Here we go again!!

[Lindaloo]

Although Supreme court justices aren't expected to take up the Pledge of Allegiance controversy until next year some parents and teachers have already made up their minds.

Atheist Michael Newdow filed the original suit to kick the pledge out of public schools. He claims of the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional because of the separation of church and state. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later agreed.

Before they retired Marie and Don Stephenson started countless work days with the Pledge of Allegiance. That's because together they've put 60 years into educating students.

"I think it's very important to teach the children respect and love for their country and respect for each other," said Marie. "I think it's a very good way to start your day with a pleasant thought and realize that you are in a wonderful country."

Tammy Howell came to the Edgewater Rotary meeting as a guest. She and many others here credit the patriotism they learned as children to leading them to be community minded adults.

"We understand that we are citizens of America and it is one united nation and its under the flag and under God. That's what it teaches us and that's what the children need to know," Howell said.

Is the phrase "under God" appropriate in public schools.? There are many opinions but in the end only one that matters. The Supreme Court could rule the Pledge unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Gill Miller spent 26 years in the Air Force. He optimistic justices will share his views.

"I think the ladies and gentlemen on the Supreme Court are smart enough to know that this country was founded under God and will continue to be under God and they will leave God in the Pledge of Allegiance."

If the justices decide otherwise Tammy Howell thinks "the effect will be in the children starting school now because they won't get that base. They won't learn the pledge of allegiance."

Atheist Michael Newdow says congress broke the law in 1954 by adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. He labels the phrase as "purely religious dogma."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, for one, hope the Supreme Court decides to not hear this case!!

[TexasStooge]

Oh boy, here we go again!

[JCT777]

Here is a solution - why can't someone who has a problem with the words "under God" simply choose to not say those 2 words when reciting the pledge of allegiance? Instead, they seek to make the pledge illegal. I hope this person does not have any U.S. currency in their possession, or else they are a complete hypocrite. According to their own logic, it is also unconstituional and thus illegal to use money that says "In God We Trust".

[GAStorm]

This whole thing really makes me sick! What percentage of people actually oppose the phrase "under God"? Enough said!

[JetMaxx]

Am I the only one who sees a day coming in the future when owning a bible or saying "God Bless You" will be against the law?

[TexasStooge]

Here is a solution - why can't someone who has a problem with the words "under God" simply choose to not say those 2 words when reciting the pledge of allegiance? Instead, they seek to make the pledge illegal. I hope this person does not have any U.S. currency in their possession, or else they are a complete hypocrite. According to their own logic, it is also unconstituional and thus illegal to use money that says "In God We Trust".

That'll be the perfect solution, instead of making the WHOLE school pay for it all.

[opera ghost]

It's difficult to be a student who refuses to recite the pledge. Sure it's allowed. Sure you can just not say the words. but you're asking for a very adult attitude from children and teenagers. A student in my 4th and 5th grade classes was asked to leave the room if she would not recite the pledge. The teacher didn't want to look at her while she ignored the pledge that was held so dear. Anna fought it both of the years I was there on religious grounds- NOT because she didn't believe in god- but because she did not believe in the god that was represented by the pledge.

Kids laughed at her. Kids taunted her. They called her a commie and a traitor. She was ostracized repeatedly. She stood alone out in the school hallway- an outcast because she was exercizing her right to NOT say the pledge because it was not true to her religion. Anna loved her god. She brought her teachings to school and offered to instruct anyone who wanted to listen on her faith. I listened- I didn't believe as she did. I went to a meeting of her group. I spent a lot of time up in the top branches of the tree on the playground because the kids didn't want to play with the outsider or the commie. (Small town and I was a new city kid)

By the time I left that school I'd also taken to walking with her on that lonely trek out of the classroom. She was my friend- and even if I didn't believe in what she believed in- I believed in her right to not be forced to compromise her beliefs- and her right as a human to not be excluded from friendships because of ignorance and fear. I listened as the echo went through the halls of hundreds of children reciting the pledge. It was scary out there- and very... very solitary. There's nothing quite like that hallway to remind me what it feels like to me in an absolute minority and to never be heard.


I wish that the pledge would revert back to it's origional phrasing- so that kids like Anna wouldn't have to make the choice between thier religion or thier country. I would pledge allegiance to the flag- and to my country... the country that I love and hold dear... But I haven't recited the pledge since I realized that our country is NOT united under one God. Anna proved that to me. There are many gods worshipped in the US- unlike England which is united under the Church of England.

As for owning a bible and saying god bless you- the US does not participate in censorship of the sort you're talking about. Book censorship will never pass in the US- and certainly not the mass censorship of one of the major religious sects. Similarily freedom of speech will prevent the censorship of Bless you's. They may rule that bless you isn't allowed on government documents- or to be taught in schools... but that's the seperation of church and state.

My last note- about the currancy? The US is one of the few truely gloriously free countries in the world. By introducing God in our curancy and in national pledges the government is committing a bigger act of hypocricy than I am by having a 5$ bill in my purse. I can't live without money. The government forces me to accept a religious phrasing on money in order to stay alive. I'm a survivor.

Fortunelty I can god bless my AMX...
...
And stand out in drafty hallways while everyone else recites the pledge.

I thank god every day I was born in America.

[Lindaloo]

And you will continue to stand alone.

[GalvestonDuck]

Anna loved her god. She brought her teachings to school and offered to instruct anyone who wanted to listen on her faith.

These days, she might not be allowed to do that either.

But I haven't recited the pledge since I realized that our country is NOT united under one God.

It says "ONE nation under God" not "ONE nation under ONE God." I've heard some non-Christians argue that they accept the wording because it does not specify the religion of the God under which this nation stands. It could be their God or my God.

Similarily freedom of speech will prevent the censorship of Bless you's.

True. They now allow the one-finger salute because of free speech so they sure as heck aren't going to take away "God bless you's."

[TexasStooge]

I remember 2 years ago, when I was in P.E. class, when the principal on the intercom asked us to stand up for the pledges to the American & Texas flags, a student yelled out "BRING OUT THE MEXICAN FLAG!"

[JetMaxx]

Please don't misunderstand me...I realize as long as there is a U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights they cannot legally prohibit me from saying "God Bless You", owning a bible, or worshipping God in freedom..

My horrible fear is these same fringe loonies who now hate God and Christians will continue to grow in number and influence....take their anti-Christian crusade into political office and the judiciary and someday CHANGE or ABOLISH freedom of religion...along with freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, and other precious freedoms we hold so dear.

All it would take is enough left wing wacko's (i.e.-Hillary Clinton, Henry Waxman) in Congress to change everything. It is a fact there have already been calls by powerful liberals such as the president of NBC news demanding Congress to change the Constitution and end the right of private gun ownership in America.

That's why I so oppose gun laws, even though I only own one revolver and one shotgun (and have never been hunting in my life)...once one constitutional right is abridged, there is a precedent set; and nothing to stop the others from being comprised or abolished.

I've already seen rumblings from some fringe liberal gay rights groups complaining that tv and radio evangelists are "committing hate crimes" by condemning their homosexual lifestyle over the airwaves.
That could very easily be the beginning of our freedom of speech being attacked on grounds of civil rights violations (just as this muslim in Mississippi claims the Confederate emblem violates his right of separation of church and state).

[JetMaxx]

Just as the Constitutional Congress passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing all Americans freedom of speech and freedom of religion.....Congress has the power today to end those same freedoms by passing a constitutional amendment (if the president signs).

Imagine a Senate with 70 Hillary Clinton clones, a U.S. House with 305 Henry Waxman's and Charles Schumer's...and a left wing liberal president and I can easily see a scenario in which our precious freedoms are comprimised and abolished -- while wacko left wing laws such as criminal rights and legalizing all drugs and pedophelia are added....all it would take is enough liberal trash in control of our government.

[GalvestonDuck]

while wacko left wing laws such as criminal rights and legalizing all drugs and pedophelia are added

Personally, I don't believe left-wingers are that sick! Who in their right mind (pardon the pun) would EVER think of legalizing the sickest, most upspeakable crime in the world?

I've already seen rumblings from some fringe liberal gay rights groups complaining that tv and radio evangelists are "committing hate crimes" by condemning their homosexual lifestyle over the airwaves.

That's one thing I will never understand, Perry. One minute, people are griping about censorship because some ABC affiliate in Virginia won't show a movie called "Two Mothers For Zachary" because it's about a gay woman's custody battle for her son (based on a true story...which happened, in of all places, Virginia!). Then they turn around and want to censor a televangelist or senator because he made some asinine remark about the gay lifestyle and Teletubbies. It's free speech...it's not a hate crime. If Jimmy Swaggart and I both agree that George Michael was being lewd and lascivious in that park restroom, does it make ME guilty of a hate crime? Now if Rev. Phelps says that he wants people to go out and lynch gays, I'd say he's crossing a line by inciting acts of hatred. He's not merely expressing his opinion and that's a different story, but it would still have to be proven.

A side note -- if any of those people in Virginia had been able to watch the movie (a favorite of mine because the screenwriter is a UCLA screenwriting professor and the script is excellent!), they would have seen that it offered both sides of the story and, in the end, the grandmother won custody.

[JetMaxx]

Shawn, there ARE people that sick out there.....that want pedophelia legalized. Thank god there aren't many of them, but I've heard them on radio in Atlanta...and there are websites online that advocate sex with children as young as 3 or 4.

As for my comments regarding the gay lifestyle. As I've stated before, I have no problem with anyone's sexual preference (what they do in their own bedroom and home is nobody else's business)...I DO have a problem when gay groups attempt to use it to obtain special rights....or as a means to escape arrest for committing a crime. I have friends who are gay that are nice, honorable gentleman that believe in law and decency just as I do. That's why I know being gay or lesbian does not automatically make someone evil.

As for tv and radio preachers....I believe in freedom of speech. I also believe in utilizing common sense in the pulpit and behind the microphone. I personally disagreed with Dr Fallwell's accusations about the Teletubbies (my nephew's favorite tv show). Any preacher that advocates violence (i.e.- lynching) against anyone, be it gays or anyone else is WRONG...and is IMO abusing his pulpit or radio time.

Ministering and preaching a message that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong in the eyes of God is far different from telling your listeners or congegration to hate someone or group because they are of the homesexual lifestyle. My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ tells me in his word to love and have compassion for everyone.

[GalvestonDuck]

Perry, I know you weren't making comments against gays, sweetie. I was agreeing with you. Ministers have every right to preach what they believe. It doesn't make it a hate crime. I was adding my points to yours, by mentioning that I find it hypocritical (although I guess I failed to use that word) when gay groups first say, "Hey! We want to show this on TV and it's our constitutional right and you can't censor us!" But then when someone says something they disagree with, they want that person to step down and be banned from speaking.

Ugh, it bothers me that there are people out there who want pedophilia legalized. Now there's a group that ought to be lynched.

[wx247]

Agreed about pedophelia wanting to be legalized... let's go get them. But I don't think you can say they are left wing liberals. I have met some right wing conservatives who are just as crazed in their sick ideas as the far lefters.

** Clarification -- when I mention left and right wing I am referring to the extremes of each side. Most traditional left and right wingers are good people with different ideas of how things should be done. **

[wx247]

As far as the pledge suit goes specifically the man who is suing doesn't even have custody of his daughter and she and her mother have been quoted as saying they don't have a problem with the pledge. So why are we dealing with this?

[JetMaxx]

Garrett, I understand where you are coming from....but the kooks who want to legalize pedophelia and other forms of ilicit sexual perversions come from the extreme left -- the "anything goes" crowd. They want to legalize drugs and consentual sex with toddlers....yet want to deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with deadly force...and regulate what we eat (i.e.- tax or outlaw "junk foods").

I agree there are extremists on the right that are very dangerous...for example, they are the ones who want to throw people in jail for what they do in their own bedroom with another consenting adult; and some who advocate violence, even murder against groups they deem as "evil" (gays, blacks, abortion clinic employees, etc). It was "right wing kooks" who murdered all those women at Salem, Massachusetts "in the name of God" (i.e.-Salem witch trials). Most of your modern day white supremists (KKK, Aryan Nation, etc) are extreme right wingers; so was the monster (Timothy McVey) who blew up the Murrah Federal Building (Oklahoma City) in 1995.

Any form of political or social extremism is potentially very dangerous....be it left or right wing wackos.

[GalvestonDuck]

consentual sex with toddlers

First thought -- gross! Second thought -- they believe toddlers can consent??? :o Sick, sick, sick, sick!

I would LOVE to know just when in the hell criminologists are going to take time to study the freaking demented thinking of child molestors!! As much as I think they're the ones who should be going to the chamber first, I think a bit of understanding is in order first so that maybe we can learn to recognize the signs of someone predisposed to this type of behavior BEFORE they harm and/or kill the next Danielle van Damme or Polly Klaas. For example, why the heck is anime popular among some sexual predators of children? What is it about a cartoon drawing that turns it into kiddie erotica for those perverts? Why do people propogate the notion of child/adult relations with crap like Britney and others dressing as a school girl and posting on "barely legal" websites? Why do we find ANY of that stupid spam email, advertising that crap, in our inboxes since we NEVER had to worry about it in our home mailboxes? Why are child pornography and child exploitation pictures on the internet AT ALL??? Who allows this crap because it sure as heck isn't free speech or free press? What does a man think when he has the desire to do something like that to a young child and how does he justify it in his mind? Does he really believe that he is teaching the child something or showing the child love?

And when we find out the answers to those questions and more, will people be able to talk about it and learn to watch for it, instead of treating it as something to sweep under the rug and never worry about...until the next body shows up?

[Lindaloo]

I read about that Garrett. But then again, he does not believe in God so he believes he is doing nothing wrong.