In a Non-existent Being We Trust?

No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship.
--- Thomas Jefferson
In Larry We Trust
--- Matt Michaels

Finally! A ruling that says that it is unconstitutional to have "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance"! This is definitely not separation of church and state, and it singles out one religion. It is clearly illegal, just as "in god we trust" is on coins.

As a child I refused to say that, but I was not aware that it was ok and that I didn't have to recite the obnoxious phrases. It is not true that most childen understand that they have a choice. Those who say otherwise have no idea the pressure on a child to be one of the crowd. Children who do not say it are ostracized.

This great country is great only because of freedom of AND FROM religion! It is obnoxious that people who beleive in unsubstantiated myths to force others to beleive.

The Pledge of Allegiance is obnoxious to anyone who does not believe in non-existent beings. If you are so religious that you can't see that it is highly obnoxious, then substitute "under Zeus", "under Satan" or "under Casper the Ghost".

For a physical analogy of what it feels like to me to see this "god-thingy" stuff all over the place, imagine that I shoved a banana down your throat. It has felt like this all my life.

CNN "Legal Analyst" Jeffrey Toobin

You've got to put this decision in context. Our money says "In God we trust." Every single day that the United States Supreme Court is in session the marshal begins by saying, "God save this honorable court." God is not a forbidden word in the American government, and I think that this is an indication. If any of those nine justices, having heard "God save this honorable court" every single day, if something was wrong with it, someone might have said something.
Just because the obnoxious phrase is all over the place does not mean it was ever right! This is like arguing that since everybody has slaves "someone might have said something". Well people have and they have been ignored up to this point. Did it ever occur to this small-minded Toobin that there is social pressure against objection? Toobin's argument holds no water and he is completely wrong. EVERY ONE OF THESE CASES MUST BE REMOVED OR MODIFIED!

2002 June 27
To: Barbara A. Mikulski
Paul S. Sarbanes
Alex X. Mooney
Subject: Finally! A sensible ruling against stupid thinking!

Dear Senators:

I want to express my great concern that you and your colleagues will attempt to overturn the recent ruling which said that the Pledge of Allegiance is illegal.

That ruling is 100% correct.

Please see:

As a child I felt HIGHLY REPRESSED by this obnoxious statement "under god". I would say the Pledge of Allegiance but stop before the end. I felt that if I were ever caught in this civil disobedience that I would be in horrible trouble.

There may not be many of us who don't believe in STUPID MYTHS - and even fewer who are scientists like myself who can see that THERE IS NO NEED FOR SUCH BELIEFS. Yet it is possible to be kind - nay - MORE LIKELY that someone will be kind - without such such beliefs. Look at the mess in the Mideast and other places for deadly demonstrations. Look at the 9/11 event - it was done in the name of the 'god-thingy'.

I find it highly obnoxious that the "god-thingy" is mentioned so frequently in governmental matters and the so-called separation of church and state is a shame and a sham.

Be that as it may, uneducated people should be allowed to believe what they want, though a propoer education in molecular biology, physics, geology, astronomy, thermodynamics and evolutionary theory would be appropriate. Sadly this country does not teach these things properly, and we are at the bottom of the world educational system as a result.

It is completely inappropriate for the Resident of the United States to invoke a non-existent being during his speeches.

Please support and extend this ruling to ALL GOVERNMENTAL STATEMENTS INCLUDING MONEY.

Thank you.

Dr. Thomas D. Schneider

2002 June 29: Some people do not see the point why two words are upsetting. I did not understand why I feel so strongly about this issue until I read Thomas E. Blaylock, jr's THE HONEST MAN'S PHILOSOPHY. It is a blatant attempt to control and enslave people's minds. Effectively it is a form of slavery. Only a few children will resist, those who do will be attacked. Without knowing it they are held as slaves. I deeply resent this and I deeply resent being told it does not matter. To the contrary, it strikes to the heart of what this country professes to be about: Freedom and liberty for all.

Important resources:

"In God We Trust" replaced:

E Pluribus Unum ("out of many, one")
which everyone could accept. Let's go back to it.

Tom Schneider's Home Page
origin: 2002 June 27
updated: 2002 July 1