Their survey found that 85 percent of Americans want to keep “under God” in the pledge.
The survey results show little support for changing the pledge, says Scott McConnell, director of LifeWay Research.
“Most Americans have recited the pledge hundreds of times and are not inclined to memorize a different pledge,” said Scott McConnell, director of LifeWay Research. “Changing it may just feel wrong. Most Americans say they believe in God or a higher being and feel comfortable having ‘under God’ in the pledge.”
Earlier this week, the American Humanist Association filed a lawsuit against a New Jersey school district claiming the words “under God” violated the state constitution.
The group says the phrase, added in 1954, “marginalizes atheist and humanist kids as something less than ideal patriots.”
“Public schools should not engage in an exercise that tells students that patriotism is tied to a belief in God,” said David Niose, attorney for the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center. “Such a daily exercise portrays atheist and humanist children as second-class citizens, and certainly contributes to anti-atheist prejudices.”
LifeWay researchers did find one in four Americans (25 percent) believe forcing students to say “under God” violates their rights. But less than one in 10 (eight percent) Americans want to remove “under God” from the pledge.
The study by LifeWay Research also found younger Americans are more likely to support removal of “under God” from the pledge. Fourteen percent of those ages 18-29 want to remove the phrase, compared to five percent of those over 64.
I was in the mood for a ham sandwich the other day so I walked around the corner to my neighborhood market to pick up some provisions.
I snagged a shopping cart with three workable wheels and maneuvered my way through the store humming along to a Muzak menagerie of Mr. Mister and Lionel Richie songs. I stopped for a brief moment in the produce aisle to admire a pair of hipsters as they harmonized to “Say You, Say Me.”
Anyway, after selecting a deli ham, I dropped by condiments aisle to get a jar of spicy mustard along with some bread & butter pickles.
I was about check out when I suddenly remembered that I needed some cheese.
So I made a beeline for the dairy aisle and that’s when I made a startling discovery. I brought my three-wheeled shopping cart to a screeching halt. I came face to face with a massive sign bearing giant letters.
It read: “HISPANIC CHEESE.”
I stared at the display for quite some time. I found myself drifting into an imaginary conversation with a store clerk…
“Do you need some help, sir?”
“Yes. Could you tell me where you keep the Caucasian cheese?”
“I’m sorry, sir but we don’t carry Caucasian cheese – although, we do have a rather nice selection of white cheddars.”
I was tempted to purchase some “Hispanic” cheese, but I feared retribution at the checkout counter. What if the clerk confronted me about trying to purchase a cheese that was contrary to my ethnicity?
“Sir, I’m afraid you’ve violated our tolerance and diversity regulations,” I imagined the clerk saying. “It’s apparent that Hispanic cheese is nacho cheese.”
So to be safe, I decided to purchase American cheese (which is allowed provided you have at least two forms of government identification).
I found the entire episode a bit disconcerting. When did they start segregating the dairy products?
Seeing how President Obama ushered the nation into a post-racial age, you’d think grocery stores would be a bit more sensitive to that kind of thing.
Why single out the Hispanic cheeses?
What about the Italians or the French?
What’s next? Will grocery stores separate American cabbage from Bok Choy? Will Basmati rice be allowed to share shelf space with Uncle Ben’s?
Oh, how my taste buds weep for the less fortunate cheese among us.
I recall that delightful song from church days gone by. “Jesus loves the little cheeses, all the cheeses of the world. Swiss and Cheddar, stinky, too. If He loved them, so should you. Jesus loves the little cheeses of the world.”
I hold this truth to be self evident – that all curds are created equal, that they are endowed by their cheese maker with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of a Ritz cracker.
I dream of a day when cheese is not judged by its country of origin but by the content of its butterfat – be it Gouda or Velveeta.
Intolerance is bad for business no matter how you bag it. And in my estimation the only thing worse than intolerance is lactose intolerance.
One major conservative family group is calling on parents to pull their children out of California public schools after the governor signed a law allowing boys and girls access to the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice – regardless of their gender.
Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed AB1266 – seen as a landmark decision for transgender Americans. The new law gives students the right “to participate in sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities” based on their self-perception and regardless of their birth gender.
The law had the support of gay rights groups and many Democrats who said it would help reduce bullying against transgender students. It comes as the families of transgender students have been waging local battles with school districts around the country over what restrooms and locker rooms their children can use.
Detractors like Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com said allowing students of one gender to use facilities intended for the other could invade the other students’ privacy.
“Jerry Brown and the Democrats have targeted every kid in public school with gender-bending brainwashing,” Thomasson said, warning the law would trample parents’ rights and invade the “personal comfort zone of millions of California children for a handful of sexually confused children who need professional counseling.”
Thomasson said parents should consider pulling their children out of California’s public schools.
“Fortunately, parents can protect their children from the insanity of biological boys in girls’ restrooms and girls’ showers and biological girls in boys’ restrooms and boys’ showers by exiting the dysfunctional, immoral public schools for homeschooling and solid church schools,” he said.
“We stand ready and willing to defend anyone who will be victimized as a result of this new law,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “That includes someone whose privacy rights are violated in the bathroom, in the locker room, in the showers, or someone who is prevented from playing on a sports team because someone from the opposite gender took their place.”
Karen England, executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute said the law forces “San Francisco values on all California schools.”
“This is a very radical idea,” she said. “You’re going to have first-grade boys going to the restroom next to first-grade girls without any supervision.”
England said the law would allow students of any gender to access public school bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice. It would also students to participate in sports activities based on “that student’s assertion that he or she identifies as having a different private sense of their own gender regardless of their biological gender at birth.”
San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano said the law simply clarifies existing non-discrimination provisions in the education code. He said districts must offer transgender students equal access to programs and facilities based on their gender identity.
“No student can learn if they feel they have to hide who they are in school,” he said in a statement.
He identified gender identity as a “person’s internal, deeply-rooted identification as male or female.”
England said parents or students who feel uncomfortable with their daughters showering next to boys – are being accused of being bigots.
“And now if a girl doesn’t want to shower with a boy, there’s something wrong with you,” She said.
The assemblyman’s office provided a statement acknowledging that some parents and students may be uncomfortable with the law.
“Discomfort is not an excuse for discrimination,” he said in a statement.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told SF Weekly that California is “blazing the trail for transgender young people and their families.”
“This a watershed moment not only for California, but for the entire nation,” she told the newspaper.”The public’s understanding and acceptance of transgender youth have grown exponentially in the past few years, and today’s law is a huge step forward in ensuring that these young people are truly welcomed and included in our state’s public schools.”
State Republican Sen. Jim Nielsen opposed the law. He said it would violate the privacy of students who don’t want to share restrooms with members of the opposite sex.
“Think of all of the parents and all of the students that would be uncomfortable in this situation, and that a student has no burden but to declare that ‘I want to be in the boys shower or the girls shower’ that day,” he told the Los Angeles Times.
The soldier, who is an evangelical Christian, said she returned home from church on Sunday and was watching a documentary about a minister who endorsed homosexuality.
“I was frustrated with what I saw so I posted a Facebook message about it,” she said.
Her Facebook message read:
“A lot ticked off, now to all my gay friends you know I care about you so don’t think otherwise. I’m watching this documentary and this gay guy went to a church and the Pastor was telling him that he needs to embrace his way and know that it is not a sin. Ok umm wow, dude it is. I’m sick of people making Gods word what it’s not. Yes God loves you as a person but He hates the sin. Tired of hearing about Pastors being ok with homosexuality.”
The 26-year-old chaplain’s assistant said she believes individuals within her unit reported her. On Monday she was ordered to the commander’s office where she was told to either remove the most or face a reduction in rank and pay.
“He said I was creating hostile and antagonistic environment in the unit by posting that on Facebook,” she told Fox News. “He said I needed to either take it down or face a UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).”
So she reached out to Todd Hudnall, her pastor at Radiant Church in Colorado Springs.
“I read what she posted and there was absolutely no trace of animus, disrespect or hostility,” Hudnall told Fox News. “Instead, she expressed love for her gay friends but insisted that biblical values should not be compromised. Her issue wasn’t with anyone who is gay but with pastors who refuse to acknowledge scriptural teaching about homosexual behavior.”
The pastor said she was reprimanded for “holding to orthodox biblical instruction.”
“I was struck by the fact that the military was denying her right to privately exercise her freedom of expression and freedom of religion,” Hudnall said.
The pastor said it’s not the first time he’s heard of Christian soldiers facing threats and intimidation over their personal beliefs.
“It sounds more like totalitarianism than keeping with our heritage of liberty,” he said. “I’m becoming quite concerned that we are losing the freedom of speech and religion in the name of tolerance and over shifting norms of morality and behavior.”
“Just because a person wears a uniform does not mean they give up their religious liberties and their ability to speak about matters of faith,” Crews told Fox News.
Crews said the Chaplain Alliance has been in contact with the assistant and said they play on being fully supportive.
But Pastor Hudnall worries about other military men and women who are facing threats for not “lining up with the current accepted ideology.”
“I’m also hearing that many are deciding to back down rather than stand up for their constitutional rights,” Hudnall told Fox News. “A few have told me they are actually thinking about getting out of the military because of it.”
The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week — the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday. But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.
First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.
The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case — I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.
You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.
There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.
And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.
Now, this isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.
And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.
I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.
Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.
I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.
That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation we can’t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff, so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.
Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.
When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.
And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.
So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And let’s figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.
Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.
I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the “stand your ground” laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?
And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.
Number three — and this is a long-term project — we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?
I’m not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I’m not sure that that’s what we’re talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I’ve got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed — I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.
And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.
And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated. But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they’re better than we are — they’re better than we were — on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country.
And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we’re becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.
The principal at Grosse Pointe High School said students will need a permission slip from parents to attend the April 24th address.
“I’ve learned some things here. I wish we could wind back the clock a bit on this,” Principal Matt Outlaw told The Associated Press.
“I spoke to the senator. I apologized for the situation,” Outlaw said. “He’s very excited to come here. He mentioned that he’s been to the Grosse Pointe community many times. … We think we’ll have a very large crowd.”
The former Pennsylvania senator and former presidential candidate had been invited by the high school’s Young Americans for Freedom club.
Langston Bowens, 18, the president of the YAF chapter, told Fox News that he was not surprised by the campus outrage.
“They flooded my principal’s office and complained about how this bigoted, racist homophobic speaker was going to come to our school,” he said. “They were very offended. They threatened protests. They threatened not to show up to work – because he’s a conservative.”
Bowens said the young conservative student worked hard to raise the money to bring Santorum to campus and the school’s principal actually signed off on the address.
It was the superintendent, he said, that pulled the plug.
“Our school is liberal and not very conservative-friendly,” the teenager told Fox News. “We’re called bigoted, racist and stupid because we are conservatives.”
Although, Bowens said he can’t help but laugh when someone calls him a racist – that’s because he’s African-American.
“It’s really funny to hear that phrase – ‘bigoted and racist’—when you are a conservative black American,” he said.
Tragone said it’s sad that Gross Pointe teachers don’t want to expose their students to different opinions.
“Their job is to teach the students and cultivate minds – certainly to be the mediator of discussions,” he said. “It seems they don’t want to do that. They don’t want his opinions even articulated.”
Santorum posted a statement denouncing the school for initially canceling his speech.
It’s a sad day when liberal educators are allowed to influence young minds – extending free speech rights only to those who share their liberal views,” Santorum said in a statement posted on Patriot Voices. “This has nothing to do with the content of a speech, but rather the context of my convictions.”
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) invited Gabino Sanchez, an illegal immigrant with a criminal record. Sanchez, whose record is littered with misdemeanor charges liked driving without a license, is fighting deportation.
Yet this man – who is putting American drivers at risk – was given an opportunity not afforded to law-abiding taxpayers. He was allowed to sit in the House chamber mere yards away from President Obama.
“This is a big step for Dreamers and indicative of how far this movement has come,” illegal immigrant Julieta Garibay told the Dallas Morning News. Ms. Garibay was a guest of Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX).
The Daily Caller reported that five Democrats, including First Lady Michelle Obama, welcomed illegals into the People’s House. Mrs. Obama’s guest was 20-year-old Alan Aleman, a beneficiary of her husband’s Dream Act.
So how were illegal immigrants allowed to enter one of the most secure buildings in the nation’s capitol?
It’s a question that is even more perplexing since every person in the room was required to have a Social Security number.
A memorandum from the Sergeant at Arms, obtained by The Daily Caller, states: “For guests who do not posses a valid Congressional ID, please provide their full name, Social Security number, and date and place of birth.”
The average legal American can’t board a jetliner without getting a prostate exam from the TSA – but people who are not even legal citizens can waltz right through the front doors of the U.S. Capitol?
It was a stunning visual – prominent Democratic lawmakers harboring illegal immigrants and flaunting their disregard for the law on national television.
Every Republican in Congress should have refused to enter the chamber until the undocumented had been rounded up and arrested. Instead, they allowed the U.S. Constitution to be sullied and federal law to be ignored.
According to federal law, harboring an illegal alien is “illegal under both federal law and some state laws.” The crime is punishable by up to five years in prison.
It’s too bad Ted Nugent didn’t try to make a citizen’s arrest.
But even more offensive is the blatant lack of respect shown for law-abiding, tax-paying Americans who were denied the honor of attending the State of the Union.
Why not invite the survivors of the Benghazi attack? Why not invite the widow of American hero Chris Kyle? Or what about immigrants who came to the Land of the Free legally?
In the final moments of President Obama’s address he suggested a new interpretation of the word “citizen.”
“It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status,” he said.
But in truth, it does. Those of us born in these United States – are in fact citizens. Those who come to our shores legally – are in fact citizens. Those who sneak across our borders in the dark of night — are not.
The Democrats who flaunted the law are not explaining their decisions — but it seems pretty clear to me.
Their allegiance is to the illegal immigrant — not the American taxpayers.