I'm sure I can find many JW's and athesits that'd disagree.
I think the logic of JWs and atheists is already skewed, and so I wouldnt be surprised if this were another example to demonstrate it.
If it is so voluntary, why does it upset "True Patriots (TM)" when citizens exercize[sic] their constitutional right to not express their patriotism that way?
Merely because someone doesnt like the fact that you dont support the pledge doesnt mean it's all of a sudden involuntary. It is like complaining to the government that people expect you to have manners at the table.
The only reason it is volentary[sic] is that in the 1940s JWs had to go to the supreme court to get such an option.
That was then, this is now.
Read the first Amendment: "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."
Now I can find atleast four rights right there that can apply in pledge situations.
And not a single one is violated in the pledge of allegiance. The government is not establishing any sort of religion by inserting the phrase under God. That phrase appears to be merely a demonstration of humility in recognizing that we are not above everything. It doesnt specify any God in particular, and even evolution can be ones God since they hold it to be responsible for the creation of the world.
Please, the Pledge is not the only issue people are fighting for their freedom over in this country.
Insofar as this topic is concerned, my reply stands.
Saying the pledge might be offically[sic] voluntary, but that doesn't stop many places from not treating it as such.
Then your complaint is not with the U.S. government or the constitution, but with these places or people that dont recognize it as voluntary.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether it is volentary[sic] or not, because it fails the Coersion[sic] Test of Lee v Weisman. (You have read the court decision haven't you?)
Simply by the use of the word coercion, I think I could figure out what happened there. Presumably upholding something not necessarily enforced by law, but that the people would react in response to those who didnt adhere to it. However, if this is what youre alluding to, I feel it would be nonsensical to complain that this is the case. It would be like complaining that people expect you to have manners at the dinner table. Whether or not you display manners is completely voluntary, but there are social consequences if you dont, since if you dont, it is a sign of disrespect, and people dont take a liking to that.
Of course the conservatives and fundamentalists are inventing such a hertiage[sic] when none exists. (Hint: Our hertiage[sic] is a melting pot. No one group can claim to represent the true heritage of America.)
However you look it at, though, the recognition of God has been very evident in our countrys upbringing. To deny this is to be blind.
"Under god" has been part of the pledge for less than fifty years. With that in mind, it is hard to claim that it is our heritage.
Ah, but it is a part of America that still exists today that was written in a time where God wasnt such a taboo subject in every day life.
Newdow has said that he has no problem with religion in America. He has a problem with religion in a secular government, especially when public schools imply to his daughter that only Christians can be patriots.
If he has a problem with the school systems implications, then that is what needs to be cleared up (or he needs to change schools) it is not a government matter, but rather what is being taught or implied in a given school.
It still gets me why atheists get so riled up about this. In my mind, it would appear that only the agnostics could get their panties in a twist over the phrase under God, but even then, they havent made up their mind about the subject. It doesnt specify what God, and if we take the God being spoken of here to be whatever being/force/thing that is responsible for life on earth, even the atheists beloved evolution could fit this definition of God who continues to guide human life via natural selection.
I wonder what's next on the liberalist/atheist hit-list. In the next couple of decades, will we no longer sing "God bless America?" That seems to fall in the same category as the phrase "Under God" in the pledge. I would think it inconsistent for a group of people to avidly want one of them destroyed, and not the other.
