Judge Brilliantly Defends Keeping 'Under God' in Pledge

Truth Revolt ^ | May 15, 2015 | Trey Sanchez

[Twotone]

New Jersey Judge David F. Bauman recently dismissed a case orchestrated by a student, his parents, and the American Humanist Association and ruled that hearing the words "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the constitutional rights of atheist students. In his decision released Monday, Bauman brilliantly laid to rest the notion that the phrase can, or should, be erased from America's history.

[bestintxas]

We need to deploy a next tact by prominently exposing these law firms who support this eradication of our heritage.

[immadashell]

REFRESHING!

[PROCON]

It was brilliant, American history proves his points; now STFU poor little atheists.

[healy61]

Excellent response by the court.

[JJ_Folderol]

Personally, I have a problem with the ‘under God’ phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance.

When I learned the Pledge in kindergarten it hadn’t been added yet, so sometimes I stumble there!

Aside from that minor issue, I want ‘under God’ kept there to remind us where we came from and help keep the next generations on track. I figure every little bit helps.

[rjsimmon]

Protecting students from viewpoints and ideas that may offend or upset them is not and has never been the role of public schools in America.

This statement needs to be published at every university in these United States.

[jonno]

These days I almost need to ask: “did this come from the Onion?”

Common sense? not so common anymore...

[Sasparilla]

A favorable ruling would make the Constitution unconstitutional. I like that one.

[JJ_Folderol]

> Common sense? not so common anymore...

If common sense really was common, it wouldn’t have a special name.

[SunTzuWu]

“As a matter of historical tradition, the words ‘under God’ can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words ‘In God We Trust’ from every coin in the land, than the words ‘so help me God’ from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787,” the judge wrote in his decision.

Bauman added, “The Pledge of Allegiance, in this historical context, is not to be viewed, and has never been viewed, as a religious exercise.”

The student’s lawsuit, filed last year, argued against the phrase being recited during school hours because he felt it singled out atheists and non-believers, making them feel like “second-class citizens.” His attorneys argued that hearing the pledge would cause atheist students to feel “just as America’s Jews, Hindus, and Muslims would feel excluded, marginalized and stigmatized if they were told by their government on a daily basis that the United States is one nation ‘under Jesus.’”

However, Judge Bauman didn’t see it that way. He explained that the various references to God in the nation’s history, documents, and practices indicates no endorsement of a specific faith, but simply a recognition to the importance religion has played in the founding of America.

The unnamed student tried for equal protection under the New Jersey state constitution, only to be reminded by Bauman that it also references “Almighty God:”

Under plaintiffs’ reasoning, the very constitution under which plaintiffs seek redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be deemed unconstitutional, an absurd proposition which plaintiffs do not and cannot advance here. Protecting students from viewpoints and ideas that may offend or upset them is not and has never been the role of public schools in America.

Judge Bauman advised the student to remain silent during the Pledge of Allegiance if he so chooses. There are no plans to appeal the decision.

[SandRat]

“As a matter of historical tradition, the words ‘under God’ can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words ‘In God We Trust’ from every coin in the land, than the words ‘so help me God’ from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787,” the judge wrote in his decision.

Bauman added, “The Pledge of Allegiance, in this historical context, is not to be viewed, and has never been viewed, as a religious exercise.”

[Paladin2]

“The phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance on June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending § 4 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942.[18]”

[BlueLancer]

I don't really see what the hubbub's about.

When I recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a public forum, I always leave out the word "indivisible". That is my pledge of allegiance to the country. I don't believe that, under all circumstances, the United States is "indivisible". I can foresee a number of situations where, in keeping with my oath as a soldier, it becomes patriotic and necessary to separate myself (my county, my State) from the United States. I support Texas independence; that makes the word "indivisible" meaningless in a pledge that I can currently make to the United States.

If the atheists don't like "under God", just don't say it when reciting the pledge of allegiance.

[DiogenesLamp]

Judge Brilliantly Defends Keeping 'Under God' in Pledge

I don't know that the Judge's defense is "Brilliant" but it is certainly a minimal defense which should have been put forth decades ago.

I will point out that the US Constitution does itself mention Jesus, and it exempts the President from working on Sunday. (Obviously because that is the Christian Sabbath.)

This nation was never intended to accommodate Atheists. If they feel like second class citizens, that's because they are ill suited to live in a nation that is specifically intended to be Christian.

Look at what Lincoln had to say about the matter.

[Albion Wilde]

Judge Bauman...explained that the various references to God in the nation's history, documents, and practices indicates no endorsement of a specific faith, but simply a recognition to the importance religion has played in the founding of America.

It's a shame he attributes the existence of God to a human traditions and venerations rather than affirming that that God exists. Proving that God (Infinity) exists is prima facie beyond human comprehension; however a majority of people in the U.S. and around the world have intuitively concluded that a Higher Power does exist and is therefore stipulated by our documents to be Real; proof that He is not Real should fall on the petitioner, not the state.

Acknowledging that God exists does not mean that the Pledge is a prayer to Jesus per se, even if Christians believe Jesus is a part of a triune God.

[uncitizen]

The other day I was listening to an old broadcast from Rev J. Vernon McGee. It was probably from the early 70s. He said these people are not atheists, they are anti-Christian. It’s always amazing how right and prophetic that man was.

[PROCON]

Rev. McGee is/was truly inspirational to listen to.

I used to hear his sermons on a local Christian radio station, superb messages.

[uncitizen]

Yes he is!

[Arthur McGowan]

When is the Right going to stop their fetishization of the Pledge of Allegiance? It wasn’t written by Jefferson and Madison!

The Pledge explicitly denies—”one nation...indivisible”—the NATURAL RIGHT of secession, which is laid out in the Declaration of Independence—the right of the people to “alter or abolish” an abusive government. The Declaration was an act of secession.