School Sued Over a Song - "In God We Still Trust"

It begins: The history of the national motto "In God We Trust" goes back to 1814. In September of that year, during the British bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Francis Scott Key composed the poem the "Star Spangled Banner," of which one line in the final stanza is "And this be our motto - 'In God is our trust.'" Steven B. Epstein, Rethinking The Constitutionality Of Ceremonial Deism, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 2083, 2122 (1996).

Now why is it OK to make Federal officials swear "So help Me God" but NOT OK for a kid in a public school to say In God We Trust or One Nation Under God?

I wonder how many public officials actually refuse to swear an oath of allegiance with reference to God and right hand on the Bible despite it being tradition? Doesn't at least 1 notable name in particular come to mind here?

Oh wait! If it has been tradition then when did the tradition begin? Certainly not in 1980 as some might have us believe.

Again, we were formed as a Christian nation, not a secular nation, which tolerates other religions. But today some want it to be a secular humanist nation with little tolerance for Christianity.

If we are not "One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" then there is no reason for the country to remain indivisible IMO and I would not be willing to affirm the pledge of allegiance at all because without the words One nation under God the rest of it is completely miscued out of context.

So yes it's perfectly OK for public school children to say in God we trust since their Atheist parents have to so swear if they ever want a job in the government or have to swear in court. Oh wait, a few years back some wacko judge said you don't have to swear by God in court anymore despite it being the custom for hundreds of years. No wonder we are going morally bankrupt. Nobody fears the consequences for their actions in the afterlife.

Mirage wrote:

If we are not "One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" then there is no reason for the country to remain indivisible IMO and I would not be willing to affirm the pledge of allegiance at all because without the words One nation under God the rest of it is completely miscued out of context.

I don't know how you can make such a statement when "Under God" wasn't even in the Pledge until 1954. It was written in 1928. It was recited in schools for almost 30 years without "Under God" in it. So it's pretty disingenuous to claim that without it, it's "miscued out of context," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Mirage wrote:

So yes it's perfectly OK for public school children to say in God we trust since their Atheist parents have to so swear if they ever want a job in the government or have to swear in court. Oh wait, a few years back some wacko judge said you don't have to swear by God in court anymore despite it being the custom for hundreds of years. No wonder we are going morally bankrupt. Nobody fears the consequences for their actions in the afterlife.

You're still ignoring the stanza that specifically attacks Atheists for their beliefs. No matter how you spin it, those words are a direct attack on the Atheists, and have no place in a public school.

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

It's a flippin song for cripes sake. Is a child going to grow up mentally or emotionally wounded if they sing a stupid song? I doubt it.

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

Because it has no business in a public school. Would you be OK with atheist songs being sung?

Lest we forget there are nations that go out of their way to be God free that Atheists can defect to if they feel so strongly that they are somehow being persecuted by hearing the word God used. There are countries like Russia, China, or the beautiful country of Cuba just 90 miles away that should be their paradise! But there are not too many places where Christians can truly feel welcome anymore whether in the majority or the minority, not even England really.

And more than that many of us still feel that the more distant God is becoming from this country and it's government the more problems we seem to be experiencing. I doubt it's as much of a coincidence as some would have us think. But funny how many of these same people get upset over any serious consideration of creating a sovereign homeland for those who wish to return to the original intent of the Constitution where God even in the generic sense can freely be called upon for guidance and protection, huh?

Artie60438 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

Because it has no business in a public school. Would you be OK with atheist songs being sung?

How about you name off some acceptable songs so we can see if they promote Atheism.

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

It's a flippin song for cripes sake. Is a child going to grow up mentally or emotionally wounded if they sing a stupid song? I doubt it.

I'm in agreement with Mama here. It should be optional. I have no issue with the availability of it so long as it is optional. I remember being in high school my Muslim friend was allowed to go to the library at lunch time during Ramadan because he had to fast until sundown. I remember Bible study groups being available after school. It was optional. That was fine. I fully support the optional stuff so long as it remains optional, and it isn't disruptive to the learning of other students. I had a friend who refused to pledge an allegiance to the flag because his personal convictions were God even before country.

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

For the same reason you and Mirage would be blowing a gasket if this was a song about Allah and your Christian children were forced to sing along...

'Cause it's unconstitutional.

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none?

You might want to ask the school that question, because it wasn't optional, it was required.

Mirage wrote:

But funny how many of these same people get upset over any serious consideration of creating a sovereign homeland for those who wish to return to the original intent of the Constitution where God even in the generic sense can freely be called upon for guidance and protection, huh?

Do you realize that God isn't even mentioned in the Constitution?

paul87920 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

It's a flippin song for cripes sake. Is a child going to grow up mentally or emotionally wounded if they sing a stupid song? I doubt it.

I'm in agreement with Mama here. It should be optional. I have no issue with the availability of it so long as it is optional. I remember being in high school my Muslim friend was allowed to go to the library at lunch time during Ramadan because he had to fast until sundown. I remember Bible study groups being available after school. It was optional. That was fine. I fully support the optional stuff so long as it remains optional, and it isn't disruptive to the learning of other students. I had a friend who refused to pledge an allegiance to the flag because his personal convictions were God even before country.

I definitely have an issue with a song being sung in a public school that attacks another person's freedom to choose what they believe. The school board that allowed this song in the classroom is failing in their responsibility to educate students to function in a democratic society. This kind of coercion to inject a particular religious belief into the public schools is exactly why so many religions are experiencing declining membership in this country. If a religion wants to increase it's membership, it should do so by making it's teaching relevant to modern day life,not by jamming their beliefs down the throats of the captive audience of children in public schools.

Here is some data that disagrees with your statement about declining memberships of religions:

U.S. Center for World Mission estimated in 1997 that the percentage of humans who regard themselves as Christians rose from 33.7% in 1970 to 33.9% in 1996.

Within Christianity, not all denominations have the same growth rate. Some annual growth rates are:

Pentecostals: 8.1%
Evangelicals: 5.4%;
All Protestants: 3.3%
Roman Catholics and Others: 1.3%

Mirage wrote:

Quote :

There are countries like Russia, China, or the beautiful country of Cuba just 90 miles away that should be their paradise!

Yeah right.
You may now scratch Cuba off your list.

Quote :

Religion in Cuba
From Wiki:
Religion in Cuba reflects the island’s diverse cultural elements. Cuba is traditionally a Catholic country. In some instances Catholicism is much modified and influenced through syncretism. A common syncretic belief is Santería, which originated in Cuba and spread to neighboring islands; it shows similarities to Brazilian Umbanda and has been receiving a degree of official support.

The Roman Catholic Church estimates that 60 percent of the population is Catholic. Membership in Protestant churches is estimated to be 5 percent and includes Baptists, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and Lutherans. Other groups include the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Baha'is, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). The remainder of the population is either non-practicing of any particular religion, atheist, or agnostic.

Robin Banks wrote:

Quote :

Here is some data that disagrees with your statement about declining memberships of religions

Using a source from 1997?...sorry that ain't gonna work:

Quote :

Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds
Updated 3/17/2009

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
When it comes to religion, the USA is now land of the freelancers.
The percentage of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation. The faithful have scattered out of their traditional bases: The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Rust Belt is less Catholic. And everywhere, more people are exploring spiritual frontiers — or falling off the faith map completely...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm

Here's the study in question.

sparks wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

It's a flippin song for cripes sake. Is a child going to grow up mentally or emotionally wounded if they sing a stupid song? I doubt it.

I'm in agreement with Mama here. It should be optional. I have no issue with the availability of it so long as it is optional. I remember being in high school my Muslim friend was allowed to go to the library at lunch time during Ramadan because he had to fast until sundown. I remember Bible study groups being available after school. It was optional. That was fine. I fully support the optional stuff so long as it remains optional, and it isn't disruptive to the learning of other students. I had a friend who refused to pledge an allegiance to the flag because his personal convictions were God even before country.

I definitely have an issue with a song being sung in a public school that attacks another person's freedom to choose what they believe. The school board that allowed this song in the classroom is failing in their responsibility to educate students to function in a democratic society. This kind of coercion to inject a particular religious belief into the public schools is exactly why so many religions are experiencing declining membership in this country. If a religion wants to increase it's membership, it should do so by making it's teaching relevant to modern day life,not by jamming their beliefs down the throats of the captive audience of children in public schools.

I didn't say I was for the song. I did say I was for it being optional.

paul87920 wrote:

sparks wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

It's a flippin song for cripes sake. Is a child going to grow up mentally or emotionally wounded if they sing a stupid song? I doubt it.

I'm in agreement with Mama here. It should be optional. I have no issue with the availability of it so long as it is optional. I remember being in high school my Muslim friend was allowed to go to the library at lunch time during Ramadan because he had to fast until sundown. I remember Bible study groups being available after school. It was optional. That was fine. I fully support the optional stuff so long as it remains optional, and it isn't disruptive to the learning of other students. I had a friend who refused to pledge an allegiance to the flag because his personal convictions were God even before country.

I definitely have an issue with a song being sung in a public school that attacks another person's freedom to choose what they believe. The school board that allowed this song in the classroom is failing in their responsibility to educate students to function in a democratic society. This kind of coercion to inject a particular religious belief into the public schools is exactly why so many religions are experiencing declining membership in this country. If a religion wants to increase it's membership, it should do so by making it's teaching relevant to modern day life,not by jamming their beliefs down the throats of the captive audience of children in public schools.

I didn't say I was for the song. I did say I was for it being optional.

I don't even agree that it should have been made optional. In a grade school setting, the children haven't even developed the skills necessary to decide whether they should be singing the song or not. They are simply being manipulated by a school board determined to insert a religious agenda into a public school. The story does point out that every child in the class was forced to learn the song.

It's multiculturalism. Just like Black History Month and the other things they learn in school.

sparks wrote:

The story does point out that every child in the class was forced to learn the song.

And I said I don't agree with that part.

Artie60438 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

Because it has no business in a public school. Would you be OK with atheist songs being sung?

Yes. As long as I have the option of having my child opt out if I had a problem with it.

Heretic wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

For the same reason you and Mirage would be blowing a gasket if this was a song about Allah and your Christian children were forced to sing along...

'Cause it's unconstitutional.

Again, if there was an option to opt out I wouldn't have a problem with it being sung. I find it interesting that when I was younger there were Jewish or Muslim or (insert religion other than Christianity here) kids who went on "Christmas break" but their parents never sued the schools over it. It's not until the PC crowd changed it to "Winter Break". I don't care that it was, because winter break is more appropriate for all kids/teacher's involved, point is that we didn't hear about schools being sued back then, at least I haven't.

Scorpion wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none?

You might want to ask the school that question, because it wasn't optional, it was required.

I'll admit that I wasn't aware that it was required, but instead of suing the school to not allow anyone to sing, there should be a change to make it optional, IMO.

sparks wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

sparks wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Why can't atheist children just opt out of singing the song? Why does it have to be all or none? And why in the hell does a school need to be sued over it. Ridiculous.

It's a flippin song for cripes sake. Is a child going to grow up mentally or emotionally wounded if they sing a stupid song? I doubt it.

I'm in agreement with Mama here. It should be optional. I have no issue with the availability of it so long as it is optional. I remember being in high school my Muslim friend was allowed to go to the library at lunch time during Ramadan because he had to fast until sundown. I remember Bible study groups being available after school. It was optional. That was fine. I fully support the optional stuff so long as it remains optional, and it isn't disruptive to the learning of other students. I had a friend who refused to pledge an allegiance to the flag because his personal convictions were God even before country.

I definitely have an issue with a song being sung in a public school that attacks another person's freedom to choose what they believe. The school board that allowed this song in the classroom is failing in their responsibility to educate students to function in a democratic society. This kind of coercion to inject a particular religious belief into the public schools is exactly why so many religions are experiencing declining membership in this country. If a religion wants to increase it's membership, it should do so by making it's teaching relevant to modern day life,not by jamming their beliefs down the throats of the captive audience of children in public schools.

I didn't say I was for the song. I did say I was for it being optional.

I don't even agree that it should have been made optional. In a grade school setting, the children haven't even developed the skills necessary to decide whether they should be singing the song or not. They are simply being manipulated by a school board determined to insert a religious agenda into a public school. The story does point out that every child in the class was forced to learn the song.

Obviously a parent would have to have the child opt out of the song. It wouldn't be hard for a teacher to have a list sent home of songs to be learned, and say please let me know if you want to opt out (a la' sex ed classes). If diversity is supposed to be encouraged I don't see what the big deal would be for the kids to potentially learn/sing something. Again, I don't ever remember reading where a child was mentally damaged because he or she had to sing a song with "GOD" in the song. (Maybe ones who write WWJD, but never over a song with "God" in it.... )

paul87920 wrote:

It's multiculturalism. Just like Black History Month and the other things they learn in school.

I'm not buying that one. If this were a historical lesson on the songs and customs of the Christian faith, or an entire production on the various songs of different faiths, that'd be fine. But it wasn't. It was a required assembly featuring a blatantly pro-Christian song, one that went so far as to front the demonstrably false "they're taking our Jebus away" myth.

And besides, the whole "just let 'em opt out" argument still fails, especially in this case. Just look at the lyrics:

Quote :

And when we Pledge allegiance, there's no doubt where we stand,
There is no separation, we're one Nation under Him.

. . .

Now there are those among us, who want to push Him out,
And erase His name from everything, this country's all about,
From the Schoolhouse to the Courthouse, they're Silencing His Word,
Now it's time for all Believers, to make our Voices heard.

This is an epic failure of the Endorsement Test:

Quote :

Endorsement sends a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community

The entire message of the song is creating the us vs. them mentality, and we expect children to voluntarily
opt out of a song that basically says "your with us or against us"? Am I the only one that remembers the dangers of not fitting in at elementary school, of calling attention to oneself? And that was decades ago, not in a post-9/11 world where the Moby mentality is far too common and being an non-Christian is more closely regarded as being downright unAmerican than simply subscribing to a different faith.

Though I have to wonder if such an epic failure was probably the point.

1) Write blatantly religious propaganda about people removing blatantly religious propaganda from the school curriculum.
2) Put it in the curriculum.
3) When the inevitable removal occurs, cry religious persecution.

Viola! Instant heroes, free publicity, and not to mention glowing support and adulation from sheeple who've apparently forgotten what real Christian martyrs were like. Were I still Christian, I'd be offended.

Fair enough Heretic. I see your point, and as a non-Christian myself you've won me over.

paul87920 wrote:

Fair enough Heretic. I see your point, and as a non-Christian myself you've won me over.

So when are you godless commies going to move to Cuba?

Scorpion wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

Fair enough Heretic. I see your point, and as a non-Christian myself you've won me over.

So when are you godless commies going to move to Cuba?

LMAO! Why should I move to Cuba when I have a permanent home in Ann Coulter's book?

paul87920 wrote:

Fair enough Heretic. I see your point, and as a non-Christian myself you've won me over.

I am pleased that Heretic was able to present an argument that was powerful enough to change your mind. The separation of church and state is crucial to maintaining a free country where each citizen has the freedom to pursue his own beliefs without government interference. Debates like this,where one poster is eloquent enough to use his knowledge of an issue to influence another poster or posters, are the reason many people enjoy and participate in discussion forums.