'Pledge' Mom: My Daughter Is No Atheist

Fox News ^ | Monday, July 15, 2002 | Fox News

[fortress]

NEW YORK

[Mark Bahner]

I actually found this suggested change to the Pledge at TomPaine.com (knew if I visited liberal websites enough, I'd find something worthwhile):

"Perhaps we could put the proper focus on things by rewriting the Pledge this way: 'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under the Constitution, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'"

Of course, since neither Democrats or Republicans follow the Constitution, the Pledge would be pretty naive!

Mark (Libertarian)

[My2Cents]

We are all harmed by the words "under God" being forced on us by government agencies. In America, we are all free from such religious establishment.

The statement that this is a nation "under God" is less a statement of faith than it is a statement of historical fact. The foundational principle of the nation – and it may be a unique foundational principle among nations – is the supposition that "all men are CREATED equal," and are "endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights" – rights not created or granted by the state, but rights bestowed upon man by God. Since they are bestowed by God, these rights that are absolute; they are not based on the subjective or capricious whim human rulers. This is a critically important distinction. Eliminate this concept of God-given rights from the basis of our society’s political values and what we have to revert to are rights and liberties that are derived from the power of the state – and the state will always have the power to take those rights away. God-given inalienable rights cannot be taken away; and where they are denied by the state, the state has lost its legitimacy to exist (so says our Declaration of Independence).

The founders clearly acknowledged that this was a nation founded "under God" or Providence. Many people today may not acknowledge God, but this dependence and acknowledgement of God is an important part of our national heritage. The atheists may not like it, but this is historical fact, and as Americans who love their country, they should be willing to acknowledge that historical fact.

[fortress]

Well said!
History has also shown where Atheism is the "state religion"
personal freedoms are non-existent and the state dictates every thought, words uttered and actions taken.
Believe ot or not people: there is freedom under God, because even our leaders are accountable to Him.

[My2Cents]

In fact, as I recall, a court recognized "secular humanism" as a religion back in the late '50s. Where are those who think reciting the pledge is harmful, when it comes to keeping secular humanism out of the schools?

[My2Cents]

Of course, since neither Democrats or Republicans follow the Constitution, the Pledge would be pretty naive!

Mark, thank God (or a deity of your choice) we have YOU to tell us what's constitutional and what isn't.

[fortress]

They have a problem with consistency in their arguments.

[My2Cents]

If our pledge said "under Allah," that would be a recognition and perhaps the establishment of Islam as the formal religion of America. The fact that the pledge says "under God," and the term "God" is fairly generic, it tells us nothing about the nature or character of God, or what his name is (is it Allah, or Jesus, or Vishnu, or Jehovah?) It tells us nothing about our obligation (if any) to this God. It tells us nothing about the moral character of this God. Hence, as worded in the pledge, it is not the establishment of any religion. But it is a recognition that our nation was founded by people who acknowledged the hand of Providence in its founding. This acknowledgement is a historical fact, not a metaphysical leap of faith.

[TomB]

To expect that you can send children to be indoctrinated for eight hours a day, for twelve years - steeped in pro-homosexual, leftist texts and propaganda, and they will to turn out "conservative" is even sillier. Wake up man! Look at what has happened to America. Even "conservatives" have bought into the socialist party line.

Once again, I can point to many people who are the product of public schools and are conservative. Yes, I expect I could send a child of mine to a public school (although I send them to private school) and have them turn out conservative. Is it difficult? Yes. Do we need to change the way public schools work? Yes. But your blanket statements are ludicrous.

Just for the record: I never said that.

Ummmm, here is your statement:

You cannot instill conservative values if you send your children to be indoctrinated in socialist indoctrination camps eight hours a day for 12 years. If you think you can, then you are deluded.

That is EXACTLY what you said. If you didn't intend to say that, fine. The clarification is appreciated.

[My2Cents]

I like your comments. I move that we change your screen name to "A Mighty Fortress" (is our God...)

[My2Cents]

In order for a child to survive in the public schools as a conservative, they need to know what they believe and why. They need to have firm convictions. This is not an impossibility.

[fortress]

Well, I did have that hymn in mind when I chose it

[tomswiftjr]

He may not go to jail but he should be disbarred!

California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200 states:
"In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member :
(A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth;
(B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;"

If you read the 9th Circuit opinion he represented to the trial court and to the appeals court that his daughter objected to, and was harmed by, her recitation of the Pledge.

[fortress]

My oldest son is now in college and is a product of the public schools.
He once wrote a essay in HS on why he admired Margaret Thatcher.

[TomB]

He once wrote a essay in HS on why he admired Margaret Thatcher.

Maggie's one of my favorites. I bet he caused a stir!

But your point is well taken. I some instances public school is the best, or only, option. And the blanket statement " You cannot instill conservative values if you send your children to be indoctrinated in socialist indoctrination camps", is just plain wrong, as you have demonstrated here. A family life full of strong convictions can easily counteract the biases presented at school.

[My2Cents]

...but just to be safe, we homeschooled all of our children. The last one finished with high school this past spring.

[My2Cents]

Tom, good info. The question I have, does this stipulation apply to cases before federal courts? In other words, do they apply no matter what the "tribunal"? And what would be the process by which he might lose his license? Can anyone file a complaint? I'm sure there are a number of conservative and/or Christian public interest law organizations that would love to nail this guy.

[fortress]

Yes, he usually was in total disagreement with his teachers, but they respected his opinions, since he was able to defend them.
We have to make sure that our kids can come to their own conclusions about issues, so they can defend themselves, when their viewpoints are challenged. Notice I said "when" and not "if"
Conservative kids really have to be strong in their convictions or else they will be in for a rough time in the public arena.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Hi troll.........

[He Rides A White Horse]

Of course we've heard nothing from this little girl.

Which bothers me not at all. It seems Mom wants to clarify certain things (refute lies), but aside from that keep her daughter's life from becoming a circus. Newdow on the other hand.........

[He Rides A White Horse]

What do you want, an eight year old being interviewed by some vicious liberal like Dan Rather?