Apr 5, 2012
Print This Post
UPDATE:
The superintendent of Bellingham Public Schools released a statement Wednesday stating that students will now be allowed to sing or not sing “God Bless the USA” during an upcoming assembly at Stall Brook Elementary School.
“Political correctness is certainly a consideration in the public sector,” Superintendent Edward Fleury wrote in a statement posted on the district’s website.
“Students will be allowed to sing or not sing the words ‘God Bless the USA’ as they sing in celebration of their acquired knowledge,” he said. “No other words will be substituted.”
Fleury said there was no intent to be disrespectful and “we believe the use of the word god is acceptable in patriotic songs.”
Following is the full statement:
“Political correctness is certainly a consideration in the public sector. There are traditional parts of our culture that are sacred, and we certainly had no intent to disrespect any part of that culture. The intent of the planned event is to celebrate the knowledge gained by fourth grade students studying the 50 states in a school event with their parents next week. The students will be singing two songs at the assembly. One will be a song about the 50 states, and the other will be “God Bless the USA.” Students will be allowed to sing or not sing the words “God Bless the USA” as they sing in celebration of their acquired knowledge. No other words will be substituted. We believe the use of the word God is acceptable in patriotic songs. The district has no intent to censor any patriotic songs. We are certainly sorry if this approach was perhaps considered as disrespectful. That was never the intent.”
The original story is posted below:
Parents at a Massachusetts elementary school are furious after educators first removed the word ‘God’ from the popular Lee Greenwood song, “God Bless the U.S.A.” and then pulled the song all together from an upcoming concert.
Fox 25 in Boston is reporting that children at Stall Brook Elementary School in Bellingham were told to sing, “We love the U.S.A.” instead of “God Bless the U.S.A.”
After parents started complaining, school officials removed the song from the school assembly concert. The school’s principal released a statement to Fox 25 stating they hope to ”maintain the focus on the original objective of sharing students’ knowledge of the U.S. States, and because of logistics, will not include any songs.”
Greenwood released a statement to Fox News condemning the school’s actions.
“The most important word in the whole piece of music is the word God, which is also in the title ‘God Bless The USA,” Greenwood said. “Maybe the school should have asked the parents their thoughts before changing the lyrics to the song. They could have even asked the writer of the song, which I of course, would have said you can’t change the lyrics at all or any part of the song.”
GET TODD’S NEW BOOK – ENDORSED BY SARAH PALIN, MARK LEVIN AND SEAN HANNITY!
Greenwood said the phrase “God Bless the USA” has a “very important meaning for those in the military and their families, as well as new citizens coming into our country.” He said it’s also played at every naturalization ceremony behind the national anthem.
“If the song is good enough to be played and performed in its original setting under those circumstances, it surely should be good enough for our children,” Greenwood said.
An online poll taken by the television station indicated more than 80 percent of viewers were outraged by removing God from the song.
“I don’t have a problem with the song if somebody else does I guess it’s there business,” resident Patrick Grudier said. “I mean It’s on our currency (God).”
But not everyone agreed – including parent Matthew Cote.
“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with changing the song,” he told the television. “It’s a public school. If you want to have the word God in the song, go to a private school.”
Reaction on Facebook has been overwhelmingly in favor of the traditional patriotic song.
“Here we go again, more war on Christianity,” wrote one Facebook user. “You can remove God all you want, but the good news — there is still a loving God and He lives.”
Another Facebook user called it sad and disgusting. “I’d like to say unbelievable — but it is so totally believable.”
LEE GREENWOOD’S STATEMENT TO TODD STARNES
“Maybe the school should have asked the parents their thoughts before changing the lyrics to the song. They could have even asked the writer of the song, which I of course would have said you can’t change the lyrics at all or any part of the song. The most important word in the whole piece of music is the word God, which is also in the title God Bless The USA. We can’t take God out of the song, we can’t take God out of The Pledge of Allegiance, we can’t take God off of the American currency. Let us also remember, the phrase God Bless the USA has a very important meaning for those in the military and their families, as well as new citizens coming to our Country. The song is played at every naturalization ceremony behind The National Anthem. If the song is good enough to played and performed in its original setting under those circumstances, it surely should be good enough for our children.” – Lee Greenwood
School changes lyrics from ‘God Bless the USA’ to ‘We love the USA’ : MyFoxBOSTON.com
School changes lyrics from ‘God Bless the USA’ to ‘We love the USA’ : MyFoxBOSTON.com
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
This about more than just political correctness – it goes MUCH deeper than that, how about the fundamental demoralization of the value of our country. And on a side note what does upsidedown quote marks mean? in this article the first half of the the word God has them – the fact that punctuation has never been one of my strong suits is why I ask.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html A little light reading for all you people who don't know the slightest bit about our founding fathers and think they made a christian nation.
That is soooooo wrong. Keep taking God out of everything and see what we get!
lol, this made my morning
Blind faith in anything, especially FAUX news is a dangerous thing… here is a comment from a parent involved in this "controversy" so just simmer down folks…
Good morning..As a parent of not only 2 children in the school under a heated debate, I am also a parent of a 4th grader. This is the final statement from me. The parent who notified the media was the same parent who started our private e-mail conversations about the "word change". She didn't even have the facts, as many of us did not. The song was NOT altered for anyone but the 4th graders, simply for them to say "we love the USA" to celebrate their love and knowledge of the US. These same children say the Pledge every morning with "One Nation under God" followed by a moment of silence EVERY morning. This parent wrongfully notified the media and sent our PRIVATE e-mails to the media, causing alot of heartbreaking stess to many families of young children. This issue was solved between parents and staff BEFORE the media was notified. Our community, our friends, our neighbors and especially our children have been subjected to harrassment from parents and the media. A police cruiser is stationed outside of the school OUR children have to attend every day. Our school is AWESOME the staff is caring, loving and knowledgeable. Foxnews has (as I watched and yelled at the tv last night) falsely reported that we changed the words back because of the media backlash…again it was resolved BEFORE the media was involved. I am sickened that this mother is now glorifying what she did. I have lived in this town my entire life, I am proud to say my children attend the same school I did as an elementary child. So please, before you post, comment, or wrongfully acuse our school, have the facts straight first. All my love to OUR community, school staff and our wonderfully talented and smart children ♥.
Way to go Mike!!!! Well said! I'm proud to be from Bellingham!
Nice job Mike.
That's the media as a whole, Mike. To much info, way too fast, multiple sources for getting the story first….always ends up being a distorted view and opinion. This is just another shining example. Information overload.
Be mad all you want about. The atheist community is standing up for the Constitution that the Christians in this country have been wiping their butt with. You want us to leave…NO.
I was born here same as you. I went to school, I paid my taxes, I served the USMC and I am not going anywhere.
The majority doesn't deserve to get it's way when it's way is wrong!
Unfortunately for your position, the atheist community (albeit microscopic) either does not understand the Constitution or has chosen to circumvent it in support of their chosen ideology. I suggest you revisit our First Amendment before you accuse others of doing what only the secular progressives have attempted to do…diminish and or pervert our laws and rights.
Anthony De Rubeis it says explicitly that the state will not meddle in your religion as long as your religion doesn't meddle with the state. Your religion is meddling with the state.
Oh and 20% of the US is not microscopic.
Abraham Roloff -The Constitution states no such thing. The "atheist community" is standing against the Constitution to suit their views, opinions and preferences which is indeed their right to do so. However, please stop trying to rewrite the document. We have a method to amend the Constitution and thankfully the few who might want to could not possibly accomplish it. Which brings me to your bogus statistics. Atheists are a shrinking herd and are now according to an actual reference book, about 2.4% of the world population and, did I say their numbers are shrinking? Yes. And it's funny, they are shrinking faster in communist countries…I got a good laugh about that fact. No Abraham, your numbers are wrong for the US as well…only about 2% here. So, stop the nonsense and re-read the First Amendment. Just to help you along, it was purposefully written in plain English not legalese to ensure IT WOULD NOT nor COULD NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD. Spin away if you insist, but your ignorant political opinion does not change our Constitution.
Anthony De Rubeis http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf If I'm wrong then why does the US Census Bureau agree with me? From 14,331,000 in 1990 claiming no religion to 34,169,000 in 2008. We have more than doubled on the last 20 years. Shrinking indeed! World wide it may be getting a little less right now since the churches of the world are still doing missionary work in the 3rd world. As soon as we get those people access to modern information that will change shortly.
Oh and for interpretation of the 1st amendment look to the Supreme Court . In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
Abraham Roloff – Nonsense. By your own description, you erroneously or, more likely conveniently, allude to a survey of those that ‘claim no affiliation with any particular religion.’ Nice try. As with myself, that does not make me an atheist. In other words, active membership in an organized religion is completely different that holding NO BELIEF in the existence of a deity, ie. ‘god.’ It remains a fact that those claiming to be an atheist are approximately only 2% of the population of the United States. Get your facts straight and stop posting drivel.
I’ve reviewed the decisions of the SC regarding the First Amendment since 1948 and none of them are germane to this issue; basically because it should be a non-issue. Sadly for those that think as you do, the school has a right to have their students sing a song containing the word, ‘god.’ The particular case you site while it restates the obvious that ‘government should not prefer one religion to another…’ is completely irrelevant to this case since the school did no such thing by allowing the singing of a patriotic song. To benefit the most stubborn among you, neither the school nor the government advocated, taught, instructed or showed a preference for ANY PARTICULAR religion by mere mention of the word, ‘god.’ In other words, the public school did nothing to violate “the establishment clause” Therefore, your post and your opinion on this issue is non sequitur.
Anthony De Rubeis All that is required of a basic atheist is a lack of belief in a deity. You are trying to cubbyhole that term to only mean gnostic atheists, those that claim there is no god. If we are going to do that then you have to break up Christianity into all of it's denominations too. If you do that guess what happens? You lose the majority.
Anthony De Rubeis It is showing preference to monotheistic faiths only.
Abraham Roloff – As expected, you continue to submit a convolution the issue and cannot refute my facts. I "show" no preference for any faith…another reason you are wrong; you cannot comprehend the difference between the general term 'god' and religion(s). So sad for you really…it is a relatively simple concept. I personally could not care less what atheists or agnostics "believe" because contrary to your perverted view of the Constitution, their position (and evidently yours) is irrelevant to this issue as well as to the intent and meaning of the First Amendment. I made the correct factual points and will not waste my time reiterating them.
If you say so. I feel the same way.
Abraham Roloff – The difference is you stated no facts, made no points and therefore, accomplished nothing; but I do hope you learned something.
Anthony De Rubeis You keep on believing that. You obviously didn't read any of what I posted.
Abraham Roloff – I read it all; it was all your opinion without the benefit of supporting facts and, I understand you are an atheist…so what? That is simply another irrelevant point to the discussion and one's understanding of the First Amendment. Your posts change exactly nothing.
Anthony De Rubeis Except that I posted the facts on the numbers of nonbelievers in this country and the fact that the government/courts have supported my position, time and time again, on the establishment clause.
Abraham Roloff – You did no such thing. Each of your "facts" were dismantled and or proven inaccurate and or irrelevant…but thanks for playing.
Anthony De Rubeis You claiming them so doesn't make them so. You didn't prove any such thing.
Abraham Roloff – Then in addition to being an atheist, you are evidently a stubborn functional illiterate that CHOOSES to ignore facts – you're loss.
Are we looking at 2 different conversations?
Abraham Roloff – No, just your posts. And as you have again demonstrated, you have nothing.
Anthony De Rubeis: What I said stands for itself. You want the last word, go for it. Doesn't make you any more right.
Abraham Roloff – Great. Lets let your posts "stand" as proof of your shallow agenda-driven position; I'll let mine speak in support of the Constitution. LMFAO…
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;.
Liberals love to say"If you are offended by a TV show, or a particular song, don't watch it or listen to it", and I agree. If this school didn't want to perform a song with the name of God in it, they should have chosen another one.
Shea Watson Johnson , that's a fact!!!
The beat goes on-the liberals want God out of everything just like communism is Godless.
Double Amen!
WHAT A CRYING SHAME.. NEVER DELETE GOD FROM ANYTHING EVER.
SHAME ON 'EM ALL!
It is kind of sad that adults cannot distinguish the difference between a patriotic song and a religous one.
When I swore in when I enlisted it did say so help me god at the end but you were not there when I did this and I clearly stated hat my belief was so everyone there knew where I was coming from. By the Way what are u trying to say randy maxwell that only those who believe in ur religion can serve are u saying that I bowed down to ur "god". At that moment my god was CROM. You do make a good point that should be taken out of the oath to enlist thanx for the suggestion.
By no means am I saying that you have to believe in my God to serve ! I was just stating a fact that that all five services have the same Oath ! And the last 4 words are "So Help Me God " But it was pointed out to me yesterday that these 4 words are an Option now…I suppose it is only fair to those that don't Believe in a God. God is a general term for a deity…My God, is the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost ! Doing research yesterday I found info saying 76% of the population is Christian (Protestant & Catholic ) The rest Jewish, Muslim, Atheist etc. There was a time when most everyone in certain districts, cities that were Christian and they would have Christmas plays and Christmas choirs which are now winter shows and they cant mention God or Jesus…I know the Constitution protects the minority in the first amendment but you have to admit that if you have 400 parents that come to a Christmas show and If one Atheist or non-Christian doesn't like it everyone else must suffer! Thats getting a little to PC. I responded to you earlier that John Adams one of our founding Fathers whom wrote the Declaration of Independence and wrote in the preamble that we are "endowed by their creator" 1776…The word " IN GOD WE TRUST" first appeared on US 2 cent piece in 1864,and in 1908 congress made it mandatory for all coinage to have the motto…And you are correct the paper currency didnt display the motto till 57…Thanks for your service…….
RE: Ron coats If you were the minority would you suck it up? I think not your religious and military indoctrination has got you trained like a puppy. You have forgotten to think-freely. Prejudice is the stupidly of indoctrination without question.
This is the best news I've heard all day! Separation of church and state=nobody's god belongs in public, government funded institutions…PERIOD. All of you people whining about it are selfish put the shoe on the other foot, what if the majority were screaming for time out of the day for prayers to Allah or for the pagans to form their circles and chant to their gods? You'd be outraged and appalled! It is very simple to teach morals without religion….I was raised without religion—well I was taught about religion but all kinds of religion not just one—-and I have very strong morals that are better than most of the so called morally religious people out there. Stories that teach morals were told long before the bible was written, and just setting a good example for your children is a huge head start. The fact that you are a bunch of hypocrites screams that your morals aren't as good as you claim they are….remember Jesus doesn't like hypocrites: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5".
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-6).
One of the comments points out the level of ignorance in people these days, the person comments that because "God" is on our money that it should be okay that kids sing about "God" in public schools. (very loosely quoted btw) I'm guessing his mom told him two wrongs make it okay. Ignorant. Why am I still shocked by it? I don't know, I guess I'm hoping we would evolve but it seems the US is doing nothing but going backwards faster and faster as the years progress. What do I know though?
Some of those comments had my jaw drop as well! I'm actually surprised I haven't been hit with, "Why are you attacking us?"
Victoria Reid What is indeed ignorant is your interpretation of the Constitution. There is no phrase, implication, intent or directive to "separate church and state." Instead of following the progressive crap you think you learned, pick up a couple of books or re-read the First Amendment. It was written in simple English so everyone could understand it. I understand why atheists want to twist it but I cannot understand why the vast majority of Americans still misunderstand it. Singing a patriotic song does not advocate any religion.
So what you are saying is that Thomas Jefferson was not one of the founding fathers? I didn't say that the constitution reads "separation of church and state" but the founding fathers implied it.
BTW your grammar speaks a lot of your intelligence—-those in glass houses, Anthony.
Just because YOU see singing a song asking a god to bless the USA is not advocating any religion does not mean the people who do not believe in any god see it that way….and as long as you can cherry pick your god's words I can cherry pick what I feel is advocating religion or not. Opinions are opinions, after all. I understand you religious want this to be a nation under shire law(or the Christian equivalent) but the rest of us do not.
Victoria Reid – Gee, pardon me…if you refer to my use of the word "crap" I'm sorry, it fits nicely. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with my "grammar" or posts but thanks for pointing out minutiae. As far as educations go, you and those that agree with you are hilariously, indefensibly wrong about the First Amendment; yes, it is that simple. The founders purposely IMPLIED NOTHING. They wrote it in plain English so that it would not be subjected to agenda-driven foolery. I have no need to cherry pick words however you and those of your ilk have made it "standard" to do so. I don't and have not argued opinions because they are meaningless. You have, and quite frankly, I don't care about opinions. Patriotic songs no matter where they are sung, do not promote RELIGION…no one's religion or any religion. There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" and, no matter how hard you wish it or spin it, you're factually wrong. Since I have not felt the need to attack any person simply because we disagree or if they are wrong, please read something before you post again with only your "opinion" or decide to attack my intelligence or me personally; otherwise, you're just another secular progressive empty barrel trying to make the most noise…it won't help your lame cause to circumvent, change or marginalize our Constitution.
Anthony De Rubeis
Your factually wrong by ignoring the multiple Supreme Court cases that have ruled against violations of state and church.
You're not your… typing too fast.
Eric Crippen Eric Crippen – Your post is just more hollow opinion PROVING nothing. Let’s get it straight shall we? I am not "factually wrong" and I'm not ignoring specific cases. Since I've never commented on individual cases…there is no point to your post. However, since you brought it up…there have been 8 cases ruled upon by the SC since 1948. I could easily site the tenets and subsequent decisions of each one but I refuse to do you homework for you. Suffice it to say, it is a fact that NONE of these historic decisions are germane to this issue. Just because secular progressives love to twist it, here is the complete text of the First Amendment and, as you will hopefully learn and ultimately admit, it is magnificently simple:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Now I guess I must explain it to you. This initial phrase is known as the “Establishment Clause” and has two and ONLY TWO issues: 1) It prohibits THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL RELIGION BY CONGRESS or 2) the preference BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT of one religion over another.
The next statement in the First Amendment is known as the “Free Exercise Clause” ("… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). NOTHING prohibits the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
Since in this latest controversial act of stupidity by school officials concerning students singing a patriotic song containing the word, “god” DOES NOTHING to demonstrate that ‘Congress passed a law to respect the establishment of religion…’ or 'demonstrates a preference for a particular religion', I suggest that all the atheists cease and desist posting their rather asinine and obdurate opinions. Other points that demonstrate to absurdity of this issue have already been made; I suggest you read them. Therefore, there was no reason to ban the song or change the words…to do so, is completely ignorant and, yes secular progressive and therefore, antithetical to our Constitution.
Anthony De Rubeis I'm so glad that Fox News made you the comment monitor and that you appointed yourself the opinion police—-but since I could care less about your authority I will stick to my opinions. I know what it reads I also know what they were fleeing from when this country was founded. The government is constantly, as of late, making laws because of religious opinion if you don't feel this way then you are one of those selfish people that needs to put the shoe on the other foot. I just want civil equality, and it just so happens religion often interferes with that.
You attacked me by calling me ignorant I just pointed out your grammar wasn't on par, I'm so sorry I hurt you little feelings but since they are obviously so fragile maybe you should get off of the internet, because it just so happens that it is full of opinions that contradict your own.
Victoria Reid – Now you are simply being pathetic. Ignorance is the absence of fact and knowledge not a personal attack; I did not say you were stupid, that would have been a "personal attack." Consequently, if you do not comprehend the differences between the two words, I feel sorry for you. I had no need to attack anyone personally, because my argument is factual and your position was easy enough to destroy. You see, that is the main difference between issues of discussion among people who actually understand them and empty heads filled with "opinions." You CHOOSE to insert your opinion in place of facts; I don't. No one needs to appoint me anything to point out when people are wrong or they are hypocrites. I CHOOSE to do so because this is indeed an important issue and to remain silent is to condone the willful destruction of this country.
Further, I never implied that I had any "authority" over anyone…don't know where that came from but like the rest of your position, it is non sequiitur. I have done nothing but repeatedly supplied you, those who are making the same errors in judgement and anyone else who cares enough to post, with the facts, the actual text of the First Amendment and what it means. Since you CHOOSE to ignore the facts, I am left to conclude that you are just another empty ideologue without a decent argument or point to make. Attacking FOX News is also typical of progressives, especially when they don't have a point…I cannot imagine why FOX is being implicated here since I never brought them up nor are they relevant to the discussion. The remainder of your post is ludicrous. You did not 'hurt my feelings' because you are not equipped to do so since I do not grant that power to anyone. My posts have remained supported by facts by pointing out the law itself, debunking patently absurd statements such as "20% of the country are atheists" and correcting those that alluded to SC decisions that do not apply. Express your opinions all you want as you are entitled to do so under protection of the very document you wish to undermine but don't delude yourself into believing that your opinion, anyone's opinion can win an argument without facts.
Anthony De Rubeis the idea of a nation without god as being destroyed is you OPINION not a fact. You've assumed and inserted you opinion—like I said before I didn't say it was in the constitution, you ASSUMED that I thought it was and added your OPINION of it….but no you don't use opinions. It was once a fact that the earth was flat, someone's opinions that led to a hypothesis that led to studying and learning changed that 'fact'. You have also formed opinions by stating things about me based on observations as I did by saying that your grammar speaks highly of your intelligence. It obviously sparked some nerve otherwise you wouldn't have defended yourself, especially when something like that could really go either way because you don't get me and based on this newest reply don't quite get sarcasm either. I have no time for hypocrites.
Victoria Reid – Wow you draw some interesting albeit wild conclusions; no worries. Throughout history, nations that have eliminated 'god' have failed (destroyed themselves) – that is also a fact, not an opinion…now who is uneducated? I assure you, it was never a FACT that the world was flat but thanks for making me laugh again. My intelligence is not and cannot be in question because you have NEVER supplied this forum with any facts to prove otherwise, let alone you position regarding the Constitution. It will always 'spark a nerve' when ideologues insist on fabrication to "prove" their point. I have no time to people who refuse to acknowledge facts or when they are thoroughly proven wrong. You, secular progressives, Communists and Socialists are indefensibly wrong ; admit it, you'll feel better…Have a wonderful day.
That fine…as long as the schools also remove any symbols of Satan, demons, witches with music, ART, etc. It ALL has to come out…not just Christian symbols.
Anthony De Rubeis
You keep leaving out the 14th amendment, which clearly states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That means that the first amendment applies on the lower levels of government. States have to abide by the Constitution, so no, they don't get to promote religion because they aren't 'congress'. And yes… this even applies to local city and township laws.
I didn't realize that you thought that SCOTUS decisions were like a buffet, where one could pick and choose which rulings to ignore. Supreme Court decisions do apply to our laws and it has been clearly stated by the government that promoting religion by the government in the public schools is not allowed.
The roman empire failed after it adopted the christian god. The christianity worked with the black and brown shirts and those governments were failures. It's amazing how weak religion must be, that it constantly needs to insinuate itself into the fabric of everyones lives in order to survive. All gods are made up. There isn't a shred of scientific proof for their existence. I say scientific, because the standard of the religious believer would permit any claim to be true. Monotheism has been nothing more than a flacid attempt of one-up manship among polytheists.
Eric Crippen – Personally, I find it yet again hilarious that secular progressives conveniently twist the Constitution and rewrite history to suit their lame agenda and political bent.
Since you brought up the 14th Amendment, I suggest you re-read it again carefully since it clearly states, ‘…the government cannot abridge the rights of citizens, …or the life, liberty etc…without due process…’ By your protest of references to ‘god’ do you not impinge upon the rights of those who disagree with you? Do you therefore violate their rights? You find that references to ‘god’ and ‘religion’ are offensive…so what? Where in the Constitution does it state or imply that you have the right to not be offended? It does not.
I never implied SC decisions where not connected. I stated clearly that their rulings since 1948 do not apply in this case…again, I could cite them, but I suggest you look them up yourself. In this issue, there simply is NO VIOLATION of the Constitution. If you insist that your position is correct, I suggest that you answer a simple question…Tell us exactly which religion was advocated, promoted, favored or taught by uttering the words, ‘god bless the USA?’
Since the answer is ‘NONE’, you should just stop complaining and educate yourself.
Equally pathetic is your recitation of history; nothing short of fiction. I guess we’ll just have to thank your liberal PhD’s for those revisionist versions.
Your last mistake is thinking that I care about your atheist position or opinions regarding the debate over the existence of god; I don’t, especially since people such as yourself, routinely stomp on other’s rights to suit your preferences. The Constitution applies to everyone and, I suggest you do a better job of understanding the document before you post again. The Bill of Rights protects citizens from government tyranny and while I know the tenets in the First Amendment and agree with them, there is no violation here regardless of how you and fools like Michael Newdow FEEL about it.
Anthony De Rubeis
I'm not arguing for your benefit. Anyone sitting on the fence can independently look this stuff up themselves to see who is being honest. You're trying to expand this violation to include everyone, when the fact remains that this is strictly a violation with school children. It doesn't even prevent a child from stating their beliefs unless they are interfering with another students rights. Does the school have the right to promote 'god'… no, it does not.
You don't have a right to be 'not' offended just as I don't have the right to be 'not' offended. What you fail to understand is that the courts have consistently ruled that school children are a captive audience and the whole 'god' thing is illegal to promote in the schools. That's why the first amendment applies. Trying to argue state's right would allow me to bring in the fourteenth because federal law trumps state law. You stating your beliefs is perfectly legal as a citizen, not as a school functionary.
The religion promoted would be christianity, as most school children would be vaguely aware of the islamic allah. I'm doubting the it was explained to them that god also means Zeus, Satan, Thor, Isis, Pele, Bael, Ra, Mercury, Venus, Mithra, Mars, Athena, Luna… it's one of those 'wink' 'wink' things. Similar to when people say 'those people' or 'others' instead of just being honest and saying whatever minority that they're refering to.
The Romans adopted christianity and then eventually failed. I don't see how christianity helped them, since they were just as bad with monotheism as polytheism. The catholic church supported the fascist regimes of Germany and Italy during the 30's and 40's. Not much fiction in that, since it's fairly well documented. Might want to also question why Thomas Jefferson re-wrote the gospels or why Benjamin Franklin had no problem visiting the Hellfire Club while he was in Europe. You could also read the writings of founding father Thomas Paine, as he was quite the atheist. That's not saying their were founding fathers that weren't christian, because some were. But there were an awful lot of deists and non-believers and given their writings on the subject of religion, there was a reason that god and christianity are not a basis for the Constitution. Seriously, if it was such an important thing, it would have been whored all over that document.
Eric Crippen – Unfortunately, you are continuing to waste everyone’s time because your position twists everything to suit your opinions. The only SC stipulations are that ‘no religion is being advocated or favored over another’. Since this is not what occurred, as such, no rights were violated. The mere fact that you are against any mention of a generic deity, is meaningless since that is not covered in the Constitution. Despite all of the foot stomping and noise emanating from atheists, it won’t change the document or the law. If you wish to do so, I suggest you stop whining and get started because it is going to take quite a while to gather the two-thirds votes needed to amend the BOR.
You still conveniently ignore the distinct differences between the advocating of a particular religion versus the recognition of a god. You also ignore that it does not qualify as “teaching or advocating a religion or preferring a particular religion” simply by singing a patriotic song.
I’m not offended…hardly, but I am tired of people using a perversion of our laws to suit themselves. I am left to wonder why it is so important to atheists (approximately only 2% of the U.S.) that we all follow you. If I can be satisfied that your belief system does not allow for god, why do you care that others disagree? Since you have finally admitted that our Constitution does not state, express or imply that you have the right to not be offended, then why must a neighbor remove a cross or a Nativity scene from their property? Why does that bother you so? The only “protection” any of us have from the Constitution is that the government cannot create any law that forces a religion on the people-period. Any other interpretation of the First Amendment is manipulative, divisive, secular progressive and conveniently ignorant.
Anthony De Rubeis
It's not a belief system, it's a dis-belief system. There is no dogma associated with it. The only claim is the rejection of man's claim of a god. That's it. Any other beliefs belong to the individual.
I'm not against any mention of the word 'god'. I'm against it being used by the government to promote religion. Not promoting religion is not a promotion of atheism as the government is not going around and telling people that god does not exist in place of not telling people about god. Just because our government can't promote white only laws doesn't make all of the laws suddenly anti-white.
No one has to remove the cross or nativity scene from their property. It's government property. It seems you have a difficult time distinguishing private from government.
There is no real thing as a generic god… look at the comments about 'god' on money and 'god' in the pledge. According to the government, it would also stand for satan, but I'd be willing to bet nearly all the religious people would say it doesn't. It's one of those 'wink, wink' type of generic gods, where everyone knows which god it really is. That's why it's "God" and not "god(s)".
I'm not wasting anyone's time that doesn't want to read these posts to begin with. And so you understand, fundamentalism/evangelism is in a decline in this counrty. Religion in general is in a decline, much like is occuring in the rest of the industrialized world. Christians are just upset because they're being called out on their priviledged status.
Eric Crippen – I don’t care what you call your “system” as it is irrelevant. I don’t care how you feel about ‘god’ as that is equally irrelevant. If you are continuing to whine about this issue, you are indeed against the mere mention of the word, ‘god’ since I’ve proved “the government” did not “promote any religion,” and consequently, there has been no violation of the BOR. Why not just admit that you are wrong? I am most certainly NOT the person that ‘has trouble’ with making distinctions as it is only those that seek to twist the truth to suit themselves as is your practice. Another perfect example, in case you still require one, is the slippery slope of those like you who routinely stretch the private property issue into, “…well, that Nativity scene is still in a ‘public place’ so it is illegal” – pure nonsense. Why not just give it up and wallow in your beliefs with the vast number of 2-percenters that admit to being atheists in this country and leave the rest of us alone since WE disagree with you and do indeed understand the Constitution…BTW, you continue to site false facts and stats in a rather clumsy attempt to justify your ignorant self-serving position. And so YOU understand, even IF your claims about certain religions are “in decline” it would be irrelevant to the issue. If there were NO religions in this country, it would not change the protections of the Constitution. Admit it, you’ve got nothing.
Anthony De Rubeis
And yet the courts do not agree with you…
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional
Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) – Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)
Arkansas statute promoting creationism equal to evolution found to be in violation of the Constitution, since creationism is not science.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) <<—Not school, but for you…
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause. (see… not a private property issue)
Webster v. New Lennox School District (1990)
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District (1994)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes.
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (1997)
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking".
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer.
And there are more recent ones… such as Jessica Ahlquist winning against a prayer banner this year.
Maybe you should quit whining about the loss of religious priviledge.
Eric Crippen – Since your reading comprehension is severely lacking, I’ll take the time to point out that I never whined or invoked ‘religious privilege’ – I know I did not because I am not a religious person.
I already know about these decisions and others which is why I told you to do your own homework…I will at least thank you for that. However, it is increasingly evident that you are educated beyond your intelligence because (as I have written), in each of the mighty cases you site, they are completely irrelevant to the issue of singing a patriotic song. In other words, these decisions ALL concern RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, BIBLE READING, TEACHING EVOLUTION etc. As such and I’ll repeat, they are neither applicable nor relevant to this issue.
I did find your paraphrasing of the [Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.] rather clumsy since the court found it unconstitutional that Kentucky REQUIRED posting the 10-Commandments in every classroom…but I digress.
The other issue I have with your little recitation is that these cases are not all from the Supreme Court. As we all know, lower courts decide many things that are eventually overturned; the most ludicrous and egregious is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals…I had a great laugh regarding those cases as with the…
[Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.].
Again, you conveniently miss the simple meaning of key words such as:
1) GOVERNMENT ACTION MUST
2) ‘Purpose MUST NOT INHIBIT or ADVANCE’
3) ‘No EXCESSIVE ENTAGLEMENT’
Again sadly for you, NONE of this “TEST” applies to the issue of singing a patriotic song. Your post is a waste as it does not prove your position as valid…quite the contrary. Your understanding and or interpretation of the Constitution is flawed and you have allowed your agenda to get in the way. Class is over; now go and finish your homework.
Anthony De Rubeis
Everyone has an agenda, even you. I never stated that I didn't have one. I did mention which court (if I knew). So what? No one appealled the decision to a higher court, so that decision stands in the circuit that it was issued. Those cases are usually referred to in other districts as examples. When you have two conflicting circuits, then it may go to the Supreme Court if someone still has a problem with it.
The issue at hand is this:
The school was going to use a modified song. Not even you, by your own arguments, should have an issue with this as schools do change songs to suit the needs of the students singing them. Religious people suddenly freaked out. Still o.k., since they're exercising their right to speech/protest. School decides to add the lyrics in… which now becomes a problem because it is religiously motivated. It doesn't matter that the school says the students don't have to sing the lyrics… it falls under coercion and it's not allowed in the schools. There is no patriotic reason to add 'god' into it. It would fail the Lemon test because of the reasoning to add it. If you're unsure about this, then consider when schools play sanitized versions of songs at football games. I don't see religious people losing their minds when 'sex' is removed from George Michael's song "I want your sex". Kinda dumb to blank it out, but it's a school. I don't even see you or the nutters arguing to have the pledge restored to its original state… without 'under god'. Bit of a double standard.
The only thing your argument is calling for is preferential treatment of religious people by giving them extra rights that no one else is allowed to have. Kid mentioning god… o.k. within the parameters of not being disruptive. School mentioning god… not o.k. because god is never really a generic term, so there's no point in bringing it up. Religous people really don't want religion taught in school, because you'd have to show the bad with the good and it would be fair game to show the logical fallacies of its claims. They want advertisement of their god, which is what this 'god bless' represents.
Eric Crippen – Again, Mr. secular progressive atheist, you completely and conveniently missed the entire point and have proven that you don’t know what the issue is, nor do you understand it. I, unlike you, have no agenda except to point out the Constitution and the actual meaning of the First Amendment…something that either escapes you or you can’t see past your bent. You are wrong-period. The cases you site are NOT APPLICABLE –period. Your reasoning and subsequent spin is stupid and not applicable. In other words, the “examples” you offer are analogous to nothing pertinent.
The school foolishly and under the stupidity of political correctness, tried to replace the word, ‘god’ in a song ABOUT THE U.S.A. not religion – absurd in itself, as there is no law preventing the mention of ‘god’. They recognized their stupidity and restored the song as it was written only to hear morons that are ignorant of the law, our rights and their meaning, complain. Your statement, ‘…we are calling for extra rights for religious people’ is also completely asinine and off the mark as “we” are doing no such thing…no need.
As far as ‘god’ being a generic term, again you are so wrong as it is a well known fact that the term has literally hundreds of meanings including countless various religions around the world. Even your narrow capacity should realize that the word ‘god’ does not automatically refer to the Christian God, the Jewish God, Lord God Jehovah, Allah or any other particular god – SO, IT IS LEGAL AND ALLOWED. Lastly, and for the last time, the mention of ‘god’ does not qualify as “TEACHING RELIGION” – “ADVOCATING RELIGION” or “PREFERING ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER” or qualify as the “GOVERNMENT SPONSORING A PARTICULAR RELIGION.” Therefore, there is no violation of the First Amendment.
Contrary to your preferences and all of the revisionist spin surrounding the intent and personal lives of the founding fathers, this country was founded on Judeo/Christian values. As such, they sought to protect us from government tyranny. They did not seek to protect atheists from those of faith. Nothing you say or do can change that unless you get off your sorry collective asses and work to get the two-thirds votes from two-thirds of the states required to amend the Constitution. Until then, we thank you to either educate yourself or simply stop spinning the meaning and intent of the document to suit yourselves. Your last post, earns an F.
Anthony De Rubeis
They made a motion to add it in AFTER religious people had a fit… there was no problem with the song that the school originally used. You just can't get past that part. The original song used had nothing wrong with it. All this commotion started because religious people had an issue. There was no problem with the song as the school originally used it.
You can't seem to understand that I've never said there was a law against the word god. That's really your problem with comprehension.
You also need to get over your hangup on the first amendment. The fourteenth is what protects the minority from the ignorance of the majority, which is why schools can't promote religion. By ADDING god into a song that the school was using that didn't have it, they are now promoting the idea of a supernatural being. It was added because of religion.
This country was not founded on religion. It was founded on secular values. If you'd ever read any Thomas Paine (or Jefferson or Franklin), you'd realize that not all the founding fathers were really what anyone would call christians. This country was founded with slavery and no voting rights for women, but that has changed. The fourteenth was added to protect blacks from being discriminated against. It is being used to prevent religious majorities from forcing their views on the minority. It's equal protection of first amendment rights to the minority.
I do understand the issue. The school used a song. The religious nut jobs didn't like it and complained. The school added god into the song to appease the religious. That is the issue… extra rights for the religious as we all know that 'god' does not mean Satan, Lucifer, Bael, Cthulu or a myriad of other gods. Let the government state that god really includes them also and I'd be more than happy to laugh at all the christians freaking out over the legal meaning of 'god'.
Religions are already given more rights than others in this country. They are held to lower standards for child care in most states. They don't have to file like other non-profit groups. Even the IRS has to treat them differently than other on-profit groups if they violate their status. Religion is allowed as an excuse for negligent death cases involving children in a lot of states still. These things are slowly changing as people are getting fed up with the double standard.
I don't need to get your 2/3's approval because my rights are already protected by the fourteenth amendment. You'd need to get the 2/3's to overturn it… fail on your end.
Eric Crippen – You've still got it all backward. The name of the song and its lyric is "God Bless the USA,” so it is absurd to assert that "religious people" complained…the school attempted to change it and would have forced the children to sing a ridiculous, “WE LOVE the USA”…still wish to talk about comprehension??? You are also wrong about each of your additional, albeit, non sequitur points and you divert to so many tangential issues it is laughable. The bottom line, if I could return to it, is that this song did not violate the 1st or 14th Amendment and only fools and atheists think so. The fact remains that you and the atheist community are trying to circumvent the Constitution; the rest of us (98%) understand it and like it just fine. In the end, you are clueless but now I think I like you better that way. I have repeatedly destroyed your position and arguments with logic and facts. Evidently, FACTS cannot change your mind; so be it, but the lack thereof and your wishes that it somehow should all be different, will never make you correct.
Anthony De Rubeis
Your 98% is not fact.
The ORIGINAL version of the song that the school used (with changed lyrics) caused an uproar among religious people AND it didn't violate the 1st or 14th amendment… it doesn't matter how dumb you think it sounded, the fact remains that religious people complained to add 'god' back in it even though no law was violated. You can't show that there was a violation because there was none.
Why is 'We love the USA' so ridiculous?
That 'god'less song didn't violate the 1st or 14th amendment… so what are you so upset about? No one was being forced to sing that version of the song… religious people could have sucked it up (your expectation of non-religious people) and stood silent or sang it if they wished. No one was forcing them. Why the double standard? Schools modify songs all the time and it doesn't cause this many problems… oh, it was all because of the 'god' part of it and religious people couldn't follow their own advice. It's a shame religious people don't practice what they preach. You keep going off on how religious rights have been violated… where??? A song without god was going to be sung. Religious people complained because it didn't have god in it.
Eric Crippen – Well, at least it is getting much easier responding to you. You are statistically wrong about the number of atheists in this country…look it up…2% and don't bother offering your typical convoluted BS about including numbers of those who are not religious; that is totally different.
I'm not wasting time repeating the name of the song or the lyrics…you are simply fabricating to suit your lame position. And, you remain clueless.
Anthony De Rubeis
2% are those that will admit to it. Live where I do in the south and most people are afraid of losing their jobs, so they just identify as humanist.
You still haven't answered as to what rights were violated by the school using a variation of the song, as that variation neither inhibited nor promoted any religious belief. If 'god bless the U.S.A.' is o.k., then 'We love the U.S.A.' should be o.k. also. If the pledge could be changed to promote religion by adding 'under god' back in the 50's, then this should have been a non issue from the start. The religious should be following their own advice and suck it up instead of loudly whining about their rights to a double standard.
Eric Crippen – I don’t care who admits to what; statistics can be manipulated but they don’t lie. I feel sorry for people who cannot admit to who or what they are or how they feel. Those who remain intimidated evidently don’t feel as strongly about the subject at hand than they profess…to bad for them.
As far as this issue is concerned, for some reason (although I can easily speculate), you continue to have it backwards and as such, I am no longer amused by your obdurate behavior…you are not worth my time. If I can respect the rights of atheists, bigots, agnostics, secularists, non-secularists, liberals, conservatives, socialists etc. then you should respect the rights protected by the Constitution that protect free speech and religious expression despite how YOU MAY FEEL ABOUT IT. IF you insist on excising all references to god from the public square, you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the Constitution-period. IF you can ever find a way to make the necessary distinction between our GOVERNMENT TEACHING/ADVOCATING/PREFERRING a particular religion versus the simple reference to ‘god,’ there could be hope for you regarding the gasp of an understanding of the Bill of Rights. Until then, you will remain a typical secular progressive self-described atheist with only an opinion with which to argue…which is why you will remain indefensibly wrong.
Anthony De Rubeis
There is no backwards about it. Religious people objected to a song because it didn't have god in it. How is that backwards. I really wish they'd have put the same effort into the Pledge of allegience, but you don't seem to mind the double standard.
You seem to mis-understand… I'm not for removing 'god' from the public square. Quite to the contrary, I'd rather see them all marched up front and TRUTHFULLY shown for what they are, but that isn't how the religious want it. They only want one side shown and that isn't honest. Quite frankly, they should be required to prove that their sky fairy exists before they get their tax exempt status and all the other benefits that normal citizens do not get. Just because someone believes in Zeus, doesn't mean society should allow them to pretend it's real.
Eric Crippen – I guess there is indeed ‘no backwards’ in your little world since you can neither comprehend the title of the news article nor the name of, or words to a song. I’ll help you one last time just because I enjoy it when people like you insist on making fools of themselves.
The title of the news article is, “School Removes “God” from Lee Greenwood song.”
The title of the song is, “God Bless the U.S.A.”.
If you wanted to actually read the article, you would know with certainty that the ISSUE is that the cowardly PC morons at the school that share your opinion, unilaterally and impulsively decided to CHANGE the title and thus the lyrics, to say, “WE LOVE the USA” – while there is nothing wrong with either, it was another blatant attempt to demonstrate politically correct nonsense. Well aware of this clumsy example of PC stupidity, the people who actually understand our Constitution, demanded that the actual title and words be restored. They properly won the argument and the school correctly restored the original words – period. Nothing more, nothing less and there is nothing else to discuss.
Tim Gale: I totally respect ur argument and opinion. I do see how so many religious people, in tbe name of God, have distorted the true nature of God. It is a shame for sure! U mention evidence. Well, look up i to the sky tonight when it is dark and full awsome stars and planets. Or look at youself and think about how intricately you are put together!! An accident of nature?
You go girl!
Remember what is being discussed here, was the school administration wrong to change the lyrics of the song? Yes. were they wrong for choosing the song in the first place? Yes. Does religion any religion belong in the Public Schools? NO
Lets see… If they want to play this game. why don't we play too. No more easter vacations (GOD is involved)… children and teacher could use that time to catch up. since we don't teach them well enough as it is..and no more Christmas vacations (GOD is involved) again catch up time… lets see how many people change there mind after that. GOD BLESS AMERICA. enough with this PC bullcrap….
Alebert Miller…that is fine with me no more easter vacation,(I didn't take it anyways). Christmas cannot be identified as a religious holiday anymore. It is a commercial monster and if memory serves there is intelligent debate on whether your god was actually born on Dec. 25th. It is another long line of things that are written in a book that has bee conqured many times and re written to fit its new rulers. If History is truly told and written by the winners what can we truly believe.
A tiny minority of Americans are trying to make freedom OF religion, into freedom FROM religion.
Every day, Christians of all denominations, Jews of all denominations, Buddists, Hindus, Sikhs, Islam feed the poor and starving, give free medical care, clothe the poor, house the poor, give free counseling, build schools for free, build hospitals for free, build orphanages, and spread messages of peace, love and tolerance. What do those who hate religion do?
The majority of the world's population, the VAST majority, follows some religion. The SECOND most populous religion, Islam, has in large degrees met encroaching secularism with violence… The most populous religion, Christianity, has not.
In answer to the compassion, charity, and tolerance of Christianity, those who hate religion in America, that is to say, HATE the majority of Americans… are waging their own Jihad in America…
This tiny minority of hate mongers justifies their war on religion, by spreading patent untruths about religion, and Christianity. They say, and I quote, "Religion enslaves the mind and spreads hate." Being that the vast majority of scientists, doctors, inventors, etc etc etc, were and are religious… And the VAST majority of peacemakers and non-violent activists were religious… This claim of the hate-monger minority is patently false.
But I ask, if 95% of the world is religious, and the majority of charity, invention, education, and human progress has been contributed by religious people, what should the world do with the less than 5% who hate most of the world, contribute little and want only to destroy? Well, what did the world answer Nazism with? The tiny majority of screaming hate mongers are very lucky their characterization of religion and the religious is false… were it not, the patience and tolerance of Christianity would have quickly removed their little angry tirades from society…
Ironic that the lessons taught by religion, are the very reason the religious tolerate these hateful people, isn't it?
It's by the same token that other hate groups have survived in America.
So the next time someone is shouting angry lies about religion, remember what place they have in America, and who their counterparts are in our society: The Ku Klux Klan, White Supremists, The Black Panthers, Skinheads, Neo Nazis…
It is the basic philosophical nature of Western government that allows such hateful ignoramouses to exist – that it was founded on religious values… So in a way, these cretins owe their existance to religion…. Which answers an old religious philosophical question – did God create the Devil? No, the most ignorant and selfish cannot bear religion, and become angry with it because they know they are not worthy of it.
Ask yourself, is there such a thing as a homicidal maniac who is religious? Religion created these people too, but some people are so full of hate and ignorance, they rebel at the very notion of goodness existing. It's not religion they hate, it's looking at people better than themselves… Without religion, less of those people would exist, and they would simply be, more comfortable. Misery loves company, THAT is the reason these hate mongers shout all day long, every day… To try and convert more people to their same misery.
RESIST!
Michael Feaster…that has to be the worst post I have ever had the misfortune of reading. It is so full of what ifs and rediculous comments like "if 95% of the world is religious" what? News flash even America is not 95% religious. You want homicidal maniacs what about current events a mom that kills her own children because god told her to do it. How about your own pedophile priests that are being harbored as fugitives by your church. Where is the justice for the children when the church sides with the molester?
One more thing no one is trying to tell you to give up your religion, I don't recall ever having an athiest knock on my door on Sunday to tell me what I should be doing or what I should believe in.
next step rounding up all the Christians/Jews/non-muslims taking their property and put them in camps to be dis-posed. that's the liberal way and its from Assachusetts the people that bring you gay marriage, corrupt politicians, and of cousr mitt flip flop rommney.
The government is trying to take away God. They've started with trying to turn our God-given rights into Government-given rights. I'm not demanding a theocracy, I'm just mad that they're trying to take away an important part of our nation's heritage.
I wish 2012 would hurry up and get here, I am so sick of hearing about all the damage Obama has done to America in such a short time.What do you think he will come up with, with 4 more years. Everyone better think about this very hard and long.
God is in everything we do. Our fore fathers understood to Put God First. Our country's foundation is in GOD WE TRUST. It is to teach and educate our seeds of our future of honor. Our Lord & Savior sacrifice Himself for us so we can have a choice to. live. Our children have very little respect for life because. as paren
Our children have very little respect for life because as parents, we have not taught them to live righteous. Love begins with our Father. Therefore; the recital of a song or a pledge in unity with other classmates is teaching respect. RESPECT. WE ALL NEED TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT. THE DEVIL IS A LIE
Finally we (Christians) took a stand and said it is enough. I offer no regrets to those who oppose my God, while it is their right to do so. I will defend to the death your right to have a different opinion. I will also defend to the death my right to serve, speak, and sing out about my faith. God Bless you to all those who said enough and took a stand against this religious persecution.
political correctness is goofy… do you have any idea what was politically correct in Hitler's day.
If I was Lee Greenwood I would sue the school for using my song & altering it, which I am quite sure he could & would win.
Life is so lonely.I am a rich and single woman at present.I need a man who can love me back.I also uploaded my hot photos on ***MillionaireLoving.com*** under the name of Sara61..It’s the largest and best club for seeking CEOs, proathletes, doctors, lawyers, investors, entrepreneurs, beauty queens, fitness models, and Hollywood celebrities.Please Check it out! I’m serious.8989
If the school doesn't like the lyrics to a particular song, don't sing it at all. Changing the words, changes the song; there is no getting around it. I am so tired of the anti-religion people of this country. We are constantly bowing down to their every whim, being told that not doing so discriminates against them, but what about discriminating against me? It seems that only the non-religious of this once great country have rights.
The man has got to be a ath. or a muslum.
step 2 burn books, next censorship!
Socialism is for the people not the socialist!
Isn't it now at this point in time where the "hippy" generation is handling things? Remember those? Free love, screw the rules, whatever turns you on, Man (peace sign). In GOD'S name what happened to you? Now you can't sh*t, piss, or fart without offending someone. Our Constitution was divinely inspired. God was important to the Founding Fathers. They are rolling in their graves right now because of a few jacked up people rule over the MAJORITY, but WHATever. This was not supposed to be a Godless country. AMEN
When I read threads like this it makes me realize how happy I am to live in a country where people do not care about stuff like this. I surely hope that people like you are a minority or else it does not look good for the future of the US.
Shall we burn our books?
The weak spineless superintendent needs to be punched in the Adams apple and sent to an inner city school as a janitor….
"But not everyone agreed – including parent Matthew Cote.
" “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with changing the song,” he told the television. “It’s a public school. If you want to have the word God in the song, go to a private school.” ".
Well, I say…………If you don't want the word God in the song, maybe you should send your kids to a private school. Seems like the ones that don't want it in the song is the minority…. Maybe they should just have to "suck it up." Or, should we start removing all words that a few people don't like from the songs and schools and maybe even the dictionary….
Are the American people really going to allow a few people to eradicate the word God and allow our children to forget that there is a God? That seems to be the purpose behind these things……
Good for the parents and Lee Greenwood. Folks can take the word God out of a song, but not out of our hearts and minds and souls. Like a judge told a group of anti-God litigants who wanted their own special day just like Christians and other believers in God, "you already have a day, it's April 1".
Note to Matthew Cote…… If he wants to NOT have the word God in a song……, he should write his own song…….Don't you think that would be ok? Then we could protest and demand that he put the word God in his song……………………….. Think that would work?…. LOL
I had a friend tell me the other day that he knows about 21 years I did in the Air Force from the end of VN to the start of this war. He said that I should stop complaining about what the kids are doing after all I fourth for them to have that right. I said you are right I did fight for them to say what they want and I watch as friend died for it. But No where is it written that I have to be quite and I will not. I believe in God and I know that this County was given to us from God.
Where there's a Will there's a Way. And In the End….. GOD'S "Will" be done…..
Right on Lee Greenwood. It's time we take a stand and let these little whiners that want to take away everything that makes this Country great know that we aren't going to stand for it. Let's proudly proclaim that God Blessed this land as a place where His children could live in freedom and worship Him as they see fit to.
These people….I just don't know what to say anymore.
These people….I just don't know what to say anymore.
These people….I just don't know what to say anymore.
There is no end to this madness..is there. But madness is self limiting. If we do not cherish God our chilren will find other Gods of immigrants to worship. I am submitting a link to my new video God Bless America… Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvXvIjNPQ7s.
I am not personally religious, however, I have no problem with the word God in our public schools. To me, the word God represents our solidarity and strength as a country. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
I support the view of Lee Greenwood! You can bet that he or the ACLU won't be chasing after the school for damages. It's just wrong!
Concerned parents are removing their children from public schools at an alarming rate. They are either home schooling them or enrolling them in Christian or other private schools. These parents do not agree with the liberal curriculum being taught in public schools and the way traditional American values are being attacked and removed from the public schools. The quality of public schools will just keep going down because the best and the brightest parents are going to protect their kids by getting them out of the public school system. Leave the public school system to the atheists and the politically correct.
I think this is so messed up and the Song Writer should Sue the School for messing up his song.
Massachusetts – that's all you need to know. Can all you liberals move to the NE or CA and leave the rest of us our sanity?