Ninth Circuit Declares Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional

I've never been too bothered by the rule against prayer in schools, although I am religious. But this ruling against the Pledge bothers me on two counts.

1. Why is it that only athiests are entitled to tolerance? This kind of thing grants a veto power to any antisocial crank. If he doesn't believe in God, what difference does it make if he says "under God" or not? None, except that he can use it as a lever to impose his will on the majority. The reasoning for all of this is that no one should be stigmatized because of his belief or lack thereof. But stigmatization is not a constitutional matter, only actual denial of substantive rights guaranteed to all citizens. When did self-esteem become a guaranteed right?

Furthermore, why isn't the religious majority being stigmatized by the courts telling them that they are wrong to want to pray? I don't feel any need to shove my religion down anyone else's throat, but I take exception to some atheist shoving his atheism down my throat.

2. When I thought about it, the phrase "under God" only makes sense, not as a matter of worship, but as an indication that the person making the pledge is not vowing a greater allegiance to the state than to God. Of course, if he does have any allegiance to God, then the phrase is inoperative. It should not be read as a statement of faith, but as a limit on the kind of allegiance being pledged.

3. The proper attitude in this country should be one of tolerance, period. What ever happened to teaching kids that the world doesn't revolve around them? Whatever happened to "Get over it!"? I was the only Mormon in my grade school and high school in Illinois. I heard protestant ministers and Catholic priests give prayers at public meetings and it never occurred to me to be offended or file a lawsuit, or even complain. My ancestors were mobbed and driven from their homes in Missouri and then from Illinois. Even after they got to Utah, the government sent troops based on false reports that the Mormons were in revolt, as though there was anything there to revolt against. They just wanted a place nobody else wanted, where they could live as they wanted. They tried for statehood almost as soon as they settled Utah, but were blocked for nearly 50 years because of agitation by protestant ministers.

But they were taught to never look back or give in to self-pity, just get to work and built with what they had. It was good advice then and now. This obsession with having everything the way you want it, is not healthy for the person or the society. The courts really need to learn to recognize when people are whining over something that the law can't change. People aren't going to quit believing, just because the courts block "under God" or "In God We Trust," nor are they going to flock to the standard of atheism, because the state now supports it rather than them. So what's the point of dragging the courts into the debate?

What has this plaintiff taught his daughter about how to get along with other people? "If you don't get your way, take them to court and rub their noses in it." Yep, that'll make her happy and well adjusted.