why doesn't it piss you people off that your tax money is being wasted by a jackoff who is trying to get back at his ex-wife for becoming a christian?

From The Docket (original case)

Petition GRANTED limited to the following Questions: 1. Whether respondent has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Am I upset that my tax money is "being wasted" to review whether a practice spread throughout every public school might be in violation of the constitution of the United States? No.

...as to why it doesn't piss me off, I think this is a really important question that has been brought to the Supreme Court, regardless of the intentions of the person filing the complaint and the decision made by the court, one way or the other, will set many future cases.

Our government is not supposed to advertise or imply any religion through its actions. We need to know what the court's interpretation of this is, because every single student in the public school system is being exposed to it and, in many cases, punished for not participating.

In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the ones I knew, anyhow; you bet your buttons, Mom and Dad made it their business to know. Last fall I made the aquainitance of a JW couple and their incredible 10 year old daughter, "R." R. was one heck of a bright and spunky kid, but she had it drilled into her that she would be committing a horrible sin if she said the pledge. Dad even made surprise visits to the school just to check. R. confided to me that this (along with other JW restrictions - no Halloween or Christmas celebration participation, etc.) made her life on the playground a living hell (my word, not hers). She announced that she was also the best fighter in all the 3rd and 4th grades and could beat up any and all comers, including the boys in her class.

While I certainly have extremely major differences with the JW viewpoint, I also don't see why little kids should, in effect, have to make a loyalty oath every day they attend school. I think a better way of creating loyal US citizens is a good course in Civics and American History, as well as pratical displays of what freedom of religion and freedom of speech is all about. Schools could set one example of this by dispensing with the "optional" pledge.

The pledge was meant to unite, not divide. It would too, if the parents would stay out of it. It's a damn shame, when I think of all the things the parents SHOULD get involved in.
JW's don't get to celebrate birthdays either, but they still have to count them. Talk about unfair. :(

You guys are lucky that you have the pledge. To outsiders it seems like it is the one thing that binds Americans together, so strongly. I normally don't like religion becoming entangled in government, but in this case I don't have any objection. I think the pluses outweigh the negatives.

To outsiders it seems like it is the one thing that binds Americans together, so strongly.

Just think of how many people the pledge would unite if it didn't contain "Under God", a pledge that actually represents what the country is about and could describe every single citizen of the nation. A pledge like that would have no negatives.

Oh, and to the "insiders", specifically the school children reciting it every single morning, the pledge doesn't mean anything more than the opening bell does. I'm saddened by that, but its the truth.

is it possible that it doesn't mean anything to them because educators are too afraid to teach them in fear that someone will get offended and sue?

and as far as "under god" being devisive? please. true atheists are a small minority in this country, although there are many who reside in the cellar.

i could understand if we were forcing kids to say "under Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour", but we aren't. "under god is non-specific enough that it actually does hearken back to the founding of this country. most people do believe in a god. Freedom of religion didn't mean freedom FROM religion. it is the individual's choice, and if the majority have no problem with their kids saying "under god" then the minority still has the right to not say it themselves. but to litigate for removal is just ridiculous.

When I see or think about the word "God," I automatically think of the Judeo-Christian version of a deity. And I suspect that many other people think the same way. And by using the phrases "under God" and "In God We Trust," I believe that this nation is endorsing said Judeo-Christian deity. Minorities (of all varieties) are more vocal now than they were even 20 years ago, and I think we'll continue to see more challenges like "under God."

And that's cool with me. I love people/groups that are willing to take on the status quo like this...even if I don't agree with them. To me, it shows that our government works.

is it possible that it doesn't mean anything to them because educators are too afraid to teach them in fear that someone will get offended and sue?

It is possible. I mean, if you start lecturing children in public schools that when you pledge your allegiance to the United States that this nation, its citizens, and its government are under a God, it could lead to lawsuits from atheists and those that recognize that the word "God" in the pledge specifically refers to a Christian God. Maybe that is why children don't know the meaning of the pledge. Maybe that is part of the problem.

true atheists are a small minority in this country, although there are many who reside in the cellar.

You are correct -- the percentage of people who do not believe in a god is a small one in this country, yet they are still citizens. They still vote, they still pay taxes, they fight in our wars, and they are still part of this country. To require a citizen to believe in God in order to pledge their life to our country is foolish and there should never be any religious requirement, ever. I get the feeling that a lot of people have never stopped to think of the implications -- think about the words for a second. The government is REQUIRING you to believe in God when you state your allegiance to the country. Should that ever be a requirement to be a citizen or to agree to give your life in defense of the country? Why should it? What good does it do to force someone to recognize that?

Freedom of religion didn't mean freedom FROM religion.

Bullshit. The citizens of the United States of America can believe in whatever they want, even if it is nothing at all, a sacred rock, or a god in the sky. To think otherwise is denying freedom.

it is the individual's choice, and if the majority have no problem with their kids saying "under god" then the minority still has the right to not say it themselves.

I agree -- you shouldn't have to say it. But the beliefs of the majority should never alter the fundamental freedoms of the citizens of this country. And, right now, I have to say that I'm sad to see that is exactly what is happening.

Actually, in my case, I did have a teacher who explained the words of the pledge to us. I guess it must have been around 2nd or third grade. I had always been saying "one nation, invisible... and to the public for which it stands." I used to wonder how the US was "invisible" under God! After the teacher went over the words with us and what they meant, I said the pledge very proudly. I don't know about the rest of you, but the schools I went to up through the 6th grade were all ones on military bases and we kids were all children of career military parents. From the moment it was explained to me properly, I said the pledge, not with my hand on my heart, but imitating my Dad's military salute to the flag. Kids aren't as dumb as you think.

I would miss it, only because it's another thing from my childhood that is changing. But, I think it should go -- along with the "In God we trust" on our money.

I'm Christian, as you all probably remember. But I believe in separation of church and state. And I'd like the pledge of allegiance to apply not just to my kids, but to the children of my co-workers who come from India. And the kids of our friends who are atheist - and so on.

Keep the pledge, leave God out of it. There's plenty of churches and private schools if you want your kids to know God.

freedom of religion means that you have the right to believe in anything you want, if that means you believe in nothing at all. people can make a religion out of anything. in fact, many atheists have turned their belief into a form of religion. they spend vast amounts of time, energy, and money trying to convince people that there is no god, just as fundamental christians do trying to get people to believe there is a god. the only difference between the 2 groups is the idea of god/no god. everything else is the same, it is a belief that they hold so strongly that they feel the need to bring other people to the light.

i support everyone's right to believe what they want. but what i don't like is our gradual move from an insistence upon freedom OF religion, to a movement towards freedom FROM religion. no where in the early documents this nation was founded upon suggested that there was a need to push religious belief out of public view. they simply stated that there could not be a particular faith required to be a citizen. that is what was meant about gov't respecting religion.
i'm willing to bet that there are people reading this that actually believe the phrase "separation of church and state" can be found in the constitution. if you do, you may want to check again.

Freedom FROM religion means free from state mandated/approved/etc religion.

Unfortunately we're stuck with all of the evangapimps on TV, radio and internet.

i'm not aware that there is a state mandated religion.

i agree with you about the entertainer/evangelists. they generally cause more problems than they solve; but is there someone that ties you to a chair and forces you to watch it?

saying they don't have the right to be on the air is not different than that genious powell campaigning for a return to decency. if one is 1st amendment - then so is the other. i think howard stern is an overrated pig, but i have the freedom to spin the dial. billy graham may annoy you with his crusades, but you also have the right to swith to any of the other 100+ channels.

God was inserted into the motto, money, and pledge during the cold war. Even more than freedom from religion, I want a freedom from cold war jingoism.