home
RSS
September 9th, 2013
03:29 PM ET

Fox News host: Atheists 'don't have to live here'

By Daniel BurkeCNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(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.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Atheism • Belief • Church and state • Courts • Culture wars • News media • Schools • TV

soundoff (7,255 Responses)
  1. AE

    ...with liberty (the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views) and justice for ALL.

    September 9, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      Exactly.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
      • niknak

        Is this one word answer day for you Dave?

        Let me guess, "yes" is next.

        September 9, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Nope.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
        • niknak

          Dang!
          I was gonna go with "nope," but changed at the last second.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          If you said nope, I would have said yes. A Catch-22 to rival Yossarian himself!

          September 9, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
        • niknak

          You are a tough guy to pin down.

          September 9, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Vic,

      what's your distinction between robot and android?

      And yet presumably you think it's essential for people to be indentically-minded sheeple in the lord's flock.

      September 9, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Ooops – posted in the wrong spot (somehow).

        September 9, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
      • gggeflat

        Androids are robots designed to appear human. Different from cyborgs which are a fusion of living tissue and robotic/mechanical technology.

        September 9, 2013 at 5:42 pm |
      • Roxy

        The geek is strong here.

        September 12, 2013 at 1:43 am |
  2. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    I'm tired of Dana Perino. She doesn't have to live here either.

    September 9, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
  3. Vic

    We are full-fledged humans by design no matter what heights we reach. We can never become robots nor androids!

    September 9, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      Who designed us? Larry King?

      September 9, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
      • Vic

        Almighty God, the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit formed/designed and created us.

        September 9, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Nope.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
        • niknak

          You have zero proof of that statement Vic.
          Those things only exist in your head.

          But keep on believing, the religious scammers need fools like you to keep the scam going.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
        • John Jacobson

          So, what proof do you have to support your claim,or is it only "faith"?

          September 9, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
        • ME II

          A committee... that figures.

          September 9, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
        • Mphlyer

          Vic,
          Your absolutely right! For those of you who say there is no proof in what he says...You wouldn't believe even if there was proof. Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

          September 10, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
        • Rick

          So says that magical story book, the same type of book that says thor is the god of thunder. There is the same amoutn of proof that Thor exists as your god.

          September 10, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
        • Rick

          So says that magical story book, the same type of book that says thor is the god of thunder. There is the same amount of proof that Thor exists as your god.

          September 10, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
        • Veritas

          Faith = Scripted Imagination

          September 11, 2013 at 8:07 pm |
        • Veritas

          Faith = Brainwashing (very effective on especially little children)

          September 11, 2013 at 8:09 pm |
    • hal 9001

      Vic: "We can never become robots nor androids!"

      Good luck trying, Vic. It will not be easy

      September 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
      • Vic

        I am full-fledged human without trying!

        September 9, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
        • fintastic

          We all are Vic... and no imaginary gods required.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      REPOSTED

      @Vic,

      what's your distinction between robot and android?

      And yet presumably you think it's essential for people to be indentically-minded sheeple in the lord's flock.

      September 9, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
      • Vic

        A robot is totally an automated machine whereas an android is a fictional half-human and half-robot.

        That is a metaphor for that we have human nature regardless of how technologically and legally advanced we become. Some people keep exploiting the "unconstitutional" loophole on issues like this one, while it maybe true, most don't accept it from a human stand point!

        September 9, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
        • Robert

          Actually a robot isn't necessarily automated, it can still be manually controlled. A robot is merely a mechanical tool that only follows its basic programming. An android should be able to take multiple sources of data and apply basic logical algorhythms and extrapolate meaning. An android may or may not become self aware based on the limits of their programming and processing capacities.

          September 10, 2013 at 10:54 am |
        • Dippy

          It's "algorithms."

          September 11, 2013 at 1:13 am |
  4. Tolerance is a choice!

    If you don't want to say 'under God' then why you don't you take a deep breath and pause for a second while others say 'under God' and continue with the rest of the pledge?

    September 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • Dr. Tripp

      Atheists are not used to breathing exercises. 😉

      September 9, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      Or why not just get rid of the pledge? Making kids announce their national devotion daily is like something out of Nazi Germany.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
      • TC

        Are you really comparing the Pledge Of Allegiance to Nazi Germany? Do you really believe that? Are you that STUPID?

        September 10, 2013 at 10:47 am |
        • some guy

          Sure Even Nazi Youth had a pledge. So do american or russian or english or Indian or Pakistani, or Israeli or french or South African or Chinese. Time has come to stop indoctrination of youth. As any indoctrination of youth only ruins human evolution. All this nationalism shall pass too. Just like clans, then Villages, then tribes, then vassals , then religion and then Race and finally Nation. Its all a phase.

          September 10, 2013 at 11:39 am |
        • bluenoser33

          i think a direct comparison is a far fetched, but if you look at the argument objectively, you can make a correlation. both 1930's germany, and contemporary america could be classified as jingoist, albeit with different approaches.

          September 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
        • MM

          You are aware that comparisons with Nazi Germany can be completely valid even though you don't like the comparison, right?

          September 10, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
        • Sean

          Have you ever seen the first proposed 'salute' during the Pledge of Allegiance? it was called a 'Bellamy Salute', look it up. Fortunately, they changed it to hand over the heart.

          September 10, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
      • Amy

        Allegiance should not even be sworn by children in which are not old enough to understand..Get rid of the entire pledge until a person of age knows what they are saying.

        September 10, 2013 at 11:36 am |
        • Sean

          With that logic they shouldn't pray or threatened with eternal damnation or salvation. We should wait until they are old enough to make up their own minds. However, that would eliminate the prime brainwashing period, so I guess that is out of the question.

          September 10, 2013 at 9:56 pm |
        • Britta

          Wonderful comment, you just said it all!

          September 12, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • G to the T

      Beacuse the pledge should be applicable to everyone. One group or another shouldn't have to modify the pledge as they say it to feel honest about what they are saying.

      Ironically – we're on the side of religious liberty if only people would stop and think about it for a second...

      September 9, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
      • Tom

        Don't have to modify the Pledge? Let me remind you that a modification of the pledge did occur. The latest was in 1954 when "under god" was added.

        September 10, 2013 at 6:55 am |
        • Amy

          The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

          In its original form it read:

          "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

          September 10, 2013 at 11:40 am |
        • Sean

          Tom, I think he meant you shouldn't have to modify it while you are saying it; not referring to the larger changing it by law.

          September 10, 2013 at 10:02 pm |
      • SouthernCelt

        OK, so let's get it on the ballot and everybody votes. 80% vote for no change since they believe, 10% (generous, I know) vote for change since they don't and the other 10% don't care enough to vote either way. Majority still rules in this country so the naysayers lose. Get over it.

        September 10, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Foxy Maxxy

      Good point, we are forced to listen to those atheists cussing all day long!

      It's so offensive to us that our ear drums have ruptured hearing such filth.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
      • doobzz

        Way to miss the point, Maxi Pad.

        September 9, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
        • Foxxy Maxxy

          Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
        • doobzz

          Maxi Pad

          Comparing the denial of religious freedom to hearing a cuss word is ridiculous. You must be quite the delicate little hothouse flower.

          September 9, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
        • Foxy Maxxy

          Your calendar age is disproportionately higher than your mental age, you should get treated to get caught up.

          September 9, 2013 at 6:54 pm |
        • doobzz

          Maxi Pad

          So far all you've managed are a few weak attempts at insulting me. Good job.

          September 9, 2013 at 7:40 pm |
      • RC

        What the he ll does cussing have to do with this topic? OOPS!

        September 10, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
      • SouthernCelt

        You could always turn it off, unless you prefer the aggravation.

        September 10, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
      • Sean

        Because Christians _never_ cuss. I am an atheist and I have an aversion to swearing; primarily because it makes the person who is swearing sound really ignorant.

        September 10, 2013 at 10:04 pm |
    • doobzz

      So by your logic, if you don't agree with slavery, just don't own slaves?

      You'd have fit in well in the 1800s.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
      • Doodles

        More like, if you don't want abortion, don't have one 🙁

        September 9, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
        • doobzz

          The right to self determination, the right to make your own choices about your health and body, and the right to religious freedom, including the right to no religious beliefs, are basic human rights that every American is guaranteed by our democratic system of government.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
        • Doodles

          That was a pathetic comeback!

          September 9, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
        • niknak

          I rather liked Dobbs comeback.
          And wish more people in this country would follow it.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
        • doobzz

          What about it was pathetic? That humans shouldn't be owned by other humans? That everyone has the right to make their own health care choices? That everyone should be able to practice their beliefs, including no belief at all?

          September 9, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
        • Jack B

          @Doodles-Perfect retort to the nonsense posted.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
        • doobzz

          Thanks, niknak!

          September 9, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
        • Doodles

          Thanks Jack, calling it out on its absurdity!

          September 9, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
        • doobzz

          @ Jack B

          Do you believe that owning another human is right?

          Do you think people should be forced to donate a kidney to save someone's life?

          Do you approve of forcing people to say they believe in a god when they don't?

          September 9, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
        • doobzz

          Doodles,

          I'm still waiting for you to point out what was pathetic and absurd about my post.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • noelle b

      Wow! Really?! By that logic, why can't the religious just mutter "under god" to themselves?

      And Foxy Maxxy, you might wanna see a doctor if your ear drums have ruptured from simple linguistic combinations. That sounds like a pretty serious condition. And you do realize that damn is in your 'good book'...multiple times. Do your ear drums bleed when your religious leaders read these verses aloud or do they magically know the belief system of the speaker?

      September 9, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • doobzz

      Why don't we put a different deity in every day and you can just take a breath when it's not your deity's day in the spotlight?

      Sunday – God

      Monday – no reference to a deity

      Tuesday – Allah

      Wednesday – Adi Parashakti

      Thursday – Buddha

      Friday – rotating list of other deities

      Saturday – Yahweh

      September 9, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
      • niknak

        Maybe we could have a daily special god, or gods. Kinda like a happy hour god.
        But I dig the concept.

        September 9, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
      • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

        Sunday's god is non-specific. Is that like a free-for-all?

        September 9, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
        • doobzz

          I meant the Christian god. I used the word "God" rather than "god", but that probably wasn't specific enough.

          September 9, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
      • Andy

        HHmm...seems a few of those days are really for the same god...could we go with Allah/Yahweh/God day, and add in maybe Ra and possibly Thor...both great gods as far as gods go...

        September 10, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
      • celusil

        we need more days for santa claus and the easter bunny

        September 10, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
      • Sean

        But I want FSM on one of those days.....

        September 10, 2013 at 10:06 pm |
    • brian

      Or adjust the pledge to how it was when it was written in 1892. When the only thing you change about it was adding the words "under god" in 1954 during the McCarthy era, perhaps the purpose of that change is primarily to show fealty to a certain set of religions.

      September 9, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • Imma Annoid

      I have actually done that and pseudo-christian next to me go mad.

      Face it, christians are ignorant by definition and they need to stop forcing their ignorance on other people. You want to pray? Go to church and leave my kids out of it.

      September 10, 2013 at 7:21 am |
      • imbones

        Can't the same be said for you atheists always trying to cram your beliefs down our throats? You people are a bunch of hypocrites. You want everyone to tolerate your beliefs or lack of beliefs or whatever fuels you, but you can't tolerate our beliefs? That's the very definition of hypocrisy. At least we Christians don't have to prove ourselves by going to court to get God's name added to things that don't have His name. You want to be respected? Respect others.

        September 10, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
        • MM

          "You want everyone to tolerate your beliefs or lack of beliefs or whatever fuels you, but you can't tolerate our beliefs?"

          So ... wait ... you want the Pledge to include references to your God, yet atheists are the ones cramming beliefs down your throat?

          Guess what? Your right to cast others as inferior is subordinate to my right to live as an equal member of society.

          Dr. Hypocrite, heal thyself.

          September 10, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
        • Eric

          Atheists are not asking for under no god to replace under god in our pledge. That would be the same as cramming a belief in a god down someone else's throat. We would be no better than fundamentalists zealots if we were to try that. We are simply asking for your god not to be shoved down atheists throats, muslims throats, secular humanist throats, and anyone who follows a feminine deity to not have your masculine god shoved down their throat in what is supposed to be a secular setting i.e. public school. The argument that atheists and the like do not have to say the pledge of allegiance is a weak one at best as it marginalizes those that do not believe in your god or any goddess or god for that matter to the status of unpatriotic and most of us can remember that public school was not the easiest for everyone to get through with all the drama already in place because we were too fat, too skinny, or too whatever. We certainly do not need to have too unpatriotic to that list simply because we do not follow your particular state sponsored religion. Separation of church and state... its a thing of the past, but one many still cling to and hope to bring back.

          September 10, 2013 at 5:45 pm |
  5. doobzz

    Not surprising. This morning, Fox Business News television personality Dagen McDowell took selfies on camera during her program. Even her cohost Connell McShane finally said, "You do realize that you're on air, right?" to which she said "I know, I don't care."

    It's like watching a bad comedy routine.

    September 9, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • huh?

      You mean the blonde Polish girl always looking at papers and her phone while the Cup of Joe guy with no socks babbles on. CNN is the joke.

      September 9, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
      • doobzz

        No, I think I was pretty clear that it was a Fox Business News personality who was taking her own picture and acting like such a fool that her cohost called her out.

        Here's another one of her gems – "Fox's Dagen McDowell On Walmart Leading To Mom And Pop Shops Closing: "Ma And Pa Need To Get Over It"

        http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/03/09/foxs-dagen-mcdowell-on-walmart-leading-to-mom-a/192993

        September 9, 2013 at 7:49 pm |
  6. Sabrina

    You know, religious minorities are supposed to have EQUAL rights and respect. We shouldn't be told to get out just because we are asking for you to consider our existence in a Christian-Privileged society. Is it really that horrifying that someone who is NOT privileged with the same dignity as the majority, would ask for a small change to accommodate the ENTIRE population of non-Christians? It is a simple 2 words that would be removed for the sake of the dignity of thousands. Get off your high horse and lower your nose a bit please.

    September 9, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      Technically, we're an a-religious minority. Also, it shouldn't be removed for our sake, it should be removed to safeguard the separation of church and state.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
      • G to the T

        Correct HAL – it should be changed so that everyone is included, not just those with a specific philosophical outlook.

        September 9, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Exactly.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
      • Sabrina

        uh, yeah. That's exactly what I just said. It isn't just the Atheists who would benefit. It would benefit ALL Americans who are not Christian. And last I checked, somewhere around 22% of the population are not Christian. That is a whole lot of people that they are taking priority over for a pledge that is being recited by the entire nation. So who is being more insulting here, the atheists or the Christians?

        September 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
        • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

          Well, Under God doesn't necessarily apply to Christians (even though it's obviously intended for Christians), it could apply to any monotheist. Also, I know many Christians who oppose Under God in the pledge and having In God We Trust on their greenbacks, because they respect the const.itution. Even if 100% of the population were Christian, the First Amendment should remain safeguarded.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
  7. Apple Bush

    Each one of us who stands up for freedom rather than the status quo should be recognized as true patriots.

    I am raising my kids to be militant atheists and to understand why these issues matter. Teach your kids to IDENTIFY and then STOP the bullshitters.

    September 9, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • TC

      Enjoy burning in hell!

      September 10, 2013 at 10:49 am |
      • rawr

        So entirely irrational that it hurts my head to think about. So your all-loving, all-knowing god created a human, imbuing them with the ability to form their own rational thoughts. And yet, if you exercise your mind as you were given by your supposed creator, but happen to come up with a different answer, this all-loving, all-knowing deity consigns you to eternal torment? Are you on crack? God: "here's some free will, now disregard that and do exactly as i say, or else..." It's a joke.

        September 10, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
      • SouthernCelt

        Since they don't believe in God it follows that they don't believe in Hell either. BIG surprise coming but pointless to warn them.

        September 10, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
  8. palintwit

    Sarah Palin supporters are the very definition of low information voters. They watch Fox, a proven source of misinformation. Studies show Fox watchers think they are well informed but are factually deficient.

    September 9, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      Name one News source that isn't tainted by opinion or politics. There is no such thing as unbiased news anymore.

      September 10, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
  9. Don B

    Being asked (explicitly or implicitly) to leave your country over your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) was a huge part of the historical origin of this nation. Perhaps Ms Perino needs to refresh her memory on American history.

    September 9, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Contemporary evangelical Christians are quite talented at rewriting history to suit their narrative.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
    • G to the T

      I'm not surprised. Her old boss went so far as to say that atheists shoudn't be considered citizens...

      September 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
      • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

        I believe it was H.W who said that, not W.

        September 9, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
        • fintastic

          It was GW.

          September 9, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
        • fyi

          fintastic,

          It was Bush, Sr. who allegedly said it.

          No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.… I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

          Attributed by Robert I. Sherman, reporting about a public press conference Bush held at O'Hare Airport on 27 August 1987 just after announcing his candidacy for president. No other journalists have confirmed or contradicted Sherman's account of the exchange.

          http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

          September 9, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
      • doobzz

        @ fyi

        "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.… I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

        So you don't think atheists should be considered citizens of the USA just because you don't particularly like atheists?

        September 9, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
        • fyi

          Uh, I was simply clarifying which Bush said it.

          September 9, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      Ah yes, the Pilgrims who left England for religious freedom and then wouldn't give it to anyone else who came after them

      September 10, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
  10. Justin H

    And people wonder why atheists have become increasingly outspoken and intolerant of religion.

    September 9, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

      Being intolerant of religion is a tedious endeavor. Being intolerant of religious extremism is a necessity.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
      • SouthernCelt

        It depends on how you define religious extremism. After all there are some that call The Pope an extremist.

        September 10, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
  11. Pee Splatter

    I'd splatter all over Perino for saying that. I might even shake on her.

    September 9, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      She mike me into that splatter man.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:00 pm |
  12. mongo28

    Wait. Did she just say those children were being used as pawns to promote their parents beliefs and she found it selfish? Hee hee! Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot!

    September 9, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
    • Ben f

      right!?!?!?!

      September 9, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • sam

      That was an unusually heavy dose of delicious irony.

      September 9, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
      • SouthernCelt

        Unless they were made with copper clad aluminum 🙂

        September 10, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
  13. AE

    If I pledge allegiance to a flag, I can't seriously believe I am following Jesus commandments.

    “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:33-37)

    September 9, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • fintastic

      Quotes from the fairytale bible and misinformation from fox news....... wow...... doesn't get any better.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:54 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      Read a little farther where He Says, Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. Just do your best and go to Confession when you need to, or at least twice a year.

      September 10, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
  14. Daniel Beerthuis

    Reblogged this on Politically Activated.

    September 9, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
  15. joncraft84

    Reblogged this on Handicap and commented:
    Under God comes out of their mouth to, just like it comes out of mine. If they don't like how it's written they can just skip that part but then again to each their own. If they want to mess it up they can mess it up. If they want to not say it, they can choose not to say it. But I will continue to say Under God in this household and my children will be taught to say Under God. But again to each their own prerogative
    .

    September 9, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • Ben f

      with that logic, it could have something about the white race being supreme, but those that dont believe it dont have to say it and it's all okay....

      September 9, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
      • joncraft84

        So what you are telling is we should take "under God"out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Isn't that the whole purpose for saying the pledge to recognize that we are all one nation under God? If we take "under God" out then is one nation that has no leader. So replace 'under God" with the president's name. That doesn't make sense to leave those words out either. So what should we do? What are we going to do if that happens? Because if we say the president's name, it would be like we're under a ruler. Isn't that why we came to the United States so we did not have to live under a king?

        September 10, 2013 at 1:27 am |
        • Doug

          We'll say it just like it used to be said, before "under god" was added in 1954. That's the right, honest way to say it.

          Not this abomination of a national pledge which attempts to take away that of which our forefathers fought and died for, only to attribute the entire reason of their sacrifices to something that a protected minority do not subscribe to.

          September 10, 2013 at 9:14 am |
        • joncraft84

          I agree with you. Say it like it used to be said before under god was added, and then nobody should have a reason to complain. If they do they are just petty picking.

          September 10, 2013 at 11:31 am |
        • joncraft84

          I am all right with the old way as long as we don't loose our founding fathers meaning. My question to you is how are we going to teach the children and ones who have never said the Pledge the old way? I don't think I know the old way.

          September 10, 2013 at 11:58 pm |
        • Are you Nuts

          But "Under God" is NOT the whole point of the Pledge. If you did a little research you would find that those words were added during the McCarthy era and were not part of the ORIGINAL pledge. The United States is not a Christian nation - why you may be the majority, you are not the only religious group here! You say "Isn't that the whole purpose for saying the pledge to recognize that we are all one nation under God? If we take "under God" out then is one nation that has no leader." That isn't the purpose at all, and God is NOT my leader, nor is he the leader of this country.

          September 10, 2013 at 9:24 am |
        • joncraft84

          This my reply to both of your comments. So what you are telling me is that you will follow anybody whose in authority. What about your boss, how about the law these are people in authority. What it sounds like to me is that you do not follow anyone in authority. Because somebody has to be in authority of this country. Even if you do not like how they rule, you have to accept their leadership during their term. If you do not like the way we say the Pledge you can go back and say the old fashion way. Just as long we don't loose anything implied by our founding fathers. I understand what you are saying about God. But wouldn't you think life would be a little easier to accept people in authority if you got to know God a little better? Even President Obama in his speech requested blessings from God on this nation and people tonight.

          September 11, 2013 at 12:39 am |
        • G to the T

          @ Are You Nuts – Hell, if he'd just READ the article he would have known that! Ignorance knows no bounds...

          September 10, 2013 at 9:56 am |
        • Observer

          joncraft84,

          "But wouldn't you think life would be a little easier to accept people in authority if you got to know God a little better?"

          Getting to know more about God and the BIble has created many atheists and agnostics.

          September 11, 2013 at 12:43 am |
    • G to the T

      Did you read the article? The pledge was change in the 50's in response to McCarthy-ism – one of the darkest times in America's civil liberities and you want to defend one of it's outcomes just because it happens to "jive" with what you believe?

      September 9, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
      • joncraft84

        I understand where you are coming from. But if everybody takes it out of the pledge would not be a victory for the atheists? What I think is if they don't like the part " under God" they can just not say it out. That way it would show no partisan for either side. It would not be taking it out for those wanting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It would change the whole context for saying it and maybe it would ruin the purpose of saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

        September 10, 2013 at 1:08 am |
        • Are you Nuts

          How does leaving it there and letting them 'not say it' make it nonpartisan in any way? Take the words out and the Christians should be confident enough in their faith to know the world won't end because of it.

          September 10, 2013 at 9:26 am |
        • G to the T

          No Jon – it would be a victory for EVERYONE. The entire idea of Civil/Religious Liberty is to ensure it's as inclusive as possible. But NOT including that phrase, you make the pledge MORE inclusive. Right now, it basically says that if you don't believe in god you are either 1) not american or 2) a liar (as you are taking a pledge you don't believe in the entirely of).

          Taking this OUT of the pledge INCREASES religious liberty for EVERYONE.

          September 10, 2013 at 9:59 am |
        • joncraft84

          I get what you are saying. I think we should go back to the original Pledge that did not say under God. So long as you do not loose the founding fathers meaning.

          September 11, 2013 at 12:53 am |
        • Observer

          joncraft84

          "I get what you are saying. I think we should go back to the original Pledge that did not say under God. So long as you do not loose the founding fathers meaning."

          The Pledge wasn't even in existence 100 years AFTER we came a country. Forefathers had nothing to do with it.

          September 11, 2013 at 12:58 am |
        • joncraft84

          Okay you stumped me. We should figure out a better way to do the Pledge of Allegiance. Because I think it is necessary to keep the country together. I don't know how we should do it but I think it is necessary.

          September 11, 2013 at 1:15 am |
        • Observer

          joncraft84

          "Okay you stumped me. We should figure out a better way to do the Pledge of Allegiance. Because I think it is necessary to keep the country together. I don't know how we should do it but I think it is necessary."

          Easy. Take "under God" out. It's disgraceful that the many nonbelievers/Buddhists, etc. who fought and died for our nation would be required to honor a religion they don't believe in so they can show their allegiance to our country.

          September 11, 2013 at 1:22 am |
      • SouthernCelt

        Obamacare doesn't tread on Civil Liberties? One man's liberty is another man's outrage

        September 10, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
        • G to the T

          LOL... you seem to assume I'm a democrat or something. No I think AHA is good idea in principle, but goes about it completely the wrong way (top down instead of bottom up).

          September 12, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      joncraft
      The pledge as it was originally written by a pastor made no reference to any god. It included all Americans. In the fifties, it was changed, to exclude all who do not believe in gods. Violating the first amendment, congressed passed a law respecting the establishment of religion. No justice has had the guts to stand up to the religious majority to correct this clear violation of congresses power.

      If you claim anyone is re-writing it, it was the christians, and it is high time to put it back to the correct way it was written.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
      • joncraft84

        Richard Cranium,
        I am a die-hard Christian myself. Now as I think about the comment I make earlier, I think you are right. It is high time we get some credit back. Better yet, if more people realized what we, Christians, are all about. came to know God. This world would be a better place. We have so many different churches that I believe as long as you know God in your heart He will save you. Usually atheist people have people around them that are trying to convert them. Because they don't want them to go hell.

        September 10, 2013 at 12:25 am |
        • G to the T

          That's fine jon and you are certainly welcome to your beliefs, but the pledge of allegence should NOT be a tool for prostelytizing (that's pretty much the definition of separation of church and state). It should be representative of ALL americans, not just one particular theological view.

          September 10, 2013 at 10:02 am |
        • SouthernCelt

          Glad to hear it. I'd rather be a die-easy Christian, e.g after Confession, the Last Rites and a mild heart attack while I sleep. Jesus created One Church. I am sure He is dismayed by all the factions since then.

          September 10, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
  16. Reality

    And what else has taken place "under god"?

    Number of god's creations who died horrible deaths from the following diseases:

    1. 300,000,000 approx.
    Smallpox

    2. 200,000,000 ?
    Measles

    3. 100,000,000 approx.
    Black Death

    4. 80,000,000–250,000,000
    Malaria

    5. 50,000,000–100,000,000
    Spanish Flu

    6. 40,000,000–100,000,000
    Plague of Justinian

    7. 40,000,000–100,000,000
    Tuberculosis

    8. 30,000,000[13]
    AIDS pandemic

    9. 12,000,000 ?
    Third Pandemic of Bubonic Plague

    10. 5,000,000
    Antonine Plague

    11. 4,000,000
    Asian Flu

    12. 250,000 or more annually Seasonal influenza

    September 9, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • Reality

      And of course the following have also taken place "under god":

      M. White, http://necrometrics.com/warstatz.htm#u (required reading)

      The Muslim Conquest of India

      "The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "

      Rank …..Death Toll ..Cause …..Centuries……..(Religions/Groups involved)*

      1. 63 million Second World War 20C (Christians et al and Communists/atheists vs. Christians et al, Nazi-Pagan and "Shintoists")

      2. 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C (Communism)

      3. 40 million Genghis Khan 13C (Shamanism or Tengriism)

      4. 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C (Anglican)

      5. 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion)

      6. 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C ( Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion vs. a form of Christianity)

      7. 20 million Joseph Stalin 20C (Communism)

      8. 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C (Islam)

      9. 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C

      10. 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C (Christianity)

      11. 15 million First World War 20C (Christians vs. Christians)

      12. 15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C (Christians vs. Pagans)

      13. 13 million Muslim Conquest of India 11C-18C

      14. 10 million An Lushan Revolt 8C

      15. 10 million Xin Dynasty 1C

      16. 9 million Russian Civil War 20C (Christians vs Communists)

      17. 8 million Fall of Rome 5C (Pagans vs. Christians)

      18. 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C (Christians)

      19. 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C (Christians vs Christians)

      20. 7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C

      September 9, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
      • SouthernCelt

        You forgot Bandwidth wasters.

        September 10, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
      • SouthernCelt

        You also forgot 40 Million dead since Roe v. Wade and the Holocaust continues. (atheists)

        September 10, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
        • G to the T

          You conveniently leave out the fact that the vast majority of those were at the request of christian women...

          September 12, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
  17. Just the Facts Ma'am...

    So she thinks that since some fearful xenophobes added "under God" to the pledge in 1942 that those who don't believe in God should now "get out"? What a sad woman of low intellect.

    September 9, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
    • Just the Facts Ma'am...

      correction: Pledge adopted in 1942, confirmed addition of "under God" by congress in 1954.

      September 9, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • Tim

      Well, it is, after all, Fox News – are you really surprised by this?

      September 9, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • niknak

      What a sad news outlet.
      But the conservative/fundies love it because it brings the red meat, like this woman did.
      You could substi tute black, or hispan ic,or ga y instead of atheist and it would fly just as well on that network.

      September 9, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • Akira

      Exactly. But the people who listen to Fox pundits are low-information voters, and choose to forget that it was originally written without the "Under God" part.
      Just as our official motto was changed from "from one, many", adapted at the time when this nation was being founded by immigrants escaping religious restriction...but don't tell Fox that.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • brian

      Pledge in 1942 : I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

      Adding "Under God" was done in 1954.

      It was originally written in 1892. The other edit, saying the flag is the "flag of the US" and not just "flag" is just adding clarity.

      The question here is what is wrong with the original pledge, and if it was not motivated by those wishing to push upon others their support of religion, why would it add just those 2 words. People keep saying why not just remove those 2 words while you say them, but they actually added those 2 words to a pledge that did not have them. The first version is more inclusive of everyone, even founders like Thomas Payne who were known atheists. We are a country founded on keeping God out of government, and this idea came not from mennonites, but from the extremely religious who were persecuted for how they worshipped god back in Europe.

      September 9, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      Everyone sins. Her's was just public.

      September 10, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
  18. Fidel

    We hear N.Korea is a good place for 'em.

    September 9, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • IslandAtheist

      I don't play basketball.

      September 9, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
    • fintastic

      What's that you say Dennis??

      September 9, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
Advertisement
About this blog

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.