Home > Gwinnett > Rick Badie / My Opinion > Archives > 2006 > April > 11 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USReaders split evenly on reciting pledge in court
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
To some, it’s just a piece of cloth.
To others, it’s the fabric of America, symbolic of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our legal system. In Sunday’s column, I asked for your thoughts on the pledge challenge. Atlanta attorney Donald A. Weissman filed an ethics complaint against Judge Mark A. Lewis for reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in his courtroom.
Readers were almost evenly split on whether a Gwinnett County magistrate judge should commence court proceedings with the recitation. Lewis didn’t require participation, but he’d invite people to join in if they wanted to. He’d started the practice after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. That mere fact raised a red flag with some readers.
One reader called Lewis a “new patriot.”
“If he was truly patriotic, he would’ve said it before that,” he wrote in the Badie blog, identifying himself as “LG.”
The writer lost a friend in the World Trade Center, and had an uncle and several friends barely escape the attack. “I’d rather see bin Laden caught than have someone saying the pledge.”
Nikole Howard doesn’t recite the pledge. Didn’t even say it at her husband’s graduation from Navy boot camp.
“It’s idolatrous to me,” she wrote.
And can be cultish, warned Michael Wilcox, a 24-year Navy veteran. ” … the judge may deny it, but his actions can be interpreted as worship,” he wrote via e-mail.
Weissman has said he filed a complaint with the state Judicial Qualifications Commission out of concern for fairness and the perception of impartiality. The commission hasn’t ruled yet. And the judge has recused himself from the civil complaint in which Weissman was defense attorney.
Lewis, wrote Arva Williams in an e-mail, shouldn’t have to step down. “We should have the Pledge of Allegiance in every courtroom, and I am grateful to Judge Lewis for following his beliefs. I am a little frustrated that certain customs in our nation are being banned because certain groups label them as discrimination. These people are the ones practicing discrimination. If someone doesn’t want to participate, that’s fine. If I do, that’s none of their business.”
Other readers viewed the complaint as another form of social engineering.
“All this politically correct stuff is crap,” Nancy J. Clark wrote. “The Christmas tree is a Christmas tree. The Easter Bunny is the Easter Bunny, and Halloween is Halloween. Anyone objecting to those shouldn’t be here, either. If they do object, they should keep it to themselves.”
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Jonathan
April 11, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
Now before anyone begins attacking what I have to say, remember that this is just my opinion and I am not trying to force this upon anyone. I believe that if a judge wants to recite the Pledge of Allegiance that he should be able to. I do believe we have take God out of our lives and look where we are now. You can not turn on the TV to a news station without hearing about murder, rape, robbery, etc. We took prayer out of school, look what happened, Columbine. We took the Ten Commandments out of Courthouses, look what happened, Brian Nichols. I respect others right not to believe in God or whatever but for those of us who do believe we also have a right to express ourselves. We Americans tend to get upset over nothing. We walk around with a chip on our shoulder like someone owes us something and ultimately if we do not agree with something such as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, the first thing we do is call our attorney. Like I said, this is just my opinion and I am entitled to it. The one thing I do believe we can all agree on is the fact that we have better things to worry about. For instance helping the Gulf Coast recover, homeless or people living in poverty, taking better care of our elderly, supporting our troops whether they are in Iraq or not, cracking down on the other obvious problems like child abuse and/or neglect, drugs. If listening to the Pledge of Allegiance offends you that bad, just plug your ears with something because hearing people complain about petty issues offends me and I should not have to hear it.
By J & J Ranch
April 11, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Ya know when I was young, we said a morning prayer and recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning before the start of school. People were proud to be Americans.
I was taught to believe that in a Courtroom the Judge was allowed to conduct his Court as he saw fit as long as it did not effect his performance as a Judge.
I was appalled that an attorney should file a complaint and have the Judge recused for saying The Pledge. Is the attorney anti-American?
There was a time when Americans were a proud people.
Jonathan has made some very good points. Crime is rampant in America. People lack morals, lack faith, and lack self respect.
The ten commandments… What is wrong with “Thou shalt not kill”? Maybe if more people were taught right from wrong, crime would not be running wild, children killing each others, children killing period. What will it be like in another 25-30 years?
When we had to give a name to murder, thus making it an everyday possibility – “road rage”, it made me stop and wonder. Road rage. Why are we making it acceptable? That’s like the woman who gets away with murder because of PMS. It is ridiculous. “Oh, well she couldn’t help it, she had PMS.” “Oh, he couldn’t help shooting the other driver, he suffered from road rage”
Americans have been allowed to practice whatever religion they choose, even if it is devil worship. That is the way it should be. Does that offend me? Yes. Do I complain that I am offended? No.
Keep it to yourself when offended. We are many people with many ideas. We should all be accepted no matter our beliefs.
By alias
April 11, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Slowly all our customs and rights are being taken away from us in order not to offend anyone. The Pledge, in my eyes, has absolutely nothing to do with God, but I am pledgine MY allegiance to MY Flag, and MY country. If you don’t like it, leave. Don’t let the door hit you. This is MY country, and I will pledge MY allegiance to MY flag. However, being an atheist, I simply do not say the words “Under God”. One nation, indivisible, for liberty and justice FOR ALL.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 11, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
J & J Ranch, if that five-pointed star that the devil worshipers identify with is painted on a Court house wall you wouldn’t be offended or say anything?
By kathy
April 11, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
Continue to say the pledge in our courts. We should also continue to have children say it every morning at school. We live in the United States; if you are here visiting, then you are still HERE. If you want to be somewhere else, go there.
The founders of this country did have God in mind when preparing the documents according to which we have followed and established new laws.
If I say “God bless you,” I am not pressuring you to believe in God. If you feel pressured, look within yourself to determine what is going on in your heart and head. If I say “This nation under God,” I am likewise not pressuring you. DO you for some other reason feel uncomfortable?
By the way, it is okay to have the EASTER Bunny and Christmas Trees. They are what they are, if you have such a hard time connecting God to those celebrations, don’t celebrate them.
I have a suggestion for the pledge. While I know God is our Father in Heaven and Jesus is His Son and our Savior, I will not force anyone to say that they believe it. So, everyone says the pledge. It will be between the parent and student whether the student says “under God.” In the courts, hmmmm…maybe it is up to the individual judge if one says “under God.”
God bless you.
By Robert
April 11, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
The only thing I pledge allegiance to is God. Placing anything over God is simply idolatry, which is a sin.
By Jonathan
April 11, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
Bruce, this country was founded “under God” not Satan.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 11, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Jonathan you should read J & J Ranch’s comment before replying.
By jim d
April 11, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Rick; let me first say that I believe we should all have the right to recite the pledge at anytime and anywhere. That is in my opinion one of the very freedoms our young men are dying for this very day on foreign soil.
However, I must address the previous post by Jonathan.
Jonathan, while I appreciate your opinion I’m compelled to point out a couple of fallacies in your statements in order that misconceptions be eliminated.
1) I do believe we have take God out of our lives
To be quite frank sir, I’m confident that God is involved in the majority of our lives on a daily basis. (He is mine)
2) You can not turn on the TV to a news station without hearing about murder, rape, robbery, etc.
I’m not sure these things are happening with anymore frequency than they did before the communications revolution in which we find ourselves more intuned to what happening outside our little neighborhoods due to expanded news coverage.
3) We took prayer out of school,
Not so, Individual, silent, personal prayer never has and never could be outlawed in public schools. The courts have declared government-fostered prayers unconstitutional - those led, required, sanctioned, scheduled or suggested by officials. Students may even pray aloud as long as they are not disruptive.
4) We took the Ten Commandments out of Courthouses
While the Supreme Court has ruled that the ‘First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and nonreligion and held that these displays violates that neutrality, I fail to see your comparison with Brian Nichols.— Murder is still a crime in just about every country.
I hope this clears up any misconceptions readers might have after reading your post. HAGD.
By Jonathan
April 11, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
I did not say they were happening with more frequency. Please do not put words in my mouth. My point is when you take God out of your life, things like the Brian Nichols incident happens. And please do not try to belittle me, everyone but you did not seem to have any misconceptions so maybe you should read a little slower next time and you might unders t a n d.
By Kathy
April 11, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
It is sad, when I can tell you about a cool band or great sale at a store down the street, but in some places I am not ‘allowed’ to tell you about what can save your soul (Jesus the Savior) and from where all good comes (God). God bless.
By Jonathan
April 11, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Hey, you were correct on one thing. Approximately 86% of the people in the U.S. (according to a report from CNN.com) are Christians.
By RebelYell
April 11, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Johathan, do not try to reason with Bruce, he is a dimwitted, self-proclaimed Know-it-all and he argues about EVERYTHING!!!!
(longtime reader/first time caller)
By Bruce Wilcox
April 11, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
In the “Declaration of Independence,” the founding document of what would become the United States, Thomas Jefferson mentions “nature’s God.” Unfortunately, this phrase is unclear. Jefferson believed in a creator similar to the God of deism. In the tradition of deism, Jefferson based his God on reason and rejected revealed religion.
In the Constitution God is not mentioned, but in Article VI -3 it is stated…”no reglious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” It would seem our founding fathers wanted to make the seperation of church and state quite clear.
By Sabrina
April 11, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Thanks Jim D,
For pointing out all the false misconceptions of what people believe have been taking out of their lives.
Jonathan needs to truly get a clue.
No one cares what the “JUDGE” does during his free time, but when he is in court - he is at work. He works for the sinners, the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims. He also works for the unpatriotic.
By jim d
April 11, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Bruce, to some of us they did.
Others? well some just don’t get it.
By Jonathan
April 11, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Blah Blah Blah, you know what? You are right REBELYELL about him. Hey Bruce, do us all a favor and stop wasting oxygen.
By Jonathan
April 11, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Sabrina, I have three letters for you. TPT.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 11, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
I always find it amusing that the good church going Christians would rather attack than picking up a history book or even the Constitution?
By jim d
April 11, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Jonathan,
It was not my intent to belittle you. Besides, I couldn’t do near the job you are doing yourself.
By jim d
April 11, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Well Bruce, they will be able to read one in Georgia soon enough when they start teaching bible as history.
By Kathleen
April 11, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
As a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom who is still bristling from hearing about children at my mother’s school pitching a hissy fit about having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and listen to the National Anthem, I have this to say to anyone who has a problem with reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In the immortal words of the late Lewis Grizzard, “Delta is ready when you are!” Last I looked, we’re living in the United States and if you are a citizen or plan to become a citizen and stay here, then yes you should be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance when it is led and to show respect when the National Anthem is played. I cannot tell you how many people I have heard yammering on when the Anthem is played and it makes me angry because it is disrespectful! As a health care provider in the military, I have lost count of the brave men and women who I have seen maimed or killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. You may not agree with the war, but please show all people who have served their country honorably the respect they are entitled to by saying the pledge and either singing the National Anthem when it is played or standing quietly (with your hat off please!). Thank you.
By Kathy
April 11, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Well, Bruce. You okay? Sounds like you have had some bad experiences with…I guess Christians. Remember, even as Christians we are not nearly perfect. It is only by faith in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the grace and mercy of God that we are saved. I hope that you will reconsider generalizing against Christians as your standing post for being correct.
Sabrina, Yes, the judge goes to work for the citizens who are sinners (we all are by the way), the saved, the tall the short, the schooled the ignorant…basically any bunch you can figure up. So, with that said how are you saying he should conduct his courtroom? Well, should he not wear certain colors because Mr. Smith feels uncomfortable at the sight of brown? You now say I am being ridiculous. Well, consider the breadth of the suggestion of your comment. Where does the judge draw the line of how he will lead his court?
By Bruce Wilcox
April 11, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Kathy I can honestly say I have never had a bad experience with myself. Maybe some nuns when I was in school way back when. But No one has the right to know my religion, just as I have no right to know theirs. What confuses some here is I use history and the Constitution to make a point.
Ready for another history lesson… In the 1940’s, a school was sued by Jehovah’s Witnesses who felt it immoral to pledge allegiance to anyone or anything other than God, and who were offended their school would require them to violate their religious faith. This case wound up in the Supreme Court as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where the Court ruled it was unconstitutional to force people to recite the Pledge. Not only did the forced pledge violate freedom of religion for Jehovah’s Witnesses, it violated freedom of speech for all students.
By Kathy
April 11, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The United States Constitution
make no LAW respecting, while at the same NOT PROHIBITING the exercise thereof…
By jim d
April 11, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Kathleen,
A personal thank you from me to you, your comrades and those yet to serve for the many scrifices in the name of freedom.
But that very freedom applies to ones right to choose not to pay tribute to the flag or anthem as well as our rights to do so if we wish.
Again, my hearflet thanks.
By Sabrina
April 11, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Kathy,
Draw the line at “Upholding the Laws” of the case before him. There is no need to bring “Outside Influence” into the court proceedings – that have no bearing upon the case.
If he were holding a court session, as it relates to the “Pledge of Allegiance” – then and only then would it be appropriate to recite it and only when necessary to plead the case.
The judge can recite anything he wants inside his office, but when he walks into the courtroom – it’s not just “HIS Court Room” – but also anyone who is involved in a case he is about to handle. Yes, we are supposed to respect the court and the person holding the court session – but the COURT ROOM does not belong to the JUDGE. That’s like saying the LAWS belong to the JUDGE, just because he is expected to uphold them and place sentence upon those who don’t uphold them.
I hope that cleared up “Where to Draw the Line”.
By Danial
April 11, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
I think you guys have strayed a little bit from the original point of the article. The thing that everyone should have their attention drawn to is that fact that an American judge in an American court room had charges brough against him for saying the pledge of allegiance, thereby pledging his allegiance to America. I’m sick and tired of people getting so soft and afraid to offend people and so afraid to be patriotic that they feel we must barr anything and everything that has the word America in it or has the nation’s best interests at heart. This judge is a hero, and will remain so because he stands by his word and his actions. He is a real American.
By jim d
April 11, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Indeed he is Danial,
He stepped down from the case.
By RebelYell
April 11, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Daniel!!! YOU are correct!!!! 100% You said it all!!!!!
By G
April 11, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
This idiocy comes from the prevalent fear in American society of what someone might do given an opportunity, NOT WHAT THE PERSON ACTUALLY DOES. Is our distrust of our fellow man/woman so deep that we automatically have to fear the worst of everyone? Is the attorney involved so paranoid and despairing of human nature that he can have no faith in anyone else, including a man who has years of experience on the bench and who has earned high praise for his professionalism over the years?
Pathetic.
By Sabrina
April 11, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
I prefer to have safegaurds in place, before I turn over my life to just one person or a group of people. So, I guess I have NO FAITH, that everyone will indeed to the right thing when it comes to me and my family.
Signed Pathetic
Hey G, can I get your SSN or your bank account information. I promise to do the right thing. Just have a little FAITH.
By Danial
April 11, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
Sabrina, in no way did you attempt to express an opinion that even remotely relates to the topic at hand. You seem motivated only to bash America and its leaders. Don’t get me wrong though, I’m not exactly a Bush supporter. But I do think you should try to stick to the topic and possibly state how you feel on the subject.
Furthermore: “If he was truly patriotic, he would’ve said it before that,” he wrote in the Badie blog, identifying himself as “LG.”
In this instance, it appears to me as though he was showing his patriotism through his action and showing the strength of America in light of the disaster. Just because I don’t go around reciting “My Country Tis of Thee” or the pledge everyday doesn’t mean I don’t love my country.
By Kathy
April 11, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Thank you Danial! That is a great point!!!
Sabrina,
The Pledge of Allegiance does apply to every court case held in this country. It is not like saying the laws belong to the judge. The judge interprets the laws.
By Jonathan
April 11, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Don’t bother arguing with Sabrina. She is the one person on this Earth that has never been wrong in her life!! LOL
By Kathy
April 11, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Well, I would not call it arguing; I would call it a discussion :-).
By Sabrina
April 11, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
DANIAL - I think my opinion was very clear. But I will state it more clearly for you. The judge is using his courtroom as a place to display his views. The only thing he should be doing is performing his job as it relates to the case of the day. I think he is idolizing something that has no bearing in my life as an American. And yes, Danial and Kathy - I was born, rasied and live in this country. Not only that, I have members of my family who have served in the military. They also think the judge has overstepped his duties. They don’t feel the need to salute an American flag when they see one. And Yes, you can be Patriotic and Love your country - without all the cool whip. If you don’t know what I mean by Cool Whip - that is displaying an American Flag on demand, reciting the Pledge every morning and Painting my House Red, white and yes BLUE.
We are people who understand that we are HUMAN BEINGS FIRST and foremost. And if you can love someone besides yourself, love of country comes naturally.
Kathy - the Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with court. It was written after the laws and courts were created.
By Danial
April 11, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Another point I ran just noticed: “And can be cultish, warned Michael Wilcox, a 24-year Navy veteran. ” … the judge may deny it, but his actions can be interpreted as worship,”
First let’s establish what a cult is. A cult is the beginning of a new religion. Even Cristianity started off as a cult. The reason it took off the way it did is because it appealed to everyone’s desires and today is one of the largest religions in the world. Since not everyone was there to witness the workings of Jesus, they only heard of him and his ideas. People decided they liked what they heard and the idea spread like wildfire.
By Kathy
April 11, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Just as the Pledge was written after the courts and laws were established..even though laws can still be established, so are the words you and I have written. Does that make our words meaningless or without importance? Do our words have anything to do with what happens in the courts? We can vote; we can write to our congressmen and congresswomen; there are a few things we can do to encourage or change the laws of this country. That is one the things about the way we run it here.
You may recall that I did not bring up your nationality or whether you or anyone you knew was or is in the military.
One wonderful aspect and blessing of living here in the USA is that you can write or say what you believe and so can I. I believe in God. I will say “under God,” and you won’t. If I am wrong about whether you will say “under God,” you can correct me.
Has someone in the government demanded you display the flag or paint your house red, white, and blue?
Just so you know, I enjoy exchanging our ideas. My interest is in communicating the similarities and differences.
By stacerondeau@hotmail.com
April 11, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
By Danial
April 11, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Sabrina, every ruling a judge makes in ANY courtroom is a display of his veiws on every case. And seeing as how his job entails interpreting the laws to benefit the US by passing judgement on an individual who is accused of some crime, I think it is entirely appropriate that he pledge his loyalty to the country he is serving.
By Sabrina
April 11, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
Danial - his views has to do with the interpretation of the laws currently as written.
A judge may have views that are against Divorce, but must grant the parties a divorce by LAW. A judge may be Christian and have Christian views, but can not punish a defendent because he is Jewish. A judge must have impartial views.
KATHY - if people like you had your way, we would all have to say a prayer each night and other religions would not be tolerated and my house would have a FLAG on display. Because you are more concerned with being a part of a group, than you are at being a human being.
By Wesley Morrison
April 11, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Good lord…lets just all lock ourselves up in solitary confinement and totally avoid contact with the outside world. Then we will be assured that we won’t “offend” someone. It kills me to see the extremes liberals take their arguments. They scream at Christians (which again, comprise about 90% of American society) to “respect” the opinions and beliefs of others (the minorities) while totally disrespecting the Christian’s beliefs themselves. I agree that we should all be free to believe as we desire. And most fellow Christians that I know support this stand (there are a few exceptions), however, there is NO DENYING that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and beliefs and everything from our money to our pledge to our government oaths to the Ten Commandments on the walls of our Supreme court reflects this fact. It is fact! Deal with it. If you don’t want to pledge - don’t! If you don’t want to believe in the 10 commandments - don’t! If you don’t want to spend money that has “In God We Trust” on it - don’t! Nobody is forcing anything on you. But don’t dare try to force your agnostism (your beliefs) down my throat either. Again, these things represent the foundation of our country. Deal with them or leave!
By Kathy
April 11, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Wow. That is not the case at all. I am unsure of why you chose to write about me contrary to what I have written.
You can read above to see again what I wrote about the pledge. I am grateful to live in a nation where it is okay for you and I to have different beliefs and for you and I to live according to those beliefs.
So, I will write this. Honestly, I feel slandered. You have written things about me that are untrue.
Still, I am grateful that even with that, I am okay. I know what is true. I am sorry you are so bent on shining me in a bad light. I pray you think about the inaccuracy of what you wrote and how detrimental it is to any good discussion. I still appreciate the exchange we have had.
I ask that you not write falsely of me again. Thank you.
By Kerry
April 11, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this
Some of these posts are getting off topic. The judge never required anyone to recite the pledge, it was purely voluntary. Living in a free society allows these tings to happen. As an American I feel he should be able to show allegiance to the USA and the flag. When and why did we as a country become afraid to call a spade a spade? A lot of society has become too thin skinned. It’s part of our freedom that allows us to speak our minds, that seems to be slowly being taken away from us. Is that what you that think he shouldn’t recite the pledge want? Whose rights was he infringing upon? Just my two cents.
By Kathy
April 11, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this
Kerry, To whom are you referring?
By Kerry
April 11, 2006 06:06 PM | Link to this
Kathy,
Mainly Sabrina but any of those that are petty, judgmental or attacking. Like you, I enjoy sharing our ideas and opinions; but I wish it could be done in a more mature manner. Being able to share our ideas is part of what makes this country so great. It just seems when you share an opinon that some do not agree with they get off topic and start attacking those that they disagree with. I would hope that only the facts would be discussed instead of a lot of rhetoric being thrown around.
By Kerry
April 11, 2006 06:22 PM | Link to this
The fact is that Mr. Weissman’s letter stated that he objected to Lewis’ beginning court with a “public declaration of national loyalty.” His argument had nothing to do with the words “under God” being recited, it was strictly about an allegiance to a nation. The nation whose laws he is sworn to uphold and interpret. How could this possibly offend anyone?
By Scott
April 11, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this
It’s pretty obvious that liberals such as Sabrina want everyone to be able to voice their opinions except for those people that differ in ideology from them. Then such liberals resort to namecalling and using terms like “you people” and going off on rants comparing someone that believes they should be able the Pledge to Nazis or racists. Sabrina and her ilk would defend to the hilt the right of a Muslim extremist to say that all Americans should die, yet foam at the mouth when the average person wants to say something that makes them feel good. It really must be sad to have such a life that you actually get offended by someone else saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Apparently the only way that people who agree with the majority are going to get their rights back is to follow the example of crybabies such as this and file lawsuits when their rights to live their lives are being infringed upon by supposed free speech advocates such as Bruce and Sabrina.
By Scott
April 11, 2006 06:30 PM | Link to this
I’m considering filing a class action suit for whomever wants to get in on it: The Vast Majority of People of the United States vs. Crybaby Whiners Who Feel The Need To Impose Their Beliefs(or lack thereof) On Everyone Else.
By BruceH
April 11, 2006 06:48 PM | Link to this
Well, I’m just glad that all of you are able to practice some of the main subjects of the object at hand, that being The Pledge. Everyone should feel quite comfortable knowing you’ll not be receiving a knocking down of your door at 3:00am and a dragging by your feet off to some dank jail cell for voicing your opinions. Patriotic? Religious? Anti-government? Thank your lucky stars (or your “God”) that you have such a freedom to express and practice such things. …Liberty and Justice for All!
By dave
April 11, 2006 06:49 PM | Link to this
I know and respect judge lewis,he did nothing wrong by asking some one to recite a simple pledge. Nothing was required of anyone. The liberals in this country have gotten out of hand and want everyone to think as they do. Judge LEWIS would make an excellent superior court judge. The country is going to hell in a hand basket and people like cynthia,ali and fonda make a mockery of this country everyday. You make heroes of them. That is one mans opinion!!!
By LG
April 11, 2006 07:06 PM | Link to this
Enough on the liberals. Tim McVeigh was a conservative who thought he was doing his country a favor by blowing up the federal building. (Read his book.)
I have to agree with John Adams - over two hundred years ago he said that a dual party system will ruin America. Look at the liberal/conservative hate in all the blogs-not just this one.
By Michael H. Smith
April 11, 2006 07:06 PM | Link to this
What ever shall be done with….
“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God Save the United States and this Honorable Court!”
As an American it should be a welcomed delight to declare allegiance to this Republic. If an American must needs feel forcibly compelled to declare a loyal allegiance to the United States of America, then this individual is freely in needs of another Country and another Honorable Court!
By Terry
April 11, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this
The Pledge was written by Francis Bellamy It appeared in the September 8, 1892 periodical The Youth’s Companion. The Pledge then read: “I Pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all.”
In 1954 a new bill was supported by President Dwight D. Eisenhower after a lot of lobbying by the Knights of Columbus. President Eisenhower signed the bill on June 14, 1954. The new Pledge reads: “I Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
I bet that if we went back to the original Pledge of Allegiance as it was written in 1892 nobody would have a problem. The issue isn’t about respect for the U.S. — it’s forced religion.
100 years ago, the mix of religions wasn’t as diverse as it is today. It should be possible to show responsible respect for other religions and still be proud of our country!
By Sabrina
April 11, 2006 07:26 PM | Link to this
Scott,
Yes, you people, believe that everyone who does not agree with you is NON-Christian or does not believe in GOD. I go to church, pray and speak with MY GOD often. I don’t subject my beliefs unto others, nor do I expect them to follow suite - just because my religion is the MAJORITY.
But, you did get one thing right SCOTT, I am a liberal, but conservative enough to know the difference between religious rights and religious stupidity.
No one has infringed upon your rights, you can say the pledge at anytime, just don’t do it in a place that is dedicated for all people to enjoy and that includes the court of law. Also, incase you did not know, being in the majority does not make you RIGHT.
Look at your history, the 60’s is a great example of the Majority being hateful and wrong. What a great Christian nation we were or were they less than Christians during that time period?
There are many examples of the “Majority” being less than Christian and wrong.
I just can’t stand the fact that my religion and my country has been misused by people who think they are superior to others on everything.
By Kerry
April 11, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this
LG,
There are extremists in both the liberal and conservative groups. I would say that Timothy McVeigh was a radical extremist and does not reflect the views or ideas of many of the conservatives. While I would call myself more conservative than liberal, I consider myself independent from either Republican or Democrat. I wish the legislatures in DC and all around the country were more in touch with what society feels. They’ve lost sight of what our country needs and have made themselves available to the highest bidder. We need more representation that is not affiliated with a major party.
By Kevin B
April 11, 2006 07:30 PM | Link to this
Now Bruce Wilcox, surely if you are going to use history; you are not going to misuse the term “separation of church and state”. You should know there is no such phrase in your Constitution and that the establishment clause is the most misused in all of our documents. You should know that Jefferson, who in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Convention in 1802 used the term to reassure the convention that the establishment clause was written to keep the government out of the church, not vice versa. It’s not his fault if liberal Judiciary have made it into something it is not. And as far as the Pledge of Allegiance goes, if you do not support the USA and what our values stand for, then Canada is waiting!!!!
By Terry
April 11, 2006 07:40 PM | Link to this
Kevin B: Now you are mis-representing our history. I assume you are talking about the same Thomas Jefferson that compared the Jesus myth to the myth of Jupiter/Minerva? And, NO, I do not want to get into a debate on the Founding Fathers. You would need to look at opinions by Adams, Madison, Franklin, Payne, etc. Although this may be enlightening, I’m not sure it is necessary in the context of this thread.
I support the USA and it’s values. But I also have a right in this country to freedom from religion!
By Scott
April 11, 2006 07:45 PM | Link to this
LOL, glad you clarified the “you people” comment Sabrina, I’m pretty sure the Klan and other organizations of its ilk are also big on statements like “you people” and “us and them”. By the way Sabrina, if you’re so open and inclusive then it’s odd to hear you talk about YOUR country and YOUR religion. You just kind of made my point for me. You support the opinions of others as long as they share your ideology. ;)
By BruceH
April 11, 2006 08:22 PM | Link to this
For a person that prays to, and speaks to, her God often, Sabrina sure is filled with a lot of anger and hate. I doubt she is praying for any of “you people” right now. Oh, hypocrisy!
By Kerry
April 11, 2006 08:31 PM | Link to this
If a judge is prohibited from reciting the pledge to begin the day. What’s next? Will someone want the flag to be removed from the courtroom because it is a public decoration of national loyalty? It doesn’t seem too farfetched to me. Is this where we are heading? If so, pretty scary.
By BruceH
April 11, 2006 08:36 PM | Link to this
No Kerry. This is far, far beyond scary.
By Scott
April 11, 2006 09:02 PM | Link to this
It’s funny, people who want to get rid of the Pledge or anything having to do with religion like to make it out like they are nipping some grand conspiracy in the bud. They talk about making sure that the government doesn’t force religion down your throats and that if it weren’t for people like them that our freedoms would go by the wayside. I have another apocalyptic thought that’s just as, if not more likely. I can see people like Sabrina getting their way and in the future people being arrested or fined for mentioning God or flying a flag in public. Sounds crazy huh? But it seems more a hell of a lot more likely to me than us becoming a theocracy if people are allowed to say the Pledge voluntarily.
By Michael H. Smith
April 11, 2006 09:29 PM | Link to this
Is the issue truly forced religion or simply whose religious force is acceptable?
Atheism, Gnosticism, Agnosticism, Mysticism, Humanism, all of these are no less religious in practice and demand that an absence of God prevail over their religious counterparts, which in practice and demand would have it that their God be omnipresence overall.
The real issue on “freedom of religion” and the “freedom from religion” is one of tolerance wed in plurality.
It is no more right for government to force an absence of a God upon an individual than it is right for government force the presence of God upon any individual. Since the judge INVITED but did not FORCE anyone to recite the phrase “Under God”, government exacted no powers. Surely throughout the remainder of the judicial session no mention of God’s presence was allowed? Then is it unreasonable to assert that the Godless religions held respect from the court?
The answer is simple enough, let the believers of Atheism, Gnosticism, Agnosticism, Mysticism, and Humanism use the phrase “one nation under Law” and their counterparts use “one nation under God” in the pledge, but let none be intolerant of either.
By Kevin B
April 11, 2006 10:21 PM | Link to this
No Terry, on the contrary. I am not misrepresenting anything. Read the document. I am not stating Jeffersons opinion of myths, just what he said to those he addressed with regards to their concern for their rights. And as far as the other founding fathers, I was addressing a specific comment which was about separation of church and state, which was taken exactly from where I said it was. It’s the misuse of terms from Jefferson and that is why I singled him out. The bottom line is political correctness in this country is destroying the fabric of morality in our nation. Whether you like it or not, our country was not founded upon religious freedom, it was founded by people who wanted the right to freely worship God, not a God, not God’s, but God. The Lord Jesus Christ. Slice it any way you want but that is what the Puritan’s were weeking, nothing more, nothing less, and for someone to say that the Pledge of Allegiance is not welcome in our courtrooms because it says “one nation under God” is a slap in the face. We are a christian nation. Deal with it. I don’t go to Iran without knowing that it is a Muslim nation. I expect it. The difference over hear is that if you disagree, you do not get executed.
By BruceH
April 11, 2006 10:27 PM | Link to this
You are quite correct Michael. Odd that the third largest portion of the world’s population (1.1 billion) “practice” the secular “religions” that you mention.
By Thomas
April 12, 2006 06:10 AM | Link to this
Well growing-up in Rome,NY I had the pleasure of attending Francis Bellamy Elementry. Looking out my class room I could see his grave for the cemetary was 50 yards from the play ground.It was fascinating that at this age (8 years)there wasn’t any pressure to stand and say the pledge if one did not feel it that day ,or any other.
By Terry
April 12, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this
Keven B: Thank you for the reply. Yes the Founding Fathers get mis-quoted and taken out of context quite often in this debate. However Franklin, Jefferson and most of the rest were concerned with separation of church and state at a very basic level.
For you, not saying “under God” is a slap in the face…for me, having my government give special consideration to your religion by putting those words in the Pledge is a slap in the face.
Forgetting the out-of-context quotes from our history, the bottom line is the idea that a government cannot and should not be the authority on which ANY religion get favored.
By Terry
April 12, 2006 08:03 AM | Link to this
Michael: Your list is no exactly accurate. Religion is 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, and Freethought are not, in this sense, religions.
It is the institutionalized religion’s influence in my government that I am opposed to.
By Susan
April 12, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this
Once the illegals are given their citizenship you will be saluting the Mexican flag in court.
By Jmarsh
April 12, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this
Actually, the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist in order to foster obedience to the “state” in the children of that day. Nevermind the G-d clause, that’s what gets my goat.
If it said something about pledging to the Constitution instead of an object (the flag) or a socialist wet dream, maybe.
Yes, I’m a vet and vote Republican.
By Terry
April 12, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this
Jmarsh: An interesting perspective! I had not looked at it that way. But, of course, I took a few minutes vetting your assertation and you are right.
So what we really have in this simple little Pledge is the socialistic ideals of the far left with the religious ideals of the far right injected into the middle.
I believe that most Americans don’t really understand the dangers of either of these extremes and just want to be able to express our love of libery and justice that our country strives to achieve.
Solutions???
By Terry
April 12, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
Kevin: First off, sorry about the typo on your name in my last post.
Although I was going to stay away from a discussion on the “Founding Fathers.” You made a statement that I must take exception to. Franklin, Paine, Jefferson and Madison were all Deist. They did not believe in the story of Jesus. So to say that we are a Christian nation is not accurate.
Paine, in fact, refered to himself as an Atheist, however, his writtings clearly showed him to believe in a God.
Jefferson, on the other hand, never made a public statement as to his beliefs. Again, however, his writings showed a belief in a ‘Natural God’ (could have been Gaia?). Fo a better understand of his issue with separation, you should look into writtings concerning the Virginia state law separation issues of the time.
Madison was adamately opposed to allowing tax dollars to pay for chaplins in Congress or the military as he saw it as a clear violation of the separation clause. He documented his concerns in this regard on a number of occasions.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 12, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Kevin B the first time the issue came before the Supreme Court was in 1899 yet you know as fact it was a liberal court? Or is it any time a ruling comes down that you disagree with you have to blame someone? The Supreme Court can only interpret the Constitution it cannot make law.
As far as Canada, wonderful country but far too cold, I’m sure there is a much warmer place you’d like to suggest where I go.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 12, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
And Kevin B I never said the seperation of church and state was in the Constitution. If you’re going to quote me, quote me, don’t put words in the mouth.
Here is what was said…”In the Constitution God is not mentioned, but in Article VI -3 it is stated…”no reglious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” It would seem our founding fathers wanted to make the seperation of church and state quite clear.”
By Jmarsh
April 12, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Terry, can you point me to the separation clause to which Madison was referring? There may have been something in the Federalist Papers or something similar, but I don’t recall it being a clause in the USC.
Bruce, two points:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
This doesn’t imply a separation of church and state at all; that (separation) phrase was created by the courts. As is typically the trouble with most folks, you stop reading and understanding the actual words. Court decisions, right or wrong, do NOT supersede the supremacy of the US Constitution (see: Supremacy Clause.)
Solve the problem all ‘round: fight for school vouchers so people can send their kids to schools that have a prayer every morning, or where they denounce SUVs and red meat at every recess. Whatever thy heart desires, everyone gets what they want, except for the current educational establishment.
By BJ White
April 12, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
Atlanta attorney Donald A. Weissman would’t happen to have a client that is NOT an American citizen now would he??? For if the client didn’t stand up, put his/her hand on their heart and say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag the Judge or Jurors might assume the defendant was an Illegal Alien.
By Terry
April 12, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Jmarsh: Madison on Religion:
Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819: The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.
Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822: Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832: I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.
Detached Memoranda, circa 1820: Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
Do a Google search on “Madison Religion’ and you’ll see lots of references.
By Michael H. Smith
April 12, 2006 06:32 PM | Link to this
Atheist Church, Agnostic Church, Gnostic Church, Humanist Church
Well Terry, I just Googled all of the above, give it a try and see if your results are the same. Each and every single one of these has an established Church. Whether you choose define them as institutional or no, they all influence your government, have a mission to promote their beliefs and have an agenda not so different from the ones you complained about.
Best keep both eyes open as did the founders of this nation who knew all too well the evils of religion and the religions of evil; and knew well enough that not one of them should ever amass the powers of a government as was the case of the Church of England, which was their main target and focus by way of living example. To keep them all in check and balance they sought to prohibit the possibility of one and only one religion ever becoming supreme as it was in England through respecting plurality. Fear the Atheist as much as you would fear the Theist, for in the day either shall have the power to make their edicts our laws, is the day we lose our protected rights to freely worship as we choose or no, and live out our pursuits of happiness in liberty.
By Terry
April 12, 2006 07:08 PM | Link to this
Michael: Looking back at our earlier discussion, we were talking about religion. For you to counter with an argument concerning the definition of a church doesn’t lend any credence to your position.
To repeat my earlier post:
Religion is 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, and Freethought are not, in this sense, religions.
It is the institutionalized religion’s influence in my government that I am opposed to.
By Terry
April 12, 2006 07:21 PM | Link to this
Michael: Also — why do you keep sticking gnostic thinking into the mix. This is clearly a religion. You might as well add Budhaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, etc.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 12, 2006 09:11 PM | Link to this
Terry, a date using Lord? Is that some kind of ringing endorsment of religion in the Constitution? Kind of grasping at straws there friend.
And Article VI -3 it is stated…”no reglious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” is before any amendment, so it is clear from the orginal document.
The Supreme Court doesn’t pull things out of thin air to change, it has to be petitioned to hear a case. It rules on it’s interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to the case.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 12, 2006 09:15 PM | Link to this
And Terry, as I told Kevin B, read what I wrote, not twist things around to fit your needs. It weakens whatever argument you’re attempting to make.
By BruceH
April 12, 2006 09:16 PM | Link to this
I don’t think we have viably answered the simple questions here: should the judge be permitted to recite The Pledge before a trial or not? Does it make any difference if it is a civil trial or a criminal case? And last, should an American Citizen be so offended by said Pledge as to have their attorney request (or demand) the judge’s recuseal?. Oh, and if the word “God” is the offensive element, should it be eliminated (or banned) from mere association with The Pledge to prevent further offense? Gotta’ keep the public happy (citizen or not).
By Michael H. Smith
April 12, 2006 09:37 PM | Link to this
Terry your last name wouldn’t happen to be Wilcox by any chance, now would it? ;)
My argument is consistent. Since your argument alluded to an institutional concern, this was the bases for relevance to bring up churches. A church normally is recognized by most as an institution. All the religions that were noted do have churches, they are institutionalized religions.
Your definition supplied: B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
This really doesn’t require an organized religious body devoted to a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe for a person to have such a same religious devotion in belief and worship of anything or nothing.
Further expounding: most likely from your same source for definition (dictionary.com.)
2 The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Not to enter a discourse in Theology beyond the scope and present decorum but definition number 4 would appeal to many theologians.
As to your also. True, I could have referenced many other religions but the arguments wouldn’t change, nor would the plurality argument. It is no more right for government to present Atheism absent Theism than it is right for the government to present Theism absent Atheism and by no means should government FORCE the exercise of either upon any individual, which the judge didn’t by invitation. If your government removes all reference to God, then your government has made law respecting an establishment of Atheism, an institutionalized religion whether you choose to admit it or not. Which is a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion, absent a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
By Bruce Wilcox
April 12, 2006 09:47 PM | Link to this
Gee Michael H. Smith you sound like you have a crush on me, this is how many people now I’m supposed to be? I hope this doesn’t hurt you too much Smith, but I’m married to a great gal.
By Michael H. Smith
April 12, 2006 09:50 PM | Link to this
Should the Supreme Court be permitted to open with “God save the United States and this Honorable Court? The Justices must seem to think so. If God can be mentioned by the highest court in this land, then why should this judge be condemned for doing nothing more?
By Michael H. Smith
April 12, 2006 09:53 PM | Link to this
No offense here Wilcox but you have to admit Terry shares your tenacity.
By BruceH
April 12, 2006 09:56 PM | Link to this
How does simply dropping a reference to “God”, or any other “Supreme Being” support Atheism? The government, at this point, is supporting nothing, it is endorsing nothing, it is saying nothing. It is not saying that there is a god, and at the same time it is not saying there is not. It is pure void. The Pledge becomes purely Nationalistic. Is this valid to argue or just whacko?
By Bruce Wilcox
April 12, 2006 10:05 PM | Link to this
What we’re missing here is, did the attorney have a problem with the judge before and is only using this as an excuse to remove him from the case? If so, it’s much to do about nothing.
By Michael H. Smith
April 12, 2006 10:05 PM | Link to this
Well, it isn’t going to change anyone’s convictions, which is something I said from very the beginning. Not to beat this beyond its already mutilated carcass but it goes beyond a simply dropping when something is removed by law.
By Michael H. Smith
April 12, 2006 10:08 PM | Link to this
Point well made Mr. Wilcox. This could be more about politics than anything else.
By BruceH
April 12, 2006 10:17 PM | Link to this
Hence the roundabout nature of this entire discussion. You gentlemen certainly seem well versed in this. I personally think the judge should have challenged his rucuseal. However, by his rapid stepping aside, he may, in fact, have had previous issues with the attorney that were not revealed.
By J & J Ranch
April 13, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Bruce Wilcox….
Your’ post: J & J Ranch, if that five-pointed star that the devil worshipers identify with is painted on a Court house wall you wouldn’t be offended or say anything?”
What in the world do you mean? I did not say that if “THE FIVE POINTED STAR IS PAINTED ON A COURT HOUSE WALL THAT I WOULD NOT SAY ANYTHING!” I find it ludicrous that you would interpret what I said that way. Hell yes, I would complain.
And for you to bring up to Jonathan that he should read my comment is another BUTT-HEADED comment.
I suppose that YOU are a devil-worshiper? I guess that your ignorance and lack of education shows.
What I said was that people have the right to worship whatever GOD they worship.
I went on to say that it is none of my d*ned business what YOU consider GOD.
I also said that if people lived by THE GOLDEN RULE the world would be a better place. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. “Thou shalt not kill”, ect.
I should have known that someone was lurking in the dark waiting “bash” one of the persons “posting comments” on this subject.
I am a Christian. I also believe that people have the right to worship whatever GOD they worship as long as they don’t stuff it down other people’s throats. Whether it is Buddha, Muhammad, Allah, whatever.
I am not gay, but I don’t hate gays, I only ask they don’t push their ways onto other people.
Live and let live. Maybe BRUCE should read and understand what he is reading. People should learn tolerance. Stop the hate!
As far as Judges go, I was always taught that a Judge in his Court was God.
What do you think of that one Bruce?
By J & J Ranch
April 13, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
My last post where I said yes “I would complain”. To set this straight I would complain to my friends and family, not publicly. As an American citizen, I am bound by our Constitution: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and so forth.
Any sign of alternate religions, somoeone can take offense at.
All Americans have the right to state their opinion. Each religion has the Right to be seen as guaranteed in the Constitution. Have you read the Constitution?
By J & J Ranch
April 13, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Instead of having the Ten Commandments posted on the wall, perhaps on the wall should be posted the code for the offense. ie: “Thou shalt not kill” - have the code for killing instead. Have the code for robbery, burglary instead of “Thous shalt not steal”
Or even have “Do not kill” instead of “Thou shalt not kill”