<div align="center"><table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#111111" bgcolor="#C9C0A7" width="414" height="66"><tr><td background="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/little_back.gif" width="56"><img src="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/trr.gif" width="56" height="56"></td><td width="358"><font face="Impact" color="#000000" size="6">In My Opinion</font><font face="Arial" color="#000000" size="3"><i><br><b> by Trevor Bothwell</b></i></td></tr></table></div>
<font face="Arial">
</font>

I truly thought with the emergence of the PT Cruiser and the arrival of fat free sour cream that we’d finally reached the core of what could universally be regarded as poor decision-making. Of course, that was before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled almost two years ago that it is unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in California public schools.

The school district’s appeal, which is now being considered by the Supreme Court, highlights the liberal assault that has been waged against our culture throughout the past three decades. If the 9th Circuit’s ruling is upheld, the Pledge would be banned in schools in the 9th Circuit, and potentially in all public schools nationwide.

The left has taken aim at our public schools since the 1970s -- from radical feminists who have contorted Title IX into a law that discriminates against boys; to whole language fanatics who don't believe children should learn to read through phonetic instruction; to liberal sociologists and educators who put more faith in the importance of “self-esteem” than the ability of students to compute or think critically. And we now confront Michael Newdow, an atheist who finds nothing wrong with trying to commandeer one of the most intimate traditions of the United States to serve his own selfish interests.

Since this case is now before the Supreme Court, it is worthwhile to reflect back to the specifics surrounding Mr. Newdow’s original motivations for his lawsuit.

Newdow claimed that the term "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance offends him because he’s an atheist. But as is common with most members of the vocal minority, he didn't particularly seem to care how many other Americans he offended by bringing his lawsuit so long as he got his way.

One of the most beautiful features of this country is our fundamental right to question authority. But when confronted by CNN's Arthel Neville back in 2002 about whether his daughter was ostracized at school for refusing to say the Pledge, Mr. Newdow admitted that nothing of the sort had taken place. He simply admitted his daughter is part of his lawsuit "because you need that for standing."

If it isn't pathetic enough that Michael Newdow took a grievance to a federal court in the absence of any overt prejudice, using his daughter as a tool in his little campaign against religion and the Pledge ought to be. And when asked how long he’d been contemplating this lawsuit, Newdow stated blithely, upon determining that the verbiage in the Constitution supported his case, that "(suing is) a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it."

Indeed, Mr. Newdow. We’re aching for people like you to disgrace the integrity of our judicial process in order to honor their own gratuitous whims.

Newdow’s own biases aside, the disaster of the 9th Circuit’s ruling wasn’t so much rooted in the decision itself, but in the reality that it is an activist court intent on establishing a secular precedent, one that will no doubt be used to continually support assaults against America’s traditions and values -- whether in support of Big Tobacco-style lawsuits, gay marriage, or the removal altogether of spirituality from public life.

To be sure, the term "under God" may represent the presence of a deity in the hearts and minds of Americans, but it hardly represents a government endorsement of religion, a sentiment Justice David Souter expressed last week during arguments. Actually, whether agnostics agree or disagree with certain spiritual phrases in our national songs, mottos, or slogans is not the relevant issue here. The fact remains that our nation was founded on inalienable Judeo-Christian principals, understood by our Founders to provide the very rights that Michael Newdow is now -- ironically -- exploiting in order to challenge those very principles.

Who would have thought thirty years ago that today it would be "unacceptable" to celebrate holidays such as Christmas and Easter or traditions like Halloween, Mother's Day, Father's Day, or Valentine's Day in many of our public schools, for fear that someone might feel “uncomfortable”? Or that no-smoking policies on airplanes would have led to legislation prohibiting smoking in public places or -- of all things -- in private establishments? Or that it would be feasible to sue your neighbor because a waft of cigarette smoke coming from his porch found its way across your fence to your nose?

Answer: liberals.

Conservatives generally don’t buy into the concept of the slippery slope, but ignoring its existence is fast becoming a luxury we can afford less every day. After all, liberals know that to reveal their entire agenda at once would mean almost certain defeat. So instead we get what we see with today’s fight for the Pledge: isolated attempts to systematically erode our liberties and moral standards, all in search of the ultimate goal of total secularism.

Our public schools have plenty to improve upon as far as instructional and disciplinary policies are concerned, but one fight they would do well to continue -- regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling this summer -- is their right to lead our children in those verses before the school day that are all too frequently taken for granted, and have unfortunately become one of our last lines of defense of patriotism and freedom as we know it.

Say the Pledge of Allegiance. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it.
<p>
<center><a href="http://www.therightreport.com/articles/InMyOpinion/myopinion_home.htm"><b>In My Opinion Archives</b></a></center>
Trevor Bothwell is editor of <a href="http://www.therightreport.com/">The Right Report</a>, and he is also press secretary for <a href="http://www.jewitt2004.com/">Brad Jewitt’s (R-Md.)</a> 2004 campaign for U.S. Congress. Trevor can be contacted at <a href="mailto:bothwell@therightreport.com">bothwell@therightreport.com</a>.</font>

Originally posted by Admin
Who would have thought thirty years ago that today it would be "unacceptable" to celebrate holidays such as Christmas and Easter or traditions like Halloween, Mother's Day, Father's Day, or Valentine's Day in many of our public schools, for fear that someone might feel “uncomfortable”? Or that no-smoking policies on airplanes would have led to legislation prohibiting smoking in public places or -- of all things -- in private establishments? Or that it would be feasible to sue your neighbor because a waft of cigarette smoke coming from his porch found its way across your fence to your nose?

Answer: liberals.

Say the Pledge of Allegiance. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it.

:clap: :clap:

But wasn't that phrase added to the original? I am an aetheist and no where close to being a leftist liberal. When I joined the Air Force, I was not sworn in, I was affirmed. And I served in the first Gulf War. Now I do think that in America, we have gotten so petty that issues like this abound, but you cant blame everything on liberal left wing judges. Wasn't Bush appointed by the Supreme court? I think the lines are becoming too grey anyway. I mean, even when it comes to teaching science, conservative christians make sure there is no mention of the big bang, or evolution. So the ball gets bounced from side to side. Unless we all come together and start agreeing on some issues, we will be the divided united states.

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
Wasn't Bush appointed by the Supreme court? And you said you weren't a leftist liberal. :rolleyes:

Far from it, I just tell it like it was......gotta admit, its hard to deny that the Supreme Court made the decision. Notice I did not say that I thought Gore won either......

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
its hard to deny that the Supreme Court made the decision. And a History major, too, I see. :rolleyes:

For your information, and you can look this up if you don't believe me, the only Supreme Court decision that was made about the 2000 election was the one where they said the Florida Election Board couldn't change their laws in the middle of an election to favor a candidate.

Read it and weep, brother. (http://i.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2000/resources/uscdecision1212.pdf)

I weep because our democratic system is under attack from both sides. Lefty's and Righty's. It's only when those of us that can really make a difference step up to the plate that I will no longer need to carry a hankie. Oh, and that is only the decision that reversed the Florida supreme court, and remanded the case back to Florida.

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
Oh, and that is only the decision that reversed the Florida supreme court, and remanded the case back to Florida. Then please explain to me why you think the Supreme Court appointed Bush.

It boiled down to the fact that the Supreme court should never have taken the issue at all. Voting is the states grounds and should have been left up to the State of Florida. I wouldn't have been happy either way, I didn't want Bush, Gore or Nader. But the Supreme court should not have even made the decision to hear the case. It opens the voting system up now to challenges on the Federal level should someone not like the out come of an election. However, I give the Court slight kudos for this response:

"None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront."

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
It boiled down to the fact that the Supreme court should never have taken the issue at all. When a state court is breaking the law in order to hijack a national election, the Supremes are correct in hearing the case to reign them back in. The Florida Supreme Court brought this on themselves by engaging in illegal activity.

Getting back on track...

I'd like to see the Supreme Court strip "under God" from the Pledge and restore it to its pre-1950s wording. This phrase implies that one has to believe in God to be a good American, and that unbelievers are treasonous. I think it's very dangerous to mix religious doctrine and patriotic feeling.

The only reason those words are in the Pledge is because hyperpatriots in Congress wanted to prove that we were better than those godless Commies in the Soviet Union. Talk about insecurity--I believe the benefits of our system of democracy and freedom of religion speak for themselves. One big reason I love America is that we're free to follow our own personal religious revelations.

Also, I feel that "under God" harms Christianity, because it attempts to create an unofficial state religion. It's a watered-down version of Christianity, without any mention of Christ, his message, or his sacrifice.

A lot of people seem to be approaching this issue with the belief that Christianity is the "one true faith," or at least the idea that God's existence is an undisputable fact. If government were to assume that, it would be contrary to the First Amemdment principle that government should be neutral on religious matters. As far as government is concerned, there is no "one true faith," and whether God exists (I believe in God) is a matter of personal faith. How can we as a nation proclaim to worship as we choose, and then turn around and insert a sectarian religious belief into our official statement of patriotism and on our money? Doesn't that make us hypocrites?

Now, government officials have their own personal religious beliefs. But in their official capacities, they shouldn't be endorsing any particular belief as America's official or even unofficial state religion. That doesn't mean, as that idiot Newdow claims, that we should stamp out all religion from public life. George W. Bush has talked about how his faith in Jesus helped him better his life, and more power to him.

>>he didn't particularly seem to care how many other Americans he offended by bringing his lawsuit so long as he got his way. <<

I'm not really one who cares which side wins in this case, but I think that whatever tradition or value was found in the pledge was lost when it was changed the first time. What it comes down to is that, if one side (the religious conservitives) can change it to represent there values then another side (the non religious and/or liberals) can try to change it as well.

I'm just curious if the religous conservative who changed the pledge in the first place cared who they were offending.

Originally posted by Warron
I'm just curious if the religous conservative who changed the pledge in the first place cared who they were offending. Back then they were all conservative, not just the religious ones. Liberalism didn't get a good foothold until the 60's.

On one hand, I think they should remove the "under God" from the Pledge. We're a secular nation and it just doesn't fit with a Pledge to the nation.

On the other hand, I hate pizzers and moaners who get offended by everything under the sun, so I think we should ADD "one nation, under God, the real God, not that fake one the heathens worship, indivisible...."

:killingme

Originally posted by vraiblonde
On the other hand, I hate pizzers and moaners who get offended by everything under the sun, so I think we should ADD "one nation, under God, the real God, not that fake one the heathens worship, indivisible...."

:lmao: "Save me, Superman, I just heard something that offended me!"