By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN) – Fox News pundit Dana Perino said she's "tired" of atheists attempting to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, adding, "if these people really don't like it, they don't have to live here."
The co-host of Fox's "The Five" was referring to a suit brought by the American Humanist Association in Massachusetts, where the state's Supreme Judicial Court heard a challenge to the pledge on Wednesday.
The group's executive director, Roy Speckhardt, called the suit "the first challenge of its kind," but Perino begged to differ.
Perino, who was White House press secretary for George W. Bush from 2007-2009, said she recalled working at the Justice Department in 2001 "and a lawsuit like this came through."
The former Bush spokeswoman added that "before the day had finished the United States Senate and the House of Representatives had both passed resolutions saying that they were for keeping ‘under God’ in the pledge."
"If these people don't like it, they don't have to live here," Perino added.
David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, called Perino's comments "bigotry."
"I, for one, am tired of those Christians, like Ms. Perino, who think that equality is somehow un-American," Silverman said. "If Ms. Perino doesn't like being only equal, it is she who will have to leave America to some other country that doesn't value religious liberty."
READ MORE: Famous Atheists and Their Beliefs
In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with atheist Michael Newdow who argued that the words "under God" in the pledge amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling.
Congress added the words "under God" in 1954 amid the red scare over the Soviet Union. In November 2002, after the Newdow ruling, Congress passed a law reaffirming "under God" in the pledge.
Greg Gutfeld, another co-host on "The Five," continued the discussion after Perino, saying the Pledge of Allegiance "is not a prayer, it's a patriotic exercise. In a sense, it's basically saying: Thanks for giving us the freedom to be an atheist."
The Massachusetts case, which was brought by an unidentified family of a student at a school in suburban Boston, will be argued on the premise that the pledge violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution.
READ MORE: Behold, the Six Types of Atheists
It is the first such case to be tried on the state level: All previous attempts have been argued in federal court on the grounds that "under God" was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.
CNN's Kevin Conlon contributed to this report.
This is such a great idea. A friend of mine sent me your url. It's such a good way to engage readers offline and get physical mail which everyone loves. I may should do this after my blog is up and running a bit more.
hz ugg sandals for women size 11-Fashion but won't lose elegance 2013 op ugg sandals for women size 11-Fashion but won't lose elegance 2013 eh ugg sandals for women size 11-Fashion but won't lose elegance 2013 wr ugg brand wiki-ugg-clearance offer xe ugg brand wiki-ugg-clearance offer xk ugg brand wiki-ugg-clearance offer iw nike goadome 10-It worth buying 2013 fp nike goadome 10-It worth buying 2013 jn nike goadome 10-It worth buying 2013
More Info valium good anxiety – buy valium roche uk
I think the last lady speaking is really stupid! Atheists are citizens of the U.S.A thereby making their requests valid. It's not tradition....separation of church and state 101 lady! People have the freedom to say that there is or there isn't a god but when validated by the state that concept no longer makes sense. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson
It is equally true that fundamentalist Christians do not have to live here either. Since they are the ones loudly protesting their disdain - even hatred - for others' beliefs, it is they who should consider finding another country in which to reside. I for one would be delighted to have all those noisy believers living somewhere else, leaving me and mine to believe as we wish in peace and QUIET.
I agree that it should not be in the pledge nor should it be on our currency. Our government should be a neutral government not favoring one religion over another, if this is the case than change it to "in Allah we trust" imagine how angry people would get over that. take a minute to think about that, let it sink in. I do not watch fox news because of things like this. Once a news station stops being neutral then it stops being an accurate news outlet. I think the government should be pushed to change our currency and the pledge and if any religion wants to step up and want to push to change it back than they should have to pay the admission price, you know tax the church. If we did that our national debt would be paid off. So maybe we should push to make that change and we might as well boycott fox news.
I am Catholic, and I am astounded by the blatant bigotry of Fox News. How they stay on the air and use the cover of freedom of speech to take away other peoples' freedom (such as one of religion) is beyond me.
What that "lady" said on Fox is complete and utter horsehockey that driblled from her yellow press mouth but I dont believe as an Atheist that the phrase "Under God" violates my religion. When I was a child in elementary school I just wouldnt say it.
emin , overzag een campagne om it.today stoppen , lijkt het erop dat de campagne geslaagd is . na twee jaar van arrestaties , heropvoeding programma's , en media- aanvallen de meest uitgebreide sinds 1989 het tiananmen-plein hardhandig optreden tegen het grootste deel van de sekte top van de leiders zijn in kampen of achter de tralies . het is geschat dat tientallen misschien wel honderdduizenden aanhangers nog steeds , maar ze zijn diep onder de grond en de praktijk gegaan bij home.on 22 juli , de tweede verjaardag van de officile campagne tegen falun gong , maar vier demonstranten werden uitgezwaaid door de politie van het tiananmen uitgevoerd plein een getuigenis van de staat succes tegen wat zij termen een kwade cult.it ' s een uitputtingsslag , zegt een westerse expert die weigerde te identificeren . falun gong is creatief geweest en heeft de macht blijven ver voorbij wat de mensen dachten . maar als een georganiseerde protestbeweging het is eigenlijk verpletterd
vraagt een man , wijzend naar de tweede planter . het is de alula , die alleen op kauai . net als veel hawaaanse planten , hebben de aantallen gedaald tot een gevaarlijk lage aantallen . maar door de inspanningen van ntbg en anderen , de plant is met succes gepropageerd en daadwerkelijk ervaren een bescheiden comeback.hawaii heeft meer bedreigde planten dan ergens anders op aarde , zegt ntbg directeur chipper wichman , waardoor we een hot spot voor behoud en een echt onschatbare nationale bron om tropische flora.our tour opbrengst van de natie te bewaren door de allerton garden , de meest sier-en formele van de ntbg tuin plaatsen . een netwerk van onverharde paden en lavasteen trap leidt ons door een mozaek van woonkamers samengesteld junglelike gebladerte : oversized heliconia , reuze anthurium , en schitterende epifytische orchideen die hardnekkig vasthouden aan schaduwrijke monkeypod trees.trails weven door torenhoge gingers , langs ruisende waterwegen en ke
Jimmy Choo Ugg Laarzen
boren en getogen in chicago , de twee onlangs met pensioen om de nieuwste sun city in huntley , ongeveer 45 mijl ten noorden van downtown.here , zeggen ze, ze hebben het beste van beide werelden volop schone lucht en zonsondergangen , en gemakkelijke toegang tot wereldklasse musea en broadway shows.chicago is een spannende plek om te zijn , zegt mevrouw voss , die ook meegenomen in een aantal zeer goede vrienden was ze niet bereid om haar man leave.says , ik hou echt van het klimaat warm weer is echt monotonous.being verveelt door al die zon is nauwelijks een probleem in minnesota , waar de andersons zijn hun derde winter doorbrengen op ottertail lake.it voelt als ons eerste , zegt mevrouw anderson . de afgelopen twee winters waren zo zacht , we hadden niet eens tot het afsluiten van de snowblower.the echtpaar is niet bereid op te geven gewoon nog niet . ze hak op de tak over de schilderachtige icehouses op het meer , genieten van de lineless supermarkten en de dagelij
e jongens in kon krijgen , het touw en ladder klaarzitten , en toen ik deed voor de eerste keer in de jubelende enthousiasme van de onafhankelijkheid , de ds. m. caruthers , minister , klom de lange ladder omstreeks middernacht het brengen van een emmer van warme chocolademelk , papieren bekertjes , en melasse cookies . verschillende fourths later , ds. james william law graham , opvolger van de heer caruthers , bij ons een jaar aan de bel over.it roll was ook een gewoonte in freeport op de stad wegnivelleermachine , of george bartol 's stoom haypress zetten , op het dak van een van beide de grove street school of boomer dunphy 's smederij , iets wat een score van jongens kon doen in een paar minuten , maar die een bemanning van mannen , een portaal en een paar paarden om ongedaan te maken in daylight.there vereist werd ook een schilderachtige gewoonte in die dagen aan een stok van gewaxt dynamiet in natte breeuwwerk wrap , met een zekering opknoping beneden , en ontpl
Ugg Draai Cuuf handschoenen
spoor je wel helemaal?
As an atheist, the people who would sue over this are giving us all a bad name. They need to tolerate the traditions of this country, even if they are of a religious nature. If they don't want to speak the pledge of allegiance, they should have the freedom not to. However they should not have the right to strip people of their freedom of religion. Activists of any sort tend to be just as bad as those they protest. They are just extremists in the opposite side of the spectrum.
Nope, I disagree completely. I doubt you are really an Atheist too.
Heres why I disagree, the whole "Under God" thing lends credibility to religion that it does not deserve, it lends the acknowledgement of government.
These words weren't added "because of the Red Scare" they were added because Christians are very well funded busybodies.
Also, I don't think that we can call something that came about in 1954 a "Tradition"
Having "Under God" in the pledge is NOT about Religious Freedom to begin with. The original pledge did not have it in there (and the pledge was written by a BAPTIST PREACHER). "Under God" was placed into the pledge during the 50's and the whole "Red Scare" (Look up McCarthyism during the 1950's). When people were constantly pointing at others and yelling "You Communist!"
I honestly don't care if it's in there or not... but to say that removing it somehow steps on anothers religious freedom is extremely ignorant of what Religious Freedom actually is.
No one is attacking people's freedom of religion. No one is saying that individuals won't be allowed to pray, or say the "under God" version of the pledge. Freedom from Religion activists are simply arguing that the *government* shouldn't be able to *force* people to do it (and a public school teacher telling a student to do something is force – it's excercising the authority of the government over the individual in a way that implicitly sanctions religion over non-religion, which violates the establishment clause of the first amendment). Same with things like nativity scenes on courthouse lawns, or placards with the ten commandments – atheists argue for equality – that firstly, the government should not provide funding for religious symbols, and also that if the symbols of one religion are allowed there should be a procedure in place to allow the symbols of other organizations to *also* be displayed, regardless of religious affiliation. However, no atheist lawsuit that I'm aware of has *ever* argued against being able to display privately funded religious symbols on private property – you still have a right to a nativity scene. We just don't want it to be funded by the government and permanently affixed to the courthouse steps.
LOL. That's a funny statement! Yet ANOTHER gem by Faux Noise!
The irony of all this-oft repeated-is the original pledge was written by a Baptist minister who deliberately left out any reference to god. Taken a step further, the inclusion of the "under God" section was done during the McCarthy led 50s red scare. One of the more shameful and paranoid times of the last century.
I think our "Global Warming" times are much more paranoid than the Red Scare.
People living within defined religions want to be free to believe what they believe. They are proud of what they believe, and it gives them a sense of righteousness. They take this benchmark of righteousness and use it as a gauge to measure the rest of the world. If something doesn't measure up, it is wrong–inferior–a threat. Since they know whats right, they will enlighten those who don't. And if the unenlightened don't heed the word, there must be sanctions.
On the other side of the coin you have those who don't buy into deities and religion. It doesn't make logical sense to them, and they marvel at those who follow their beliefs. For that reason, they strongly resist those that proselytize their faith. The two groups are at an impasse. And one can't tolerate the other. Someone has to be wrong. It must be the other guy.
Knowing this has caused more wars, oppressions, murders, and other acts of intolerance and violence than any other single issue. Even more than greed, money, or power. People kill for material things. People commit genocide for religion. This is why separation of church and state is paramount. We need to force ourselves to be tolerant of others faiths or lack thereof, and stop trying to convert the world to our sense of Nirvana. Keep it to yourself.
The fallacy you buy into is that religion is at all valid. It is not, when you look at it in a neutral light, religion fails multiple tests of truth.
Eloquently stated, unfortunately you missed a major point and your post makes little sense because of it. It is the religious who have caused all religion-related violence in the past. When is the last time there was an atheistic uprising or a secular revoltion? Think before you post.
Atheist massacres: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Historically, religion has killed more, but atheism kills too. To murder is human.
Again, NONE of those people were Atheist. They were people who thought that they were living gods.
That's not a list of atheists... it is a list of men. Did they kill becuase they were men? None of those people killed in the name of their atheist anymore than Stalin and Hitler killed in the name of their mustaches.
Religion actually does direct people to fight and kill one anonother, atheism simply does not.
Don't try to 'church them up'. At the end of the day, they didn't believe in God, they embraced State-sponsored atheism, and had millions murdered for no other reason than that they believed in God.
Bull. They killed millions of people because they thought that they were living gods and that their positions on subjects were the only right ones, thereby allowing them to justify killing large groups of people.
I couldn't agree with you more. Tolerance is key. People have every right to believe what they want to believe or to not believe, all together. Accepting that others' beliefs may differ from yours is essential to maintaining peace. Unfortunately, intolerance breeds contempt.
What is amazing to me is that we have witnessed in our lifetimes an extreme example of why religion and state should be separate – the Taliban – and yet somehow it STILL does not register in people's brains why combining the two is a bad idea.
When you're in the group who's religion is being supported, I understand why you think it's good, but try to put yourselves in one of the minority group's shoes for a change. Or if that's too hard, think about if our leaders wanted to implement Sharia law. It's essentially the same thing you're doing to these minority groups. You are forcing them to do stuff YOU believe in – not them.
It does not register because each religion believes it is the truth and the more correct way. Religion in its base form was supposed to be about living together equally and peacefully with each other. In its present interpretations it is about control and power and who is right. In that form none of it is right. Hatred and war is against humanity.
The United Kingdom has a state sponsored church. You think maybe the violence associated with the Taliban is the result of something else?
Isn't the issue that of "sponsor" versus "mandate?" The political system in England doesn't seem to care all that much what you do about their "state sponsored religion." That's not the case in several muslim dominated countries.
You may not have noticed, but there's a subtle difference between a state-sponsored religion optionally available to the general public, and a government run entirely by religious fanatics whose sole purpose is complete subordination of the entire human race.
Israel is a nation state. In which almost all are of Jewish descent and it is their national and official religion. They are very well mannered, respected, and even honored individuals. They have no intentions of forcing religion upon no one. But the procedures are influenced on a guidline imposed by the good book. Which is what we need. Government stability, Leadership, and those who continue to fall under corruption to be taken out of power and replaced with men and women that can ensure the well being of the people are met.
Bull. Look at what they are doing to the Palestinians and then try to say what you just spouted with a straight face.
She's spot on freddo. As to you, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
Nah, Dana's just a right wing hottie airhead who's probably still blowing The Shrub.
Dana Perino can go screw herself.
I agree but I'd watch.
Some people just do not understand the separation of church and state. It was adopted by our founding fathers for a reason as they saw the dangers in religion in government. I guess the same could be said to her if you do not like freedom from religion you also can leave and live in a country where they are unable to separate religion from government. There should be no references to god in any government building, courthouse, or any other public place. Keep your religion in your churches and in your homes where it belongs.
Actually if one goes back and looks at the belief system of many of our founding fathers, the faith they had in God, exemplified in both their words and deeds, is impressive. Those in positions of leadership in our society must familiarize themselves with the religions of all their citizens, and they must begin to emphasize the commonalities that unite us as people of faith. Common objectives placed on the forefront of public policies will help people work together and bond us together as a nation in spite of our religious differences. Even though most Americans believe in God and many have a strong personal faith, political correctness decries public declarations of that faith. If most people believe in God and yet we are afraid to speak of that belief in public, what does that say about the freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for?
"If most people believe in God and yet we are afraid to speak of that belief in public, what does that say about the freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for?"
Everyone poops, yet everyone knows better than to do it while standing in line at the bank. Declaiming religious nonsense in public is the same as pooping in public. It's repulsive, and it stinks.
I feel the same way about environmentalism.
One of the reasons I believe that every education should be firmly grounded in science and engineering. You may very well be a smart lawyer, but you seem to lack an understanding of science.
Perhaps you should look into many of the negative statements of many of the founding fathers against the bible and Christianity. Be prepared to read for quite a while and try not to be too shocked.
The phrase "In God We Trust" was added to U.S. coins in 1864 but was not added to printed currency until 1957. It was adopted as an alternate to the "E Pluribus Unum" unofficial motto in 1956. As others noted, the country ran quite well before these changes, as well as after them. Symbolism rather than substance.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.