Atheist Plans New Lawsuit Over Phrase 'Under God'
 

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5521606

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Undeterred by the U.S. Supreme Court throwing out his legal challenge to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, atheist Michael Newdow said on Saturday he would file another federal lawsuit to remove the words from the pledge.

No child has to recite the pledge. It is voluntary.

Newdow, of Sacramento, told Reuters in a telephone interview he hopes to represent two families in a renewed challenge to the constitutionality of the religious reference in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Newdow said he would act as their lawyer in a lawsuit against the Elk Grove Unified School District, the same Sacramento-area district he sued in a closely watched case that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected on June 14.

The court ruled that Newdow, a physician with a law degree, lacked standing to sue the school district on behalf of his 10-year-old daughter, because her mother, Sandra Banning, had exclusive legal custody of the girl in a state court order.

Newdow claimed his daughter suffered harm from having to recite the pledge. By contrast, Banning, a born-again Christian, supported her daughter saying the pledge.

The court's 8-0 decision overturned a ruling by a U.S. appeals court in California that reciting the phrase amounted to a violation of church-state separation. However, because the high court rejected the lawsuit on a technicality, it left open the possibility of future challenges.

Newdow said arguments in the new lawsuit will echo those in his recent effort.

"It would be the exact same case," Newdow said of the lawsuit, expected to be filed in federal district court in Sacramento in August. "All the work has been done. Just plug in a different name and do it all over again."

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling came on the 50th anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the pledge, which the U.S. Congress adopted to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.

Millions of U.S. students every day "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." California requires the pledge to be recited every day at public elementary schools, although no child has to join in.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

No child has to recite the pledge. It is voluntary.

When did this change? It sure didn't seem voluntary when I was in elementary school and punishment did occur for those who didn't stand and recite.

High School and Middle School were different matters, but they couldn't force us to do much of anything by that age.

Just the social control aspect is strong enough. When I was in 3rd grade there was a kid in my class who was a Jenovah's witness. His folks wouldn't let him say the pledge, so he remained seated while the rest of us stood to say the pledge. We all thought he was prettty wierd and he got a lot of teasing about being a "commie," poor kid. I think it should be "One nation, despite God..." myself. ;)

Voluntary means voluntary.

Narrowmindedness and stupidity on the part of your teacher who chose not to take the learning opportunity presented by having a member of a smallish religion in their class is all part of the problem here.

I went (except for one year) to public school. Part of the classwork involved lessons on understanding of different faiths ... including a very cool field trip to a Quaker Meeting House, Catholic Church, and the Frank Lloyd Wright Synagogue (Beth Shalom) in Elkins Park.

My experience was in the same vein as Kit and marichiko's - come middle school, I was just standing with my hands in my pockets in the morning most of the time, and by high school, I wasn't even doing that much. But I still remember the one or two kids I knew that didn't do the Pledge in grade school and got various punishments depending on the level of their disobediance. To be fair, they were almost certainly acting out of a "I hate teacher" attitude than a more nobler motive, but the fact remains.

Given what caused "under God" to be added to the Pledge in the first place, I would prefer it to be removed. I personally prefer to show respect to God in ways not born of geopolitical spite.

And wolf, does that school you attended still do this? I'm just saying, if I ever have kids and the program still exists at that time, that sounds like a really good place in which to enroll them.

I have a friend with kids in my old elementary school, so I can ask.

Wissahickon School District is in the Philadelphia suburbs, but things MIGHT have changed a wee bit in the last um ... 28 or so years...

You know, I find it funny that the Pledge is even said at all. How many kids (I mean REALLY) know what the pledge is even about? Or even care? I know I didn't. I pretty much thought it was just something that you said everyday before school started:

Voice over intercom: "Please stand for the Pledge of Allegance."

*stand up, hand over heart, start reciting* Like a robot, everyday.

*shrugs* I didn't have any gigantic swells of pride for my nation or get misty-eyed with patriotism when saying the Pledge. But I DID get those feelings when singing songs in music class like, "This Land Is Your Land", "God Bless America", etc.

I'm sure that some kids "get it", but has anyone really asked them about it? (I'm guessing they'll parrot the answer that adults say, so would that be a "true" answer?).

Just some thoughts.

How many kids (I mean REALLY) know what the pledge is even about?

I know I didn't know. If I had actually sat down and thought about the words back then, I would have taken it much differently than I did and it might have even have meant something other than just a boring ritual. Even in my recent years, the damn thing is so ingrained into my head that it no longer has any meaning, like a word repeatedly endlessly.

Like a robot, everyday.

In hindsight, this is a really creepy aspect of it. Something you repeat everyday and as a huge weight to it but you don't understand the meaning of as a child... its a bit weird.

I really think it is more for the benefit of the parents than the kids.

i remember as a small kid a WWII vet came into our class, i think all the 2nd graders were together. he talked about his experiences and what the flag and patriotism meant to him.
that combined with the things my grandfather taught me made me appreciate the pledge.
sometimes it is good to create a habit even before the "why" of something is clear.


my 3 year old gets mad about brushing his teeth everyday and always asks why - someday he'll understand why, but for now, just doing it is enough.

As far as I know, schools (public and private) really don't go out of their way to teach the K-4 grade kids the meaning or reason behind the Pledge. As has been stated (and is largely true), kids are just supposed to stand up every morning and say it. At my lower school, there was a flag pole that everyone actually went outside to stand around to say the pledge.

The average 10 year old, on the whole, doesn't know or doesn't care what the Pledge is. There are other pressing concerns at that age (newest toy, so-and-so called me a Dork, Sleep-over this Friday!!) So what I want to know is what "harm" has this guy's 10 year old been subjected to? He's almost treating it as if they forced his kid to say Dirty Words every morning or something like that. I'm willing to put a fiver on the possibility his kid really didn't think about it much until Dad started making a big deal out of it.

Anyway, if the Pledge MUST be recited, why not leave it with Under God included and allow that one portion of the Pledge be entirely optional? That way, every child can make that choice. Also, how's Mom and Dad going to know whether or not the kid really said it? Children need some chances to make important choices in their own lives.

So what I want to know is what "harm" has this guy's 10 year old been subjected to? He's almost treating it as if they forced his kid to say Dirty Words every morning or something like that.

I'm not sure I understand the logic in that. So you'd be fine if we replaced the word "God" with "Jesus"? What about "Allah" or "Moon spirit"? As long as the kids don't understand, it wouldn't matter?

"What harm does it do?"

I pledge allegiance, to the spreadsheets, of the United Conglomerates of America... and to the Republicans... for which they stand.... one corporation... under the CEO... indivisible... with stock options and dividends for all.

I pledge allegiance, to Hugh Hefner, of the Playboy Corporation of America.... and to the smoking jacket... and the pipe... with which he's dressed... one magazine.... under the mattress... unstapleable..... with chesty women and airbrushing for all.

Even if we stipulate that very young children do not know the meaning of the words of the pledge, they are bound to figure it out one of these days. You can take the position that it's a rote statement, a social custom if you will, and that therefore people who don't agree with some of the statements in it shouldn't get bent out of shape--"What harm does it do?" But if you take that position, then why can't everybody just put in their own words?

It's beyond me why supposedly religious people will buy into this argument about "civic religion." In my view what this means is that the religious ideas have become so trivialized that they're useless. As a Christian, I don't need the gummint to proselytize on my behalf.

Here's an interesting site with the history of the Pledge.

The Pledge of Allegiance:
http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofhe...fc_pledge.html

Important points:

The Pledge (which IMO we should go by):
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

June 14, 1924".

"The Pledge of Allegiance continued to be recited daily by children in schools across America, and gained heightened popularity among adults during the patriotic fervor created by World War II. It still was an "unofficial" pledge until June 22, 1942 when the United States Congress included the Pledge to the Flag in the United States Flag Code (Title 36). This was the first Official sanction given to the words that had been recited each day by children for almost fifty years. One year after receiving this official sanction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as part of their daily routine. "

"The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."


This was the last change made to the Pledge of Allegiance. The 23 words what had been initially penned for a Columbus Day celebration now comprised a Thirty-one profession of loyalty and devotion to not only a flag, but to a way of life....the American ideal. "

American ideal eh? hmmm....:rolleyes:

I've always found it ironic that they used God to divide "one nation" from "indivisible".

the lawyer/pain in the ass is an atheist. his ex-wife, mother of his child is a born again christian... the mother supports the child's participation in religious activities and it pisses the guy off. and since he is in america, he does the only logical thing - he sues the school, government... why doesn't it piss you people off that your tax money is being wasted by a jackoff who is trying to get back at his ex-wife for becoming a christian?

why doesn't it piss you people off that your tax money is being wasted by a jackoff who is trying to get back at his ex-wife for becoming a christian?

From The Docket (original case)

Petition GRANTED limited to the following Questions: 1. Whether respondent has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Am I upset that my tax money is "being wasted" to review whether a practice spread throughout every public school might be in violation of the constitution of the United States? No.

...as to why it doesn't piss me off, I think this is a really important question that has been brought to the Supreme Court, regardless of the intentions of the person filing the complaint and the decision made by the court, one way or the other, will set many future cases.

Our government is not supposed to advertise or imply any religion through its actions. We need to know what the court's interpretation of this is, because every single student in the public school system is being exposed to it and, in many cases, punished for not participating.

In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the ones I knew, anyhow; you bet your buttons, Mom and Dad made it their business to know. Last fall I made the aquainitance of a JW couple and their incredible 10 year old daughter, "R." R. was one heck of a bright and spunky kid, but she had it drilled into her that she would be committing a horrible sin if she said the pledge. Dad even made surprise visits to the school just to check. R. confided to me that this (along with other JW restrictions - no Halloween or Christmas celebration participation, etc.) made her life on the playground a living hell (my word, not hers). She announced that she was also the best fighter in all the 3rd and 4th grades and could beat up any and all comers, including the boys in her class.

While I certainly have extremely major differences with the JW viewpoint, I also don't see why little kids should, in effect, have to make a loyalty oath every day they attend school. I think a better way of creating loyal US citizens is a good course in Civics and American History, as well as pratical displays of what freedom of religion and freedom of speech is all about. Schools could set one example of this by dispensing with the "optional" pledge.

The pledge was meant to unite, not divide. It would too, if the parents would stay out of it. It's a damn shame, when I think of all the things the parents SHOULD get involved in.
JW's don't get to celebrate birthdays either, but they still have to count them. Talk about unfair. :(

You guys are lucky that you have the pledge. To outsiders it seems like it is the one thing that binds Americans together, so strongly. I normally don't like religion becoming entangled in government, but in this case I don't have any objection. I think the pluses outweigh the negatives.

To outsiders it seems like it is the one thing that binds Americans together, so strongly.

Just think of how many people the pledge would unite if it didn't contain "Under God", a pledge that actually represents what the country is about and could describe every single citizen of the nation. A pledge like that would have no negatives.

Oh, and to the "insiders", specifically the school children reciting it every single morning, the pledge doesn't mean anything more than the opening bell does. I'm saddened by that, but its the truth.

is it possible that it doesn't mean anything to them because educators are too afraid to teach them in fear that someone will get offended and sue?

and as far as "under god" being devisive? please. true atheists are a small minority in this country, although there are many who reside in the cellar.

i could understand if we were forcing kids to say "under Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour", but we aren't. "under god is non-specific enough that it actually does hearken back to the founding of this country. most people do believe in a god. Freedom of religion didn't mean freedom FROM religion. it is the individual's choice, and if the majority have no problem with their kids saying "under god" then the minority still has the right to not say it themselves. but to litigate for removal is just ridiculous.

When I see or think about the word "God," I automatically think of the Judeo-Christian version of a deity. And I suspect that many other people think the same way. And by using the phrases "under God" and "In God We Trust," I believe that this nation is endorsing said Judeo-Christian deity. Minorities (of all varieties) are more vocal now than they were even 20 years ago, and I think we'll continue to see more challenges like "under God."

And that's cool with me. I love people/groups that are willing to take on the status quo like this...even if I don't agree with them. To me, it shows that our government works.

is it possible that it doesn't mean anything to them because educators are too afraid to teach them in fear that someone will get offended and sue?

It is possible. I mean, if you start lecturing children in public schools that when you pledge your allegiance to the United States that this nation, its citizens, and its government are under a God, it could lead to lawsuits from atheists and those that recognize that the word "God" in the pledge specifically refers to a Christian God. Maybe that is why children don't know the meaning of the pledge. Maybe that is part of the problem.

true atheists are a small minority in this country, although there are many who reside in the cellar.

You are correct -- the percentage of people who do not believe in a god is a small one in this country, yet they are still citizens. They still vote, they still pay taxes, they fight in our wars, and they are still part of this country. To require a citizen to believe in God in order to pledge their life to our country is foolish and there should never be any religious requirement, ever. I get the feeling that a lot of people have never stopped to think of the implications -- think about the words for a second. The government is REQUIRING you to believe in God when you state your allegiance to the country. Should that ever be a requirement to be a citizen or to agree to give your life in defense of the country? Why should it? What good does it do to force someone to recognize that?

Freedom of religion didn't mean freedom FROM religion.

Bullshit. The citizens of the United States of America can believe in whatever they want, even if it is nothing at all, a sacred rock, or a god in the sky. To think otherwise is denying freedom.

it is the individual's choice, and if the majority have no problem with their kids saying "under god" then the minority still has the right to not say it themselves.

I agree -- you shouldn't have to say it. But the beliefs of the majority should never alter the fundamental freedoms of the citizens of this country. And, right now, I have to say that I'm sad to see that is exactly what is happening.

Actually, in my case, I did have a teacher who explained the words of the pledge to us. I guess it must have been around 2nd or third grade. I had always been saying "one nation, invisible... and to the public for which it stands." I used to wonder how the US was "invisible" under God! After the teacher went over the words with us and what they meant, I said the pledge very proudly. I don't know about the rest of you, but the schools I went to up through the 6th grade were all ones on military bases and we kids were all children of career military parents. From the moment it was explained to me properly, I said the pledge, not with my hand on my heart, but imitating my Dad's military salute to the flag. Kids aren't as dumb as you think.

I would miss it, only because it's another thing from my childhood that is changing. But, I think it should go -- along with the "In God we trust" on our money.

I'm Christian, as you all probably remember. But I believe in separation of church and state. And I'd like the pledge of allegiance to apply not just to my kids, but to the children of my co-workers who come from India. And the kids of our friends who are atheist - and so on.

Keep the pledge, leave God out of it. There's plenty of churches and private schools if you want your kids to know God.

freedom of religion means that you have the right to believe in anything you want, if that means you believe in nothing at all. people can make a religion out of anything. in fact, many atheists have turned their belief into a form of religion. they spend vast amounts of time, energy, and money trying to convince people that there is no god, just as fundamental christians do trying to get people to believe there is a god. the only difference between the 2 groups is the idea of god/no god. everything else is the same, it is a belief that they hold so strongly that they feel the need to bring other people to the light.

i support everyone's right to believe what they want. but what i don't like is our gradual move from an insistence upon freedom OF religion, to a movement towards freedom FROM religion. no where in the early documents this nation was founded upon suggested that there was a need to push religious belief out of public view. they simply stated that there could not be a particular faith required to be a citizen. that is what was meant about gov't respecting religion.
i'm willing to bet that there are people reading this that actually believe the phrase "separation of church and state" can be found in the constitution. if you do, you may want to check again.

Freedom FROM religion means free from state mandated/approved/etc religion.

Unfortunately we're stuck with all of the evangapimps on TV, radio and internet.

i'm not aware that there is a state mandated religion.

i agree with you about the entertainer/evangelists. they generally cause more problems than they solve; but is there someone that ties you to a chair and forces you to watch it?

saying they don't have the right to be on the air is not different than that genious powell campaigning for a return to decency. if one is 1st amendment - then so is the other. i think howard stern is an overrated pig, but i have the freedom to spin the dial. billy graham may annoy you with his crusades, but you also have the right to swith to any of the other 100+ channels.

God was inserted into the motto, money, and pledge during the cold war. Even more than freedom from religion, I want a freedom from cold war jingoism.

It's not state mandated, more of a tacit imprimatur I think.

are you denied any services or benefits for not belonging to a faith group? are those of us who do believe in something given special membership or privileges? i don't understand why you think anything is forced upon you.

It's all semantics. There is state supported religion. Mandated, supported. What's the difference?

The government has preachers on its payroll. The Congress has at least one to lead prayers during official government ceremonies. The Supreme Court has official prayer as well at times. Public schools are required to recite the "under God" phrase every day, even if individual kids can opt out.

All of this is complete bullshit. The government has no business pushing religion. Any religion. It should remain silent on the issue. That means it doesn't ban it, or support it. It keeps its mouth shut.

The Puritains and Pilgrims settled this country because they were both religious minorities and they wanted to be able to get away from all the crap that is identical to what is going on in this country today to athiests.

You mentioned earlier that athiests are a small group. That's exactly why we should cut this crap out. It's the small groups that need to be protected. The Pilgrims were a small group in Europe in the 1600s.

Removing "under God" from the pledge hurts nobody. Keeping "under God" in the pledge hurts atheists. The correct path is obvious.

I'm curious - Is there anyone who supports "under God" and "in God we trust", but would not support "under Jesus" and "in Jesus we trust"? Why? Is it because a few more percent of people in the US believe in God than Jesus?

Not me directly but:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/char_choi4.htm

I'm a non-theist myself, but when I have to hear a president say he is told by god that he's here to save the world I have to worry.

the puritans left not because they believed differently. they left because they were persecuted. in many cases they were unable to work, or purchase food for their families because of their beliefs. that is why they came to (what became) america.
don't even pretend that atheists are persecuted in such a manner. atheists lose out on no opportunities due to their belief. they are not forced to recite the words or face consequences.
do the words "under god" cause blood to come streaming from your ears? the mention of something you don't believe in injures you how?

again - i would absolutely agree with you if the words were faith specific. they aren't. to a muslim, god is allah, to a jew, it is jeshuah, to a christian it is god, the father. in those 3 cases they are all referring to the same god. for others god is nature, for some it is self. god in this case is so non-specific that only an atheist, or possibly some eastern philosophies are left out... but here is the thing - i know of NO circumstance where you would be forced to say the word "god" if you chose not too. but you are prepared to take it away from the many who want it there rather than skipping the word.

You can start by reading Section 8 of Article 6 of the North Carolina Constitution.

Other examples from other states.

you said athiests are religious, and their religion is that they don't believe in God. If the government has "God" in its pledge, and on its money, that is an official condemnation of the athiest "religion."

The government has no right to do that.

Who is hurt if "God" is removed from government?
Answer that. Seriously. Answer it.

Athiests are hurt if "God" is in government.

The correct choice is obvious.

And by the way, this is totaly irrelevant, but I attend church every Sunday.

does the president not have 1st amendment rights? if he can see his way to speak a complete sentence so the world can understand it and he wants to mention HIS faith, i don't really care. if he starts telling others that they have to belong to his, or any other faith in order to receive benefits, i'll stand alongside you and shout him down.

what i got from that link is that they are concerned that some people may go hungry, lose their electricity, etc... because they are unwilling to accept help from a charitable organization which is affiliated with a faith group. if it is charity, then who cares where it comes from? these programs don't require a belief in any one thing to receive services. i believe part of the initiative was that organizations from ALL faith groups had access to the same support. that doesn't sound too exclusionary to me.

ok, now you are talking state issues, not federal. i don't believe any of those are inforced, but that is unimportant. i would support you in removal of all of those statements. they are exclusionary, even if they aren't enforced.

this one is just my belief here, but methinks everyone has a god of some form. if you deny any supreme being or natural force, or power greater than yourself, then by definition you are your own god.

what could be more uplifting that listening to everyone in class mention you in the pledge? LOL sorry - just a little really dry humor there.

I'm all for a little humor, but I notice you didn't answer the question.

Who is hurt by removing "God" from the pledge of allegience and from other areas of the government?

Athiests, full citizens of our country, are hurt by keeping "God" in the government.

I'd taken this a a forgone conclusion really.

Hurt? no one. no more than anyone is hurt by leaving it in. you never answered earlier when i asked you how atheist are "hurt" by hearing people say those words. i was being absurd with the blodd running from the ears bit; but really how is an atheist hurt by the anothers' utterance of words they choose not to believe in.

///////////and btw - i'm am not trying to prove there is a god or anything like that. anybody who has read my other posts knows that i believe that faith is a personal choice. faith by definition cannot be proven one way or another./////////////

so then you actually acknowledge that everyone does have some sort of god.

More of an acknowledgement of my own superiority actually.

well, what do they say? one man's faith is another's misguided belief.

edit: that is not an insult. it is true, faith is a personal, unproveable belief.

Gee thanks, I'm glad you think so.

I think that simply reversing the situation answers the question.

If a christian were forced to acknowledge that there was no god they would be harmed in something that some people take more seriously than eating.

Look at what happened in russia.

Oh, is that all?

Some statistics:
(I'm not vouching for the site, but it's illustrative enough)

Christian: 76.5%

Jewish: 1.3%
Muslim: 0.5%
Random 'other' which might be considered to have a 'God': 3.7%

Buddhist: 0.5%
Atheist/Agnostic: 0.9%

No religion/none specified: 13.2


So, let's be very generous, and give the whole 3.7% to 'God', and none of the 13.2% to 'no God'. For simplicity, I'll put Buddhist in 'no God', though it's not quite that simple in reality.

So:

76.5% recognise Jesus as divine.

Using God instead (generously) adds 5.5%.

Removing any religious message includes at least an additional 1.4%.

Can you support "under God" over "under Jesus" in order to include 5.5% more people, but 1.4% more aren't worth it?

You can't please all the people all the time".

Some people will sue over anything. I think they're just attention whores.

I'm ignoring this jerk.

interesting that they have atheist and agnost in the same category. 2 completely different ideas.

i would expect the muslim, jewish numbers are higher in reality.

but in the end i still look at it from this angle. to remove it is to take something away from the vast majority who place some value in it.

no atheist is forced to say those words, so therefore, how are they injured? i mean tangible injury - not a frustration over "they get to say something i don't believe".

if we were adding the phrase in today i would step back and say it probably wasn't worth it. but it is there, a couple of generations have been raised saying it. the majority value it.

i wouldn't support removing it anymore than i support draining lake powell. sure, maybe it wasn't the best idea to put it there in the first place. but the intention was good, and removing it now only satisfies a small majority who aren't being injured by the current situation.

Having "under God" in the pledge is as bad for the athiests as "not under God" would be for everyone else. Having no mention of God leaves it equal for everyone.

Can you imagine having your child attend school where everyone recites "one nation, not under God, indivisible..."

That's what it's like for the athiests.

I put them together for the purpose of my post. They are separate on the page.

Whoa. I was being very generous. From my link, I thought the 13.2% was people who didn't answer. Undertoad's link lists them as Nonreligious/Secular, which is probably what I'd check.

So how about this?

76.5% recognise Jesus as divine.

Using God instead (generously) adds 5.5%.

Removing any religious message includes at least an additional 14.6%.

Can you support "under God" over "under Jesus" in order to include 5.5% more people, but 14.6% more aren't worth it?

(chances are, it's between 1.4% and 14.6%)

me personally? yep.

Remember that if you're ever in the minority.

i've been in the minority.
1)in college i was one of the few who didnt qualify for financial aid because i didn't belong to a minority group and i worked so i made more than $6000 - no help for you.
2) i was a white guy who made more than $30K in a year so i had the honor of finding a way to pay out more than $45k cash for my son's birth. my wife's company changed ins. plans and neither company would cover the pregnancy. "impossible" pregnancy 2 surgeries( one to sew up her cervix to hold him in) , 5 months of absolute bedrest, invasive ultrasound every 14 days, weekly visits to the ER to stop contractions, shots, meds... i picked it up. and as the financial aid rep at the hospital said "too bad you are a white mutt - we just flew in a whole family from mexico city for the same condition." the hospital ( tax payers) picked up the tab as a good will charity case.

i survived then, i'm sure i can do it again.


edit: i know that is not the type of minority you were referring to, but just thought i'd let you know i've been on the outside looking in before.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask you all this: Never mind the phrase "under God," why should little kids in effect be programmed with a loyalty oath everyday before school? Doesn't that seem a little Orwellian? And why do we have to pledge allegiance to "the flag" - a bit of colored cloth - and only as an after thought "to the Republic for which it stands"?
If we are going to put "The Pledge" under a microscope this way, these issues seem greater to me than the "under God" one. And, by the way, as a Buddhist, I protest being lumped in with those who do not believe in God. My God just doesn't go by the name of "Jesus."