NJ Public School sued over "Under God" in Pledge of Allegiance

originally posted by: brandiwine14
I don't understand their reasoning for this. The school, nor does any school require that the the words "Under God" be recited, only the rest of the Pledge. So where is their real problem?

In New Jersey you do not have to give any portion of the Pledge of Allegiance if you do not want to. There is an opt-out clause. The lawsuit, in my opinion, is frivolous.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Wow, I did not know that.



So yeah totally frivolous.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

in a letter to Charles Thomson, written from Monticello, under date of January 9, 1816, he says: "I, too, have made a wee little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

But again the "Church" had seen so many schisms by Jefferson's time that calling himself a Christian could mean a great many things. It is more than obvious he did not follow accepted church doctrine, especially not the "Holy Mother Church". I assume he meant he was Christian in that he honestly believed in the teachings of the Christ.

Or do you have a dissimilar opinion on that as well?

a reply to: 200Plus

The teachings of Jesus the man, not Jesus the demigod. If you take all the "holy father blippity blah" stuff out of it, and just keep the common sense "how not to be a raging phallus" stuff, you've got a pretty concise guide to how to be a decent human being. Which, I believe, is the point peter vlar was trying to make. Well, not trying - he made the point. I guess it slipped by some people.

Plus who says God give two craps about the USA anyway? What makes it any more special to him than any other nation past or present?

And last time I checked god hasnt really been one to take sides, not since his last choosen nation decided to kill his son and all that. I mean Id have trust issues too

Did anyone ask the poor man up stairs before they pegged the USA to him?

If hes going to love a land it will likely be the South pole as there a few humans there piss to him off, plus it has penguins and everyone loves penguins

a reply to: rickynews

A very wise man once said “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” The intellect making that statement, Albert Einstein, was a man who believed in God. Does that mean he was correct? Maybe, Maybe not.

For those that choose to believe there is no God and we are just a freak of nature wandering aimlessly through life with no meaning I say, living life like that for me would be difficult not having a true end purpose. For those who believe there is a God, a supreme intelligence and truth I say, I will not stop seeking knowledge and will do my best to not do anything harmful to others, granted I will make mistakes. If I am considered religious for believing in miracles and a cause greater than myself, so be it, I see no harm in it. I do not go to, or belong to, any place of worship.

We are all entitled to our beliefs on a personal level, if you don't believe, then don't say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. As far as the pledge itself, I see no harm in promoting a belief in freedom and democracy that is still admired by many that continue to flee to this country seeking a better life, that is how we were founded as a nation.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: 200Plus

The teachings of Jesus the man, not Jesus the demigod. If you take all the "holy father blippity blah" stuff out of it, and just keep the common sense "how not to be a raging phallus" stuff, you've got a pretty concise guide to how to be a decent human being. Which, I believe, is the point peter vlar was trying to make. Well, not trying - he made the point. I guess it slipped by some people.

I think most rational people believe that a man defined as Jesus Christ did indeed live and die on this earth. I tend to agree that his teachings were of a peaceful and loving nature. The words he spoke invoked one of the largest religious movements in the history of mankind. We are left with basically three decisions;
1. He was a fraud and has duped hundreds of millions of people to believe in his claims.
2. He was simply a man with excellent parables and a deep foundation of old testament teachings that provided hope and peace for the future.
3. He was indeed the son of God.
I have my belief in what the truth is, but, I will not push anyone into my beliefs. Freedom to choose to say "under God" is our right, so is not saying it. To remove God altogether at the local levels was not in the constitution, it stated congress could not declare or promote any official religion (in a nutshell). If a local area is religious then let them decide, if it is an atheist community let them choose. The law in NJ is not declaring a religion, it is using the word God, there is a difference. I believe in God, but, I do not believe in religious associations.

a reply to: govmule

First, Einstein rejected the Judaic doctrine. Whatever god he believed in, it was not a god the Vatican or any church of Judaic or abrahamic descent would recognize or support. He determined that himself.

Second, I liken it to a homecooked meal as compared to a TV dinner. There is a virtue to meaning and value you've scraped together over a process of trial and error, because no one can teach you who you are or how that impacts your relationship with the world. Only you can figure that out, I don't care what any book says. Just because you didn't come with a preprogrammed destiny or a fixed purpose regardless of what you want to give to the world, doesn't mean you're helpless to beat your own path. If you know what you want, then you don't need an ultimate meaning. Your life and legacy is your meaning.

That's how I look at it, anyway.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: govmule

First, Einstein rejected the Judaic doctrine. Whatever god he believed in, it was not a god the Vatican or any church of Judaic or abrahamic descent would recognize or support. He determined that himself.

Second, I liken it to a homecooked meal as compared to a TV dinner. There is a virtue to meaning and value you've scraped together over a process of trial and error, because no one can teach you who you are or how that impacts your relationship with the world. Only you can figure that out, I don't care what any book says. Just because you didn't come with a preprogrammed destiny or a fixed purpose regardless of what you want to give to the world, doesn't mean you're helpless to beat your own path. If you know what you want, then you don't need an ultimate meaning. Your life and legacy is your meaning.

That's how I look at it, anyway.

I certainly respect your views and beliefs and would not try to talk you out of them. As far as legacy, the vast majority of us that live on the earth will not be remembered for what we have done in 100 yrs, there are some, but not many. I do agree that a book cannot dictate who or what you will become, that comes from within. Diversity is wonderful, as long as you don't intentionally hurt someone else for your own benefit.

a reply to: govmule

In my eyes, you take nothing with you but the satisfaction of having lived a good life. If that's not enough, I don't know what to tell you. Anything more undermines the value of having lived in the first place. As a wise man once said: "you can run out of things to live for." I don't doubt it for a second.

Pledge of Allegiance is widely misunderstood by most people. I always loved Aaron Russo pointing out the line "And to the Republic, for which it stands" because we all have been brainwashed into believing we are a democracy in the US. We are a Constitutional Republic, where people who make $174,000 annually are somehow representing the common man and our struggles. The pledge of Allegiance was written by a man to increase his sales of American Flags.

How much longer is the human race going to fight over religion? We kill each other and spend countless hours of arguing over something that truly doesn't matter. Why not try and make a heaven on Earth, where we live in harmony with each other and nature?

originally posted by: oneupShadow
...because we all have been brainwashed into believing we are a democracy in the US. We are a Constitutional Republic...

I learned that the United States was republic fairly early on, not sure where this brainwashing is taking place.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I was almost sure that many people posting here would have been more outraged over a governmental institution having a policy about making people say things to begin with than over the religiousity of it all. Guess we know which outrage trumps which now.

Here is the statute in question:

18A:36-3. Display of and salute to flag; pledge of allegiance
Every board of education shall:

(a) Procure a United States flag, flagstaff and necessary appliances therefor for each school in the district and display such flag upon or near the public school building during school hours;

(b) Procure a United States flag, flagstaff and necessary appliances or standard therefor for each assembly room and each classroom in each school, and display such flag in the assembly room and each classroom during school hours and at such other time as the board of education may deem proper; and

(c) Require the pupils in each school in the district on every school day to salute the United States flag and repeat the following pledge of allegiance to the flag: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," which salute and pledge of allegiance shall be rendered with the right hand over the heart, except that pupils who have conscientious scruples against such pledge or salute, or are children of accredited representatives of foreign governments to whom the United States government extends diplomatic immunity, shall not be required to render such salute and pledge but shall be required to show full respect to the flag while the pledge is being given merely by standing at attention, the boys removing the headdress.

You may opt out of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in New Jersey.

Thank you for posting the law as it stands. The law clearly gives the student the freedom and the option of reciting the pledge with or without the words "Under God". Let's say some children say the words, and others do not. The "humanist atheists" therefore claim their children are being discriminated against ? Using this logic, if some children wear a cross necklace to school, are those children, or the school permitting children wearing a cross necklace, somehow discriminating against the other children? This case is Not about discrimination. It's true intent is to impose an atheistic belief onto children, and an effort to further the atheist minority's agenda onto the majority of Americans and their children.

a reply to: beezzer

To the athiests who want to ban "Under God", you are a bunch of narrow-minded idiots who will be burning books if we allowed it.

So what does that make the Christians who had "under God" added? Pretty sure those dudes did actually burn books. ... and albums to protect their children from Satan's influence, oh and later made sure everyone was safe from Elvis Presley's hips and the Beatle's hair.

The original pledge:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This is ridiculous. Like kids pick out one part of the pledge and are then persuaded to join a cultlike religion. Second class citizens - hardly. God can mean the most high - the greatest self - transformed. If athiest want to tell their kods that what that means is humans they can do that. Interpret God as a person wants to - our right to do. To nit pick at this stuff will only lead to more of the same. Indoctrinated is a really dumb word for something that is printed on money or said in a pledge to ones Country. Lets talk about indoctrinated and see where else this happens, and i would say God is the least of our worries. What's the big threat? An athiest who wants no mention of God around them needs to live in a cave since the whole world is full of God beleiving people.

a reply to: rickynews

There is no issue with it. They are just trying to pervert the laws because we are letting so much P.C. crap happen anymore, and they believe they can make money off it, larger than their unemployment checks.

I am considered aetheist, and there is nothing offensive about it, except the "Jihadist-aetheists" that are un-american. If they have an issue with it, there are plenty of other countries they can move to. Maybe if they got a job they wouldn't have so much time on their hands.

a reply to: saneguy

Probably the most un-american post I've read from anyone.

Please get over yourself and stay in commie-fornia, the cereal state.

It's full of fruits, nuts and flakes.....

originally posted by: Dianec
This is ridiculous. Like kids pick out one part of the pledge and are then persuaded to join a cultlike religion.

Not for nothing but that actually was the point of amending the Pledge in 1954. It was spearheaded by the Knights of Columbus, a devout Catholic Fraternity and came to prominence due to the "Rd Scare" era of McCRthyism in the US congress. The original version of the Pledge was written because patriotism, which was at an all time high in the post Civil War/Reconstruction era had ebbed to near non existence and the intent of the Pledge was to spur a new era of American patriotism.

Second class citizens - hardly. God can mean the most high - the greatest self - transformed. If athiest want to tell their kods that what that means is humans they can do that. Interpret God as a person wants to - our right to do. To nit pick at this stuff will only lead to more of the same.

So I should lie to my kids and tell them that god in the pledge is merely a benign statement when it, as I mention above, is in fact not benign and was utilized to show the world that America was differentiating itself from the godless communists raging from Eastern Europe across Asia? It is quite definitely a direct reference to the Christian God and not whatever reasonable interpretation works for each individual.

Indoctrinated is a really dumb word for something that is printed on money or said in a pledge to ones Country. Lets talk about indoctrinated and see where else this happens, and i would say God is the least of our worries.

Honestly, I can't really disagree with you on the actual level of indoctrination involved here.And I definitely agree that in the current political climate worldwide that God is the least of our concerns.
More indoctrination goes on at home as a result of a families personal religious and political inclinations.

What's the big threat? An athiest who wants no mention of God around them needs to live in a cave since the whole world is full of God beleiving people.

But that's not the point at all. While its certainly true that atheists and many agnostics have no use for religion and think it can be dangerous when wielded in the wrong hands, its rather unfair to categorize us as wanting no mention of god anywhere. Aside from some rather militant atheists, the vast majority of us are happy to allow people of whichever faith they choose to pursue and to continue on believing whatever they choose to. It's a right guaranteed by the first amendment and trust me, nobody wants to alter the first in any way. Civil discourse and debate is generally and should be, a positive part of the political process and whether I grew with others or not I would most certainly stand up for your right to have your say. I think if we actually try, there is always a middle ground and I'm willing to bet that many devoutly religious and many die hard atheists have more in common than they want to think. Before I digress to far, my initial point was that atheists aren't looking to have all mention of god removed rom the face of the earth. It's a rather unreasonable stance.te crux of the issue is that places like public schools and courthouses are funded with tax dollars and as such, the pushing of Christian or any other religious ethos really has no place in a publicly financed institution. In my opinion, religion and faith are very personal matters and as such should remain a private affair. There is plenty of time for discussing religion and faith at home, in church or Sunday schools, at many of the events sponsored by religious institutions, religious summer camps and on and on. All of those places are also wholly financed by the members of the affiliated congregations and enjoy tax exempt status. I just find that when others push their personal religiosity in a public arena that it sullies and degrades the intent. With all of that said, the NJ law as do similar statutes in many other states, allows students to skip the line referring to god or skip the pledge in its entirety if they so choose and as such this lawsuit is entirely frivolous. Because there are exemptions in the law those bringing the suit should not only be prepared to have it thrown out of court but should also be held liable for court costs as well as the school districts legal fees because its not the schools regulations, they are simply following state law.

a reply to: peter vlar

In 1954, the U.S. was quite threatened by the spread of Communism, specifically the Soviet Union. Communism's mantra is indeed a God-less state, where the only "god" for the people Is the State itself. Therefore, it is reasonable, understandable and quite appropriate to add "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance - as recognition that indeed, there is a God, and it is certainly Not the State.

Therefore, those who support removing "Under God" from the Pledge are exposing themselves of having a Communist influence , or at least, having profound Communist leanings, in the way of their misguided atheistic beliefs and their deceived ideology.

a reply to: rickynews

The US was never under a Communist threat. It was BS sold to the people in order to hide a massive power grab.