1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Judge Gives History Lesson to Atheists

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Jun 13, 2015.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Feb 18, 2006
    Likes Received:
    .....Some kids could really use a lesson on the Constitution. Take for instance an unidentified high school student who filed a suit last year against the Matawan-Aberdeen school district in New Jersey on the basis that hearing the Pledge of Allegiance in class violated his rights as an atheist.

    Judge David F. Bauman, who dismissed the case in February but whose ruling was just published Monday, disagreed with this faulty assertion.

    “Protecting students from viewpoints and ideas that may offend or upset them is not and has never been the role of public schools in America,” he wrote.
    He is certainly right, but in this age of “tolerance”, his ruling comes as a refreshing surprise. He also gave a brief history lesson in his ruling as the Conservative Tribune reveals:

    But he did not stop there. He also pointed out how the phrase “under God,” which is what the student had a problem with, appears everywhere in America.

    “As a matter of historical tradition, the words ‘under God’ can no more be expunged from the national consciousness than the words ‘In God We Trust’ from every coin in the land, than the words ‘so help me God’ from every presidential oath since 1789, or than the prayer that has opened every congressional session of legislative business since 1787,” the judge noted.

    Furthermore, even the New Jersey State Constitution references God, meaning that “the very constitution under which” the student sought “redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be deemed unconstitutional,” a notion the judge described as “absurd.”