So they want to PRAY to the State, just not
include the word 'God' in that prayer?
Hmmm .... "The words were added to the Pledge in
1954 to combat the threat of godless Communism."
How does THAT work?
Regard$,
--MJ
"I pledge no allegiance to the flag this one or
any other -- Nor to a fictitious republic for
which it purports to stand. I prefer many
persons, disregarding nations, under God, Should
their search for Him bear fruit, As divisible as
they choose to make themselves, With liberty and
justice secured by their own unstinting efforts
In cooperation with those who serve them in free markets." -- Robert Higgs
At 10:37 AM 4/23/2014, you wrote:
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
<<mailto:[email protected]>[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
<http://www.nydailynews.com/authors?author=Carol%20Kuruvilla>Carol Kuruvilla
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, April 22, 2014, 2:44 PM
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.â€
A family in Monmouth County lashed out against
the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District
with a
<http://americanhumanist.org/news/details/2014-04-humanists-file-lawsuit-against-under-god-in-the-pled>lawsuit
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.â€
<http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-18a/section-18a-36-3/>New
Jersey state law requires 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 scruplesâ€
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.â€
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.â€
Read more:
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-jersey-school-sued-god-pledge-article-1.1764991#ixzz2ze4v8p3a>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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism>secularism,
whereby a
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29>state
or <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country>country
purports to be officially neutral in matters of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion>religion,
supporting neither religion nor
irreligion.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state#cite_note-1>[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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion>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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>Fourteenth
Amendment. Furthermore,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution>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.â€
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";Â 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
immeasurabbly 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.â€
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 girlsÂMalays, 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 ladiesÂthey 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>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>http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
Â
* Visit our other community at
<http://www.PoliticalForum.com/>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>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>http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
Â
* Visit our other community at
<http://www.PoliticalForum.com/>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>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>http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
Â
* Visit our other community at
<http://www.PoliticalForum.com/>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>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>http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
Â
* Visit our other community at
<http://www.PoliticalForum.com/>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
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected].
For more options, visit
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
brine
<http://brineb.blogspot.com/>http://brineb.blogspot.com/
--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
<http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum>http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at
<http://www.PoliticalForum.com/>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
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected].
For more options, visit
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>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.
