WHY DON'T YOU ATHEISTS MOVE TO A COUNTRY THAT IS TOTALLY ATHEISTS AND LEAVE THE UNITED STATES ALONE?  WE AMERICANS ARE DOING NOTHING TO YOU.  WHY DON'T YOU JUST BE WHAT YOU ARE AND LET THE OTHERS BE WHAT THEY ARE?

by Margaret Denson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Friday, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:30:59 PM

  (0+)

Margaret Denson:

Your statement sounds like the bigoted rants one would expect in the 1950s. "Why don't you n****s just go back to Africa where you came from."

The Pledge of Allegiance teaches bigotry, particularly to children. It equates people who do not support 'one nation under God' with people who support rebellion, tyranny, and injustice for all. This is a far thing from 'doing nothing'.

The national motto, "In God We Trust" effectively says, "If you do not trust in God, then we do not want people to think of you as being one of us." It is effectively a message from the government that people who do not trust in God do not count - you have to trust in God before we will consider you a full member of society (one of us)."

Again, these are not trivial insults.

Bigots often like to keep their position of superiority over others. They get upset when others insist on being treated as equal. But it is our right to be given the full respect that human beings deserve, particularly from our own government.

by Alonzo Fyfe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:44:41 PM

  (0+)

I'm about the middle of the road on this one.  I hate being peddled to by religious fanatics, but at the same time I also get very sick of listening to atheists bash religious belief.  Either way, I think both groups are wasting an incredible amount of time and money on an issue that is NOT an issue...

I haven't said the pledge of allegiance in nearly 30 years.  It's simple to refuse to say it in any case.  And it's very easy to leave out phrases that you object to.  There's simply some things that shouldn't be of issue (like 'In God We Trust') when you accept the overall benefits of this society and readily indulge yourself in using the monetary system of this country.  Besides that, these days you could arrange to never have to deal with cash or coin ever...  this is easily accomplished with online banking, use of credit/debit cards, money orders, checks etc.

No person should have to change a thing because I personally support or object to something on a personal level.

There's plenty more important things to deal with!

Good luck.

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:05:34 PM

  (0+)

C.Bid

"Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 to keep atheist out of public office. It has succeeded. Today, more than half of the population will refuse to vote for an atheist candidate.

President Bush said that he would not nominate an atheist to be a judge - and the country yawned.

Illinois Representative Monique Davis screamed at a witness before her committe that atheism is a philosophy of destruction and told the witness to "get out of thta chair! You have no right to be here!". And the world yawned.

These are just two of the examples of the type of harassment and denigration that atheists put up with from their own government.

Having the government put up barriers to keep atheists out of public office is the worst of them. If there is anything that any group has a right to fight for - it is the removal of barriers placed on bigotry that deny them participation in government.

If you read the paper at all you know that one of Obama's biggest election challenges is dealing with the LIE that he refuses to pledge allegiance to the flag. Imagine if that claim were true. You know full well that this would lock him out of the election.

Yet no atheist can sincerely pledge allegiance to 'one nation under God'.

So the Pledge of Allegiance itself say, "No atheist shall hold public office in the United States."

This cannot be considered a non-issue.

by Alonzo Fyfe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:51:55 PM

  (0+)

Ms Denson, you have to more right to hijack the government for uour religion by adding "under God" to the pledge than we would have to impose our beliefs on you by adding "under no God" to the pledge.  And how trivial and unimportant would it be to Christians if "under Allah" were in the pledge?

Robert Halfhill

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Saturday, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:29:02 AM

  (0+)

I would prefer secular candidates over 'religious' contenders as long as their views were consistently liberal enough to allow for the uninhibited religious freedoms of others who choose to indulge in their own particular faith/practice...  Likewise, I'm willing to support 'religious' candidates who believe in separation of the church/state and are willing to perform their job based on the views of their constituents rather than being guided by the parameters of their own brand of faith.

Unfortunately, in many cases politics and religion are one in the same.  State enforced and mandated atheism has been a brutal practice of Communist regimes.  Strict rule by Islamic law has persecuted different factions of those under the same system of beliefs -while all non-believers in such countries fear for their lives every minute...  The religious struggle for power in our country is a very real threat to all but the winning side of the battle.

If, even, you are successful in removing the phrases that offend atheists, you will not have changed the predominant prejudice against you.  It's quite possible, in fact, that you will have only enflamed passions to neither side's avail.

I certainly don't care if a person says the Pledge or not.  Even if they DO say it, I don't care what they leave out...  It doesn't MEAN a thing.  They could whistle Dixie through their anus and it wouldn't amount to anything more or less important than this so-called 'issue'!     

There is simply nothing to gain in all of this...  Nothing will have changed in the end.  I think it's an incredible waste of time and money on both sides.

While you cannot direct the wind, you can adjust your sails...

There are ways to 'play' the game -if you must.

Sincerely,

-Bid

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:33:18 AM

  (0+)

That atheists are becoming perilously close to being open to becoming classified as "Communists". One would think with the serious life-threatening situations going on in America today they would have BIGGER fish to fry than convert everyone to conformity to a non-ideal. What ARE atheist's problem?? It really doesn't look like they want a constitution but a regime. IF they are going to rail against me, then I will have to make it my life's work to rail against them. These are the liberals that are trying to destroy our country and supports the dissolving of our borders, destroy our soverignty and are instigating for the NWO, aren't they?!? Grow UP!!! And be an American, or get OUT!

by Zena Princess (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments) on Saturday, Jun 21, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM

  (0+)

Zena Princess

You write about "liberals trying to destroy the country." This sounds like the writings of somebody who values hate so much that they have given up all pretense of rational thought to create an imaginary enemy worthy of their hate.

Nobody is out to destroy. For the most part, there are differences of opinion on how to make the country better. There are a few who are indifferent as to the welfare of the country - as long as they are made better off, they care nothing about the costs that others may be forced to endure. But these people are rare.

In a country where people waste time watching television and attending sporting events, I think we can afford to spend a few of those resources on trivial concerns like justice and truth.

As somebody who values irrational hate, I can see how you might find people who value justice and truth to be annoying. I can see how you might wish for the advocates of justice and truth to "get out." However, I do not think that this is going to happen. And I don't think that it is something that should happen.

by Alonzo Fyfe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Jun 21, 2008 at 1:30:25 PM

  (0+)

But, exactly how is a favorable ruling in this case 'improving' or 'bettering' a thing?

I consider myself extremely liberal (perhaps to a great fault) and willing to back worthy 'controversial' takes on some things -but how is this anything more than playing the proverbial wrench in the spokes just because you can?  By forcing change to an author's long-withstanding words, aren't you merely looking to legitimize your views with a bit of legal backing -which would only cause some sensationalism on a national level once your minority viewpoint is forced upon others?

I can't believe for one moment that this whole thing is not motivated by revenge or reprisal instead of equality...  It just fails on so many levels to convince me that it is of any importance whatsoever except to a few individuals who possibly delight in the ability to be a thorn in the side of a very comfortable majority -of which, this matter is likewise of considerable insignificance except to a tiny percentile.

Respectfully,

Bid  

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:25:17 AM

  (0+)

One of the improvements is that we will quit using the Pledge to teach bigotry to young children.

 The current Pledge teaches children that there are two classes of citizens. Good, loyal Americans (those whose allegiance is valued by this government) are those who support 'one nation under God'. In fact, the current pledge ranks 'one nation under God' with 'indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'. Children know very well that they are supposed to like the things that the Pledge mentions and says are good, and dislike the things that are the opposite of what the Pledge mentions.

This means that they are being taught to view people who do not support 'one nation under God' as being un-American - as not sharing American values.

Currently, more than half of the American population say that they will not vote for an Atheist candidate, that atheists are the group that least shares their American values, and that atheists cannot be patriotic Americans. They learn these ideas from the government. If American values include 'one nation under God' and 'In God We Trust' then, of course, it follow that atheists cannot be good Americans and are certainly unfit to hold public office.

Teaching bigotry to children is a bad thing - and when we stop teaching bigotry to children, that will be a good thing.

by Alonzo Fyfe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:09:52 AM

  (0+)

However, I NEVER interpreted the Pledge of Allegiance in the way you alledge that children are being taught such 'bigotry'!  It's an incredible stretch to come to that conclusion.  It really seems as if the atheists' political action arm is desperately grasping at whatever it possibly could to make an issue of discrimination out of something without such sinister designs as you are claiming...

Matters of faith and personal religious views are completely insignificant when it comes to my own particular process of selecting a candidate to support -unless the person in question fails to divorce their own system of religious beliefs from the duties of public service and the will of their constituency (in which case, they would certainly fail my litmus test).  Other people, perhaps, are not so discerning and often choose to back the candidate whose affiliations with faith are close to their own.  It's understandable and absolutely nothing new...  But to suggest that atheism is the stumbling block that keeps a candidate from being elected to public office seems to ignore that there are so many more factors at play unless, of course, atheism is the platform upon which his entire candidacy is based!  In that case, as I pointed out before, their motivation for public service is extremely questionable and would seem tailored to meet the needs of their own special interests as would any other candidate filtering their duties through dedication to faith.  "Under G*d" is by no means an exclusive statement in the pledge and cannot be interpreted that way unless you are guilty of inciting a controversy out of a very weak premise of discrimination based upon your own personal hangups...

Waldopaper just published an insightful diary entry here at OpEd News, under the headline "More Spam From the Normals..." that relates the call for boycotting Pepsi (one that he recieved via spam email) over their decision to omit 'Under God' from the Pledge as it appears on a recent 'Patriotic Edition' of their cans promoting the July Fourth Holiday... 

I equate your efforts with those who would boycott Pepsi.

Creating controversy out of nothing.  

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:00:19 AM

  (0+)