Judge:“Under God” in Pledge Does Not Violate Atheists Rights
May 16, 2015 23:39:31 GMT -5
Post by PurplePuppy on May 16, 2015 23:39:31 GMT -5
Well, at least there's one judge out there with common sense...
New Jersey Judge Rules “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance Does Not Violate the Rights of Atheists
John S. Roberts
May 13, 2015 11:08 pm
Atheists are always quick on the draw when it comes to silencing freedom of religion, and religious speech in particular. Their feelings are: We don’t believe in God, and we don’t want you letting us know that you believe in Him.
‘Under God’ has been used as target practice for many on the Left ever since it was placed within the Pledge of Allegiance by President Eisenhower in 1956, and even today, decades later, liberals can’t seem to justify the fact that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
History seems to take a backseat to faux outrage.
In a decision made earlier this year, but just published Monday, Judge David Bauman of New Jersey ruled that “the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the rights of atheists” after “a lawsuit [was] filed by a student against the Matawan-Aberdeen school district” who argued that the words “promoted an environment of discrimination in class because it elevated religion and made the atheist students feel like “second-class citizens,” northjersey.com reported.
A much deserved victory for religion.
Cue up the liberal outrage.
From BizPac Review:
Attorneys for the plaintiff contended that the unnamed student felt “marginalized” when he heard the pledge “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.’”
Judge David F. Bauman dismissed the case in February, but his ruling was published Monday. In it, he stated that the student had every right to skip the Pledge if he wanted to, but that the words do not endorse a particular religion.
Bauman followed up: “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,” Bauman wrote.
Well said.
“The Pledge of Allegiance, in this historical context, is not to be viewed, and has never been viewed, as a religious exercise,” he added.
Bauman pointed out that the state’s constitution even references “Almighty God.”
How about that? A commonsense, legitimate response as to why the term “under God” is highly validated.
The American Humanist Society would disagree with me, though…
“The daily pledge recitation is a core part of how we define patriotism for children on a daily basis, so the exercise is discriminatory if it associates patriotism with God-belief and suggests that atheists and humanists are second-class citizens,” legal director of the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center David Niose said.
link
