http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/acton-family-remove-under-god-from-pledge-of-allegiance-20120213

Quote :

Acton family: Remove 'under God' from Pledge of Allegiance

Updated: Tuesday, 14 Feb 2012, 6:12 AM EST
Published : Monday, 13 Feb 2012, 10:07 AM EST

Acton family: Remove 'under God' from Pledge of Allegiance: MyFoxBOSTON.com

ACTON (FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - A Middlesex Superior Court Judge is expected to issue a written decision on a controversial case involving the Pledge of Allegiance.

Judge Jane Heggarty heard arguments on Monday in the case of an Action family who has filed suit against the Acton-Boxborough School District to take the words “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Plaintiffs are named as Jane and John Doe out of concern for what they call “public hostility.” Their children are listed as ages 13, 11, and 9.

David Niose, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, describes the family as atheists and humanists. They say the children don’t have a problem reciting the pledge, just the phrase, “under God.”

Niose told FOX 25’s Sharman Sacchetti, “Every day these kids go to school and the pledge is recited declaring that the nation is in fact under God. That marginalizes them and suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.”

The school district argues the pledge is entirely voluntary.

Attorney Geoffrey Bok argued, “The school system has to respect that at some point parents and children can in fact opt out of things they find for their own reason not appropriate and the school system respects that.”

Superintendent Stephen Mills says the district has spent $10,000 on the case so far, money he says he’d “rather spend on textbooks.” He hopes the judge dismisses the case.

“This business that they’re marginalizing students. They’re absolutely no recriminations; no negative consequences against a child that chooses not to say the pledge or in this particular case the words ‘under God.’”

Back in 1954, under then President Eisenhower, Congress added the words “under God” to the pledge in response to Communism and the Cold War. The Washington, D.C.- based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty argues not saying the words “under God” is discriminatory.

“What they’re asking for would silence other people,” said Attorney Eric Rassbach. “They’re not asking for the right to opt out. They have that right. They admit that they’re trying to get other people to shut up.”

“This business that they’re marginalizing students. They’re absolutely no recriminations; no negative consequences against a child that chooses not to say the pledge or in this particular case the words ‘under God.’”

HELLO!! What planet do you live on? Ever heard of BULLYING?

Now I protested saying the pledge thru most of high school. But HS in St. Louis was more academic back then, a testing ground for civil liberties that were coming to light in adult society. We few protestors did everything from sitting down to Nazi salutes to the flag and got away with it. Oh, there was one All-American Army Reserve teach who took issue with me and it was a little scary having him in my face seeing the veins bulging on his neck. But it was just verbal and no actual consequences.

I hope they win this case and more like it come up. Religion has no place being forced onto a secular society. We were wrong to corrupt a pledge to the flag by excluding those who do not subscribe to the god mythology.

These anti-"Under God" people need to just go away and stop trying to shove THEIR views down everyone else's throats. They are free to not say the pledge. But that's not good enough. They want everyone else to bend to them. Bigots.

You know what? If you're going to publicly try and fight the Pledge of Allegiance, then you have no expectation for your name to remain private, Jane and John Doe my ass. LET your kids be embarrassed, you were dumb enough to bring it up in the first place.

I am old enough to remember when the "Under god " was inserted into the pledge and ruined the flow of the pledge. At the time I didn't understand why they felt the need to add to the pledge and now I don't care what they do to it.

I don't really care one way or the other about this particular issue but it wasn't part of the original pledge to begin with.

Alan Smithee wrote:

I don't really care one way or the other about this particular issue but it wasn't part of the original pledge to begin with.

Agreed. I don't really care one way or another, but I have to say that I find this lawsuit to be whiny and self-indulgent. If someone doesn't believe in the creed, then they should simply refrain from reciting it themselves. When the day comes that they are forced to, or penalized for not, that is when you file your lawsuits. But not everything has to be neutered for the sake of making everyone feel on an even plane.

Suzi wrote:

I am old enough to remember when the "Under god " was inserted into the pledge and ruined the flow of the pledge. At the time I didn't understand why they felt the need to add to the pledge and now I don't care what they do to it.

It was pretty much "commie panic".

My take on the pledge:

I've NEVER agreed with it to begin with (for a multitude of reasons), but I've also never felt that strongly about it to where I thought it needed to be removed from schools altogether. The pledge apparently 'means something' to other folks and I guess they think they are being more patriotic by saying it, or indoctrinating their children into saying it. That's their perogative regardless of how stupid I think it is.

I don't have a problem with "God" being in the pledge either. I mean, yes it wasn't originally there and was put in there mostly for political reasons, but the fact is the majority of Americans ARE religious in some way and do identify with God in some way. And I think that if you are an atheist, you should recognize that even though we allegedly live in a secular society, most people feel comfortable with the idea of God, and if it just happens to be something that YOU don't agree with, why rain on their parade? It wouldn't affect me at all if I went to work and a moment was taken every morning for the office to chant to Allah (not that this would ever happen in our country), as long as they accepted that I wouldn't engage in the chant. So really, this family is making a whole lot of noise about something for no reason as far as I see it. Unless the idea of God and religion actually OFFENDS them and they see teaching it as "morally wrong", or the family is trying to make some political statement or just get attention, WHY insist on this strict of an adherence to the first ammendment in this case?

“Every day these kids go to school and the pledge is recited declaring that the nation is in fact under God. That marginalizes them and suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.”

REALLY? Is that REALLY what's going on here, or are you just exaggerating the "consequences" to your child in the most abstract way possible just to get your way and 'stick it to the man'? Cause I find it hard to believe that having to listen to OTHER PEOPLE say "under God" damages the self concept of a person that doesn't believe in him. If you are allowed to say your own version of the pledge (omitting God), then what's the problem?

HAVING SAID THAT:

Superintendent Stephen Mills says the district has spent $10,000 on the case so far, money he says he’d “rather spend on textbooks.” He hopes the judge dismisses the case.

“This business that they’re marginalizing students. They’re absolutely no recriminations; no negative consequences against a child that chooses not to say the pledge or in this particular case the words ‘under God.’”

If you're complaining about spending $10,000, then why did you spend it? Why didn't you just comply with the parents wishes? Secondly, saying that there is "no negative consequences against a child that chooses not to say the pledge" hardly addresses the parents actual concern. The issue (in their case) is that having to sit there and listen to other kids say it every day IS a negative consequence in and of itself. So this Superintendent is just as ignorant and stubborn as the parents are in this case. Both sides are being ridiculous for different reasons.

Well, that family is about 10 minutes up the road from where I live, but aside from that, shouldn't they be putting aside that money to save for their 3 kids' college, instead of paying a lawyer for such foolishness?
(But being from the area, Acton is a money-town, and these people probably have cash flowing out their asses and nothing better to do with it. . .. )

Get a fucking grip--recite the Pledge, but just don't actually say the words "Under God" yourself when they come along, if it bothers you so damn much and let everyone else recite them as they please.

And better yet, since the kids are certainly old enough to decide for themselves whether or not to believe in God and whether His inclusion in the Pledge bothers them, then maybe they should be allowed to make up their own minds on this one, since belief in God is really a personal choice and personal journey, and shouldn't be someone else's view forced upon you, even if that view does belong to the parents.

Shale wrote:

Yeah, it is sort of contrived when the parents are waging the battle for school kids. When I complained about saying the pledge in HS, my parents weren't involved at all (They would likely have disagreed with me if they did know - Mom even said once "why can't you just be more popular?")

However, I disagree with all the religious ppl here who do believe in a god and therefore HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH RECITING SOMETHING YOU BELIEVE IN.

No, to this day I do not recite that stupid nationalism, mostly on the ground that we are not ONE NATION INDIVISIBLE because the fucking pledge itself divides us by saying under god. Oh, say everything except one section. Try that on a legal oath. In fact, whenever I serve jury duty, they have us recite an oath en-masse and I always make a point to sit it out and tell the bailiff (and once a judge) that I will not recite an oath that ends in "so help me god."

Do not try to push your fucking superstitions on me without expected protest.

And you're probably lucky you got a judge who didn't make a stink, right back to you about that and give you some legal action of your own--you never know what kind of power-trip they may be on, and decide to make an example of you for not complying with the rules of jury duty or something. But, I'm well aware that God bothers you, so next time you could always recite and just substitute any word of your choosing; "America", "Justice System", hell, you could even go all out and say "mother fucking ice cream cones", and they'll probably think you have Tourette's Syndrome, cordially kick your ass out and then you won't have to waste an entire day sitting around at their mercy, blowing your time.

But just to touch upon the family in question in this thread, once again--I guarantee if they didn't live in Acton, they probably wouldn't be making such a big deal. Acton is a community of uppity rich snobs who think their shit don't stink and yours does, and outsiders aren't really welcome into their little bubble. The lawyer involved, is some rinky-dink guy based out of Fitchburg, in a small office in an old building on Main St. (I drive by it everytime I go to my Grandmother's place), and he probably figures this is his ticket to big bucks and notoriety if he wins it, just because of the clientele involved.

So this one is just stupid bullshit from a bunch of people living in a world of their own, who want to make their bubble even more impenetrable to outsiders. Live in the real world, already.