Bush Asks High Court to OK Pledge Recital

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration defended two words in the Pledge of Allegiance -- "under God" -- in asking the Supreme Court Friday to declare the daily recitation constitutional. "Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic exercise, not a religious testimonial," the administration said.

In a brief filed Friday, Justice Department lawyers urged the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that a pledge that included references to God should not be recited in the public schools.

"The reference to a 'nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is an official and patriotic acknowledgment of what all students -- Jewish, Christian, Muslim or atheist -- may properly be taught in the public schools," the administration argued in its 63-page filing.

The Supreme Court said in October that it would hear an appeal. The appeals court has put its decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules on the case.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-pledge-of-allegiance,0,438494.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[alcuno]

1. So now God equals patriotism.

Okay.

[WillParkinson]

2. Well duh!

Like you didn't know THAT.

It's a shame that we now have to pledge to a 'god' to be considered a true American. Even if we don't truly believe it.

So shut up and do as you're told you heathens.

[Zhade]

24. It's more than sad - it's Un-American.

And blatantly unConstitutional.

[amber dog democrat]

35. Read the Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Attwood

Lot to be said for NOT being a theocracy.
I just omit the UNDER GOD part if I have to say it.

[corporatewhore]

3. hmmm i wonder if they would be ok with

One Nation Under
allah
thor
Ishtar
Kali Ma

[goobergunch]

18. You forgot Cthulhu!

;)

[corporatewhore]

30. One world under Cthulhu!!

[PinkTiger]

4. If this is not defeated by the SCOTUS

Then Bush does own them. In my opinion, (albeit not a legal one), the Pledge was destroyed when those words were added. It effectively put God in the middle, between "one Nation," and "indivisible."
It actually divided us.

[Just Me]

6. I agree,...the addition was a theocratical MISTAKE,...

,...and must be removed IF we are to prove that freedom of religion is truly acknowledged and valued in this country!!! Otherwise, theocratical, religious baggage will prove another historical f*ckup,...and I will be sooooo PO'd if we do THAT again!!!

[Journeyman]

5. I prefer the "Patriot's Digest" version. . .

I pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all.


Yeah. Short and sweet. Unencumbered by silly symbols and nutty nationalism. Just a simple statement of belief in the possibility of eventual perfection. Here's an ideal I could support.

[WillParkinson]

7. Wow...

I kinda like it!

[pinto]

8. God speaks to Ashcroft, Ashcroft lies.

His quote, stating his effort to "preserve the right of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the Amerian flag" is patently false. The appeal to Supremes doesn't say that. The flag is not what he is talking about, unless it is to equate the flag with god. And I think that is exactly what he means. He means to have a pledge of allegiance to his god in a public school. Again, the onus is on the minority, and silence (you don't have to pledge out loud) may be the option they provide people to avoid a definite ruling.

Our constitution is specifically constructed to protect the rights of the minority (in this case, aetheists) from the inherent power of the majority. Ashcroft is supposed to uphold that balance.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Hey, maybe god's just a dick.

I think there's ample evidence of that.

Hell, there's better evidence of that than there is of its existence...

Maybe little Johnny's just doing its bidding.

[booksenkatz]

9. *KICK* nt

*

[jpgray]

10. Excuse me while I porjectile vomit. (nt)

[BiggJawn]

12. Didn't somebody in Europe once say...

...that the idea that Jews and other "mongrel races" were inferior could be "properly taught" in the schools?

I like to think that our kiddies are being taught the Truth (OK, I know they're not, but...) so, where's the PROOF that we're "one nation under God"?
They can't prove it, can they? Oh, they can give me all sorts of commentary on what the "intent" of the Founding Fathers was, and they try to do some forensic mind-reading, but I just dont buy it.

When they put in that line about how we are all endowed by our Creator with certain rights, why didn't they say "God", if God was what they meant? By saying "Creator", I think they left it open to anything. If you think "God" created you, good, likewise for us Random Chance or Winnie-the-Pooh folks.

And your Average Joe who goes to church twice a year doesn't see a damn thing wrong with what they're trying to do....

[demvoter]

13. Ahhhh excuse me but

As a Christian Dem I find these comments very troublesome.
It's one thing to go after Bu$h but quite another to attack Christianity and our beliefs.
Yes you can flame me all you want but I will defend my right to say I approve of "one nation under GOD".
Comments like the ones that are posted here is what give Dems a bad name, and gives the repugs ammunition to use against us.
You have your right to say what you want and I have mine and I am excercising that right.

Come on there has to be more Christian Dems out there!
Speak out!

:kick: bu$h out of the WH

[westman]

14. Well put.

However, not just Christian Dems should speak out. All Dems of faith should.

[maxanne]

15. are you not able to see

how Christianity is being perverted and used by the right wing? Are you blind to how it's being used as a weapon? Do you think that's right?

I don't want to be bludgeoned by some rightwing god, thank you very much.

[Bonobo]

16. Excuse me, I don't believe in "one god". How about them apples?

So I guess I just don't fit into your idea of America, huh?

>It's one thing to go after Bu$h but quite another to attack Christianity and our beliefs.

How is it "going after" Christianity to say that "God" doesn't belong in the pledge? (BTW, I don't think anyone should have to recite a pledge of allegiance. I was accidentaly born in this country. I pay my taxes and I vote. That is the extent of my responisbility as I see it and I do not need to be forced to make an oath of allegiance like some medieval vassal!)

[goobergunch]

17. You have a right to say "one nation under God"

I have a right to not say it.

[Sorcerer3]

19. Har far should religious intolerance go?

I am an atheist. I believe in no god. I, however, support the effort to leave God in the Pledge of Allegience. Our freedom of thought, of expression is one of the most valued and cherished rights. It allows us to define who we are, what our morals are, and what are values are. If we allow others censor words or thought in the name of sensitivity then how far are we going to allow this to go? If we censor God then what's going to stop them from censoring my lack of faith in a God? This issue sets a dangerous precident as it pertains to the freedom of expresson and thought.

As far as I'm concerned I would resist anyone demeaning or condemning me for my lack of faith in a God so It would be hypocritical of me to condemn others of faith and force them to alter tradition and their values in the name of 'sensitivity'.

Do unto others as you would have done to you.

It's easy to jump on some bandwagon and censor words or thoughts until one day the words and thoughts being censored just happen to be your own.

Beware of what is done today because what goes around will come around.

God Bless America!

[philosophie_en_rose]

21. It's not religious intolerance to end Christian favoritism.

No one censors Christians by ending a requirement that forces school children to listen and/or repeat religious declarations. Christian students can say under God, if they want to. However, public schools should not endorse any religious point of view.

[Sorcerer3]

27. *ehem*

There is nothing in the Pledge that refers to God being a Chistian God, or a Jewish God, or a Muslim God, etc. It just says God. Could be any God.

[Malva Zebrina]

29. oh come on

everybody knows it is the Christian god that is being made the leader of the state when a piece of cloth is prayeed to.

If it is true that the "under god" statement relates to every other god that exists in this nation, then it certainly does eliminate a whole lot of them.

There are religions that worship multiple gods, and there are citizens here who worship NO god.

This pledge is a prayer--in effect, that strives to force people into worship--we do not sign up for that here

--many citizens, born and bred here, who have been active and productive members of this society, do not buy the Christian god and that is quite understandable to a lot of people.

By uttering these words, it is expected that people in this nation will pray to a piece of cloth to be sure that the Christian god is firmly ensconced in the governing process.

NOt only is it an absurdity, but It is total tyranny of the majority over the minority and is NOT what was envisioned by the founders of this country.

Just the opposite was proposed because the dangers of it all, the tyranny of it all, was evident already in France--and it led to a revolution.

We here, decided the best thing to do was to keep religion, gods and godesses out of the secular running of the government. If you believe that a god is behind the patriotism, is behind the president's decisions, is behind every court decision and that god is the Christian god, I would say you need to take a good long look and a good long course in the Consitutional mandates of the United States of America. --you cannot force your god on others and why on earth would you want to?

This country is NOT a Christian country, and there are millions who live here who do NOT believe in a god, an etherial, imaginative being, whether out of the imagination of the Christians and their god or the Hindu god or the Muslim god or a pagan god, is leading this country around by it's veritable holy nose ring.

We have a secular country, governed by laws, and that really pisses off the Christians who insist that, along with pledging an oath to a piece of cloth, they must, simultaneously, admit their fealty to a Christain god.

And don't tell me it is NOT the Christain god that is worshipped at the same time one pledges fealty to the piece of cloth. It is, most definately that god that is expected to be invoked as the king of this country and that god is the one that people here will insist that others say the "pledge" .

By hook or by crook, apparently this Christain god really needs the help of all these people who would force him upon them--he cannot, it seems, do it himself.

[corporatewhore]

31. It leaves out the Goddess

but of course shes always left out

[WillParkinson]

38. Only the christian 'god' is capitalized...

Any other 'god' is listed as small 'g'.

[leesa]

40. But what of the people who don't believe in a God?

This does not belong in a statement meant for public use! Although I never could figure out why people said the pledge of allegiance...never been into nationalism.

[rexcat]

22. But the words "under god" was not in the original pledge.

The pledge was recited for many years before it was bastardized. The words "under god" were added in the 1950's as a counter to communism and part of McCarthyism movement. The phrase "under god" marginalizes us atheists. I prefer not to be any more marginalized than I already am in this society.

[54anickel]

26. 50's to counter communism, so is the push now to counter Muslims?

Just a thought.

What'd Shrub say, the war on terror will be long, replacing the cold war or something to that effect.

I profess to be a Chirstian, and at first I was against the attempts to remove "under god" from the pledge. I feel I have grown in my faith somewhat and have changed my opinion on the phrase. I think it marginalizes and alienates others. I do not think that Christianity has any place claiming to be absolute truth.

[Sorcerer3]

28. well...

That can be said of any religion, or lack thereof.

[et in Arcadia ego...]

32. You've got to be kidding?

Sorry, I find it a bit puzzling that an "atheist" would ask God to bless America (or to bless anything for that matter). Is there the slightest possibility that you are in fact, a...theist? :shrug:

[pinto]

34. interestingly, I don't believe the state has freedom of speech,

it is guaranteed to the people by the Constitution. The state can not mandate nor prohibit speech. This like other issues about religion or the lack thereof are not the perview of the state. Whoa!

[Pattib]

41. Athiest? Why do you put God Bless America in all your posts? HMMM.

[BiggJawn]

23. OK...Can we "agree to disagree" then?

You approve of it, I don't. you have your faith, I have my lack thereof. That still doesn't change that my government is in essence requiring me to acknowledge an entity I do not believe in to be considered "patriotic".

I think the best we can hope for is to agree to disagree on this.

[gulliver]

20. Stirring up trouble as usual. Divide and conquer...

... as usual.

Bush priority list:

1. Bush
2. Everything else.

[teryang]

25. The neo con pledge

I pledge obeisance to the centralized security state and to the corporatists for which it stands, one market unregulable, with oppression and surveillence for all.

[LiberalFighter]

33. Bush wants "under God" for a reason

Because he believes he is god and wants everyone to worship him.

[gate of the sun]

36. bushit

It's funny that they want to pursue this line of thinking funny in a scary way.The idea that this is a "Christian nation" is not really representative of us.It doesn't matter though those who are in charge think it does.Let's just hope they don't mandate it beyond this "pledge".

[uhhuh]

37. I say leave it in

I see nothing wrong with having "under God" in the pledge.

I think, however, that the entire pledge should be banned from schools. If you want to open a private session or meeting with an oath of fealty to the flag or god, there is nothing wrong with that. I don't see any benefit of any kind to having a forced, thoughtless oath of allegiance being taken in an environment that one is legally required to attend. It means nothing and is a waste of an educator's time.

[leesa]

39. Doesn't this fool have anything more pressing to attend to?