no big deal in my opinion, this kinda lawsuit is silly in my opinion and a waste of money!!!
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]>wrote: > New Jersey school district sued for using ‘under God’ in Pledge of > Allegiance The American Humanist Association is suing Matawan-Aberdeen > Regional School District on behalf of an anonymous family from Monmouth > County. The family claims the school is discriminating against > non-believers. > BY Carol Kuruvilla > <http://www.nydailynews.com/authors?author=Carol%20Kuruvilla> > NEW YORK DAILY NEWS > Tuesday, April 22, 2014, 2:44 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [image: MR & PR] Fuse/Getty Images/Fuse The words 'under God' were > added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, as part of a McCarthy-era tactic > to combat communism. > > A New Jersey school district is under fire for pledging allegiance “under > God.” > > A family in Monmouth County lashed out against the Matawan-Aberdeen > Regional School District with a lawsuit > <http://americanhumanist.org/news/details/2014-04-humanists-file-lawsuit-against-under-god-in-the-pled>on > Monday, claiming that asking children to recite the words “under God” > during the Pledge of Allegiance is tantamount to discrimination. > > “The exercise instills in children the idea that true patriots are > god-believers and those who don’t believe are a second-class of citizens,” > David Niose, legal director for the American Humanist Association, told The > News. > > The Washington, D.C.-based organization filed the lawsuit on behalf of a > family, who wished to remain anonymous. Niose said the student involved in > the case attends Matawan-Aberdeen schools. But he refused to reveal the > student’s gender or grade, claiming that atheists who speak out in this > manner are often “subjected to great hostility.” > > New Jersey state law > requires<http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-18a/section-18a-36-3/>students > to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every school day. The phrase > “under God” is in the full text mandated by state law, but it wasn’t a part > of the original Pledge of Allegiance. The religious reference is in fact a > relic of the McCarthy era. The words were added to the Pledge in 1954 to > combat the threat of godless Communism. > > Students who have “conscientious scruples” do not have to salute or say > the Pledge, but they are required to show respect for the flag by standing. > > Niose says the option of not participating is not the right solution. > > “If the pledge said, ‘One nation under Jesus,’ I imagine that Jews, > Muslims and Hindus would feel quite excluded,” he said. “There is an > element of stigmatization when the school is conducting an exercise that > defines patriotism in a way that excludes your particular worldview.” > > If the pledge said, ‘One nation under Jesus,’ I imagine that Jews, Muslims > and Hindus would feel quite excluded. > > The AHA is hoping that the courts will find that the current form of the > Pledge of Allegiance violates New Jersey's constitution because it > discriminates against people of no faith. After that first step, the > organization suggests that the school can revert to the original Pledge or > find another way for students to show patriotism. > > A similar AHA-sponsored lawsuit is currently before the Massachusetts > Supreme Judicial Court. > > In a statement released to The News, Matawan-Aberdeen schools accused the > national organization of unfairly targeting their district for following a > state mandate. > > “Instead of directing their arguments to the State, which has imposed this > statutory requirement on all 590 school districts throughout New Jersey, > they are forcing one district to divert time, energy and resources from the > education of its students to defend this case,” the statement said. > > In the past, opponents have attempted to attack the Pledge on the basis of > the First Amendment, which forbids Congress from making laws that establish > a state religion. But this recent lawsuit suggests a shift in tactics and a > move toward the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. > > It’s the same constitutional right that allowed African-Americans and > women to make important strides toward equality during the 20th century. > > “For some reason, instead of looking at the pool that everyone else uses > to defend their rights, atheists and humanists have resorted to the > establishment clause,” Niose said. “But whenever any minority has asserted > rights, they’ve done so through equal protection. It’s time to use it — in > fact, it’s long overdue.” > > Read more: > http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-jersey-school-sued-god-pledge-article-1.1764991#ixzz2ze4v8p3a > > > On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:26:39 PM UTC-5, plainolamerican wrote: >> >> That has nothing to do with Christianity being the most influential >> dictate of our Founding Fathers, >> --- >> who knew the dangers that the religious posed to the nation. >> >> and still continues to be in this Nation. >> ----- >> not so ... >> I understand that you christians are feeling marginalized these day .... >> you'll get used to it. >> >> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:05:12 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> There is a separation between Church and State, as mandated by the >>> Constitution and as it should be. That has nothing to do with Christianity >>> being the most influential dictate of our Founding Fathers, and still >>> continues to be in this Nation....Again, whether you like it or not. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:53 PM, plainolamerican >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Unfortunately for you Plain Ol, during yours and my lifetime, the >>>> United States is, and will continue to be a non-secular Nation-State >>>> ---- >>>> speculation noted ... not shared. >>>> A *secular state* is a concept of >>>> secularism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism>, >>>> whereby a state <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29> or >>>> country <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country> purports to be >>>> officially neutral in matters of >>>> religion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion>, >>>> supporting neither religion nor >>>> irreligion.[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state#cite_note-1>A >>>> secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of >>>> religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a >>>> particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular >>>> states do not have a state >>>> religion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion>(established >>>> religion) or equivalent. >>>> The United States does not have an official religion at either the >>>> federal or state level. There are some traditions and customs regarding the >>>> use of a Bible when taking oaths in court, or for the President of the >>>> United States during the oath of office, but neither of these are required >>>> by law. The First Amendment to the United States >>>> Constitution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>is >>>> written as "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" and >>>> is held to be applied to the state via the Fourteenth >>>> Amendment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>. >>>> Furthermore, Article Six of the United States >>>> Constitution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution>prohibits >>>> the use of any religious test as qualification for any public >>>> office. >>>> >>>> Alas, many American religious leaders resent the concept of religious >>>> freedom. What they seek is religious dominion. The late Jerry Falwell was a >>>> prime example of this; he despised >>>> America's Constitution, and desperately tried to advance dominion. Not >>>> a progressive society, but a fundamentalist one. >>>> >>>> “If we are going to save America and evangelize the world,” said >>>> Falwell, “We cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically >>>> opposed to Christian truth.” >>>> >>>> *Before the Constitution, religious leaders using "spectral evidence" >>>> to justify murder:* >>>> >>>> How is this so different from the words of former Taliban spiritual >>>> leader Mullah Mohammed Omar who, before September 11, 2001, oversaw the >>>> campaign to destroy all his country's ancient Buddhist statues, some of >>>> which dated back to the second century? And what reason for this >>>> destruction? Omar explained: “I don't care about anything else but Islam.” >>>> Religious pluralism, indeed, any pluralism, is forbidden. Law comes from >>>> the "inspired" rule of the church or mosque. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:24:51 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>> >>>>> Unfortunately for you Plain Ol, during yours and my lifetime, the >>>>> United States is, and will continue to be a non-secular Nation-State, >>>>> relying upon it's Christian heritage as its moral compass and depending >>>>> upon Christian values, principals and tenets for the concept of "Ordered >>>>> Liberty". You hate this I know, and you and your secularist liberal >>>>> friends do everything in your power to revise history, but it's pretty >>>>> much for naught! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM, plainolamerican < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> the government cannot mandate or regulate social behavior or >>>>>> morality. >>>>>> --- >>>>>> nor can the religious. >>>>>> >>>>>> the good news! >>>>>> as Americans become more secular the religious will lose political >>>>>> power and influence. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:12:50 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> As a "Genocidal Conservative"; I think this just goes to show that >>>>>>> the government cannot mandate or regulate social behavior or morality. >>>>>>> It's been tried and failed at each and every attempt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *"Herewith another and yet worse confession: I do not see, or care, >>>>>>>> why it is thought my duty to like, or dislike, groups because of their >>>>>>>> race, creed, color, sex, sexual aberration, or national origin. Nor do >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> think it their duty to like me. I especially do not understand why the >>>>>>>> federal government should decide with whom I ought to associate." * >>>>>>>> *"So what?" * >>>>>>>> *How do you like them apples? *By Fred Reed >>>>>>>> April 22, 2014 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am puzzled as to why racism is thought to be a terrible thing, >>>>>>>> rather than entirely natural and often reasonable, and why people allow >>>>>>>> themselves to be brow-beaten about it. Maybe we should stop. Domestic >>>>>>>> tranquility would follow in torrents. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As nearly as I can tell, a racist is one who approves of rigorous >>>>>>>> education, good English, civilized manners, minimal criminality, and >>>>>>>> responsible parenthood, among other things. I am, then, a racist. I >>>>>>>> see no >>>>>>>> reason to grovel about it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I decided long ago that if, while I was doing a radio interview, a >>>>>>>> caller-in told me, “You a *racist!”* I would hesitate as if >>>>>>>> puzzled, and say “…So what?” This would add immeasurably to the >>>>>>>> planetary >>>>>>>> supply of stunned silence. The expectation is that anyone so charged >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> fall on his knees and beg for mercy. It would be a lesser offense to be >>>>>>>> caught sexually molesting autistic three-year-old girls while >>>>>>>> attending a >>>>>>>> Nazi torch-rally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Herewith another and yet worse confession: I do not see, or care, >>>>>>>> why it is thought my duty to like, or dislike, groups because of their >>>>>>>> race, creed, color, sex, sexual aberration, or national origin. Nor do >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> think it their duty to like me. I especially do not understand why the >>>>>>>> federal government should decide with whom I ought to associate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But back to “So what?” Among its charms is that there is no answer >>>>>>>> to it, other than huffing and puffing and indignant expostulation. All >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> these amuse me. Used frequently, “So what?”would shut up people who >>>>>>>> badly >>>>>>>> need to shut up, or else force them to think. Not likely, as most >>>>>>>> apparently cannot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let us, improbably, glance at reality. A characteristic of human >>>>>>>> groups is that they do not like each other. The greater the difference >>>>>>>> between the groups, the greater the dislike; the closer the contact >>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>> them, the more open the friction. Note that before the advent of mass >>>>>>>> immigration, Americans of whatever politics had no dislike of >>>>>>>> Hispanics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thus separation increases the likelihood of amity. Is this not >>>>>>>> obvious? The instinctive rancor between disparate groups accounts for >>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>> of the world’s problems. Moslems and Christians dislike each other, >>>>>>>> Tamils >>>>>>>> and Sinhalese, Cambodians and Vietnamese, blacks and whites, Americans >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Frenchmen, men and women, homosexuals and the normal and, as Tom Lehrer >>>>>>>> famously sang, “…everybody hates the Jews.” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Except that in America Jews are so assimilated that most of us >>>>>>>> don’t remember to hate them. They aren’t different enough. I’ll have to >>>>>>>> make myself a note. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Humans like to be among their own kind. This can mean many things. >>>>>>>> It can be political. In Washington, white liberals cheerlead for >>>>>>>> diversity >>>>>>>> while spending their time exclusively with white liberals and >>>>>>>> execrating >>>>>>>> Southerners, Jesus Creepers, genocidal conservatives (understood to >>>>>>>> mean >>>>>>>> all conservatives), Catholics, racists, owners of guns, rednecks, and >>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>> on. No dissenting voices are heard because, like conservatives, >>>>>>>> liberals >>>>>>>> choose to be among their own. Similarly, if in any of Washington’s >>>>>>>> dives >>>>>>>> you know that one person in a table of six has an IQ in excess 130, it >>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>> good bet that all do. It isn’t snobbery. Smart people enjoy the >>>>>>>> company of >>>>>>>> smart people. Their own kind. So what? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If left alone, people will naturally and peacefully form such >>>>>>>> associations as seem to them desirable. If left alone. So what? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Chinese cluster together in China Towns because they want to be >>>>>>>> among their own. So what? Jews have yeshivas because they want to >>>>>>>> preserve >>>>>>>> their culture. So what? On campus, black students want separate >>>>>>>> fraternities and dormitories. So what? When men can find a pretext for >>>>>>>> being among other men, they do. So what? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In all of this, I am a bit of an outlier, having lived among many >>>>>>>> cultures and generally liked them. Some can do this. Yet as a white >>>>>>>> American of European extraction, I too want to preserve my culture. >>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>> involves (or did) respect for law, studiousness, the production of >>>>>>>> children >>>>>>>> within marriage, self-reliance, honesty, sexual restraint, and so on. >>>>>>>> Another part of my cultural package is the literature of Milne, Milton, >>>>>>>> Twain, Galsworthy, Gibbon, and others at length. I want my children to >>>>>>>> read >>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, I do not want to impose my values and culture on others. >>>>>>>> American blacks for example are truly *African *Americans, and >>>>>>>> quite reasonably may have as little interest in European history as I >>>>>>>> do in >>>>>>>> African. Rationally this would argue for separate schools where each >>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>> study what and as it chose. For reasons impenetrable to me, to suggest >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> is thought worse than genocide. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A reason for letting people associate as they choose is that, while >>>>>>>> groups naturally do not like each other, they overlap in curious ways. >>>>>>>> Left to themselves, people sort these matters out like water reaching >>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>> level. When I lived in Washington I used to spend afternoons over a >>>>>>>> Bass >>>>>>>> and several of its friends at the Cafe Asia, on Wilson Boulevard just >>>>>>>> across Key Bridge into Virginia. The Asia was then staffed by Asian >>>>>>>> girlsMalays, Chinese, Vietnamese, and a lovely Japanese woman who >>>>>>>> managed >>>>>>>> it. The clientele ran to young white professionals. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Their unanimous opinion held of these women by white men was highly >>>>>>>> favorable. Why? Well, these young ladiesthey *were* ladies–were >>>>>>>> sleek, pretty, classy, never toilet-mouthed, and smart. Smart: One was >>>>>>>> doing graduate work in computer security, another was a wide-area >>>>>>>> network >>>>>>>> engineer, a third had been unable to find work after a master’s in >>>>>>>> biochem, >>>>>>>> and so was in dental school. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here we have an example of people, being* left alone*, deciding *for >>>>>>>> themselves* who to hang out with. The young white professionals >>>>>>>> had decided, probably not consciously, that the Asian women had enough >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> common with us, and enough not in common but appealing, that we really >>>>>>>> enjoyed them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where is the fly in this ointment? I suppose we were racists, as we >>>>>>>> were assuredly discriminating racially: We thought Malays pretty. The >>>>>>>> horror. No doubt we were sinners all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Today of course we are federally admonished not to choose our own >>>>>>>> friends and neighbors as if our lives were our own business. No. >>>>>>>> Instead >>>>>>>> we must follow the social directives of the Potomac Soviet, whether >>>>>>>> anyone >>>>>>>> wants to or not. Few do. In Washington, on the Hill, upper >>>>>>>> Connecticut, the >>>>>>>> inner suburbs, the outer suburbs, everywhere, clubs and restaurants are >>>>>>>> either almost perfectly white or perfectly black. Whites happily >>>>>>>> patronize >>>>>>>> Latin American restaurants intended for the general trade, yet in >>>>>>>> mini-barrios many venues tacitly are for browns only. So what? It is >>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>> people want it. If freedom of association is racism, I am for it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So what? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.fredoneverything.net/LaudableRacism.shtml >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group >>>>>>>> /PoliticalForum >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>>> >>>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
