Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 'Under God' under review in Massachusetts ~ Time's Up!

Posted 11 months ago on Sept. 5, 2013, 11:46 p.m. EST by WSmith (2030) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Pledge of Allegiance 'Under God' under review in Massachusetts

[ It was a stupid rash mistake which should have been corrected decades ago ~ Time's Up! ]

Every attempt to eliminate the religious clause in the Pledge of Allegiance has failed, but the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will hear arguments Wednesday concerning the wording.

Published: Sept. 4, 2013 at 4:33 PM | By CAROLINE LEE, UPI.com

Every attempt to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance thus far has failed.

But one case in Massachusetts will be heard by the state supreme court on Wednesday, seeking removal of the words for a new reason: discrimination.

"This is the first challenge of its kind," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "We feel very confident that we have a strong case."

The case was brought forth by an unidentified family of a student in suburban Boston, and argues that the pledge violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution.

This is the first case in Massachusetts state court, as previous battles against the phrase have been held in federal court over the separation of church and state.

"They're grasping at straws," said Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the attorney arguing to leave the pledge as it is.

"They know they would lose again if they tried it under the First Amendment, so now they are trying a new tack."

Rassbach dismissed the claim, as all students are allowed to opt out of saying the pledge.

"This would be very different if they were forced to recite the pledge," he said.

But Speckhardt says the opt-out is "exclusionary and unpleasant. Children are left with a bad choice: Either stand up and recite something against your beliefs, or opt out and be ostracized."

The phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Alliegance in 1954, after years of lobbying by religious institutions [& RW Psychos].

Read more: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/09/04/Under-God-under-review-in-Massachusetts/1011378326814/#ixzz2e53KGTpT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/mass-supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-pledge-of-allegiance/2013/08/30/13ef9316-11a8-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_story.html

http://now.msn.com/under-god-in-pledge-of-allegiance-being-reviewed-by-massachusetts-court

We all know the Under God part of the pledge was jammed in there ~ against our separation of church and state laws ~ by RW Kooks during the McCarthy Commie Craze, and it's a travesty that it has been allowed to stay in this long. Let's FIX our stupid mistakes! Dump the Under God now!

25 Comments

25 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 0 points by WSmith (2030) from Cornelius, OR 11 months ago

Get the GOD out!

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

Get rid of the whole damn thing. It's brainwashing. It was never intended to be recited the way that it currently is. They jammed that in there too.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28063) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Would have been better as a pledge of allegiance to the Constitution of the USA - complimented with continuing serious study of the Constitution.

With perhaps an addition of - Holding to a separation of church and business from state.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

The whole thing is idiocy.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28063) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Yes - but that is how government promotes Nationalism.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

unquestioning believers

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28063) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Tis sad to see that so many are so completely unquestioning.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

Well, they don't do it until they are older and have to deal with the repercussions.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28063) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Never brought up to stand-up for themselves? Backbone psychologically removed?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

They just see rage before thinking things through. They lack critical thinking skills.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28063) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

Yes yes - so very apparent in many areas of the country - that people never even learned how to put one and one together.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

Some of those folks need the drama.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28063) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

True story = That is why soap operas are so popular. OH and those blasted reality(?) shows.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

Hey. Korean stories are the best. I like the Spanish ones too. I like those much better than the ones in the US.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28063) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (12725) 11 minutes ago

That's basically it in a nutshell. It's what they consist of. It's so absurd that it's a train wreck from the get go.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Impressive - and they didn't spend 5 years of shows on and reliving the 1st/final kiss before moving the story line forward.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28063) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (12725) 10 minutes ago

This is why. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou_DYLKzekk

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

MADtv - Korean Soap Opera

aAHHHAAAHAHahahahahaha

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

That's basically it in a nutshell. It's what they consist of. It's so absurd that it's a train wreck from the get go.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28063) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (12725) 0 minutes ago

http://www.dramafever.com/

Come on....................how can you not?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

LOL - ummmm - there is way too much real life drama - to make fictional drama attractive???

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28063) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 months ago

lol - muy caliente, ¿eh?

Ummmm Kim jung ILL and son are not a soap opera - though they are bizarre enough for it.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

http://www.dramafever.com/

Come on....................how can you not?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 months ago

especially at the end of a trying day

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

pat pat pat

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2030) from Cornelius, OR 11 months ago

John was my favorite Beatle ~ fellow Libran ~ loved the boundless hopes and dreams of "Imagine."

The Roberts SCOTUS imagined that a case involving a hit video on Hillary could be stretched into allowing the 1% to buy elections boundlessly and in secrecy. The ramifications of this phantasmagorical leap of jurisprudence are as yet untold, but gravely foreboding.

Let's just get the God outa the pledge for now (while it's on trial), and have our bloody Reign of Terror for all the other complaints and their creators later.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2030) from Cornelius, OR 11 months ago

Pledge challenge a step toward patriotic equality

Published: Saturday, September 7, 2013 6:05 AM EDT

For those of us who grew up reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, it might come as a surprise to learn that “one nation” was not originally followed by the words “under God.”

The addition was made in 1954, by Congress and President Dwight D. Eisenhower, after the Sons of the American Revolution and the Knights of Columbus [& push from Crazed RW groups like JBS], a Catholic organization, separately began using it nationwide, and growing support led the effort to the president’s desk.

It’s worth noting that the change was made at the height (insanity) of the Red Scare, when the nation was united (duped) against Communists and their government-imposed atheism.

The pledge has had three other minor changes over the years, most notably to clarify that the pledge is to the flag of the United States, replacing original language that stated, “my flag.”

Challenges to the pledge, and particularly to this ’54 amendment, have been many over the years, and now a Boston-area family is asking the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to consider an appeal that would remove the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, as recited in Massachusetts schools.

* This case has an interesting twist, and the ruling could have implications nationwide. Instead of challenging the pledge’s “under God” phrase as a violation of the separation of church and state, as past lawsuits have done with surprisingly little success, the atheist parents are arguing that it violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution and is therefore discriminatory.

The pledge itself proclaims “liberty and justice for all,” and through the years, we all know that has not been the case in this nation, from ethnic minorities to immigrants, women and particularly for religious minorities.

Recitation of the pledge in public school dates back to 1892 and was compulsory for many years until the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a challenge against reciting it in 1943 due to violation of their religious beliefs against idolatry.

While the 1943 ruling allows any student to opt out of the pledge at school, recusing oneself from it can open a person to ridicule for lack of patriotism, and even violence.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and atheists are not the only ones to object to reciting the pledge; polytheists and those who do not adhere to nationalist principles are also among those who may choose to sit it out – and members of all groups have been documented to experience retribution for their decision.

All of these people are in the minority, but their rights are just as valid as those of the religious majority. By including “under God” in the pledge, the state is giving the explicit impression that only monotheistic believers can be patriotic.

The bulk of those who object to the current pledge, however, are as far from unpatriotic as you can get: They know the Constitution and its protections and they express their love for the U.S. by embracing those freedoms. Those citizens who reject recitation of a pledge that excludes them are not necessarily any less willing than others to defend this nation and the principles on which it was built.

If this Massachusetts family is successful in its appeal, it will be a victory for those who support religious freedom and the separation of church and state, and will hopefully extend to the federal level in coming years so our pledge can be restored to its secular, patriotic purpose, as originally intended.

It would be refreshing to see this Cold War remnant wiped out as we move forward as “one nation” and embrace our diversity.

• • •

Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.