Is this woman stupid , oh yes she is. like she cannot see the point of the constatutoin and the atheist guy points out exactly the point of it with the black issue just because 90% of yanks r honky's dose not mean that permits people to be racist.

how can sumone not get something thats spelt out and made so clear its like me pionting to a table and calling it a table then the news reporter smacktard woman is like nooo noo its a beach.

Shes way smarter than she lets on.
She is actually a constitutional lawyer herself, after watching the vids of her argue law against billo' and call him out for being the idiot that he is, you can tell shes just pushing the party line in this one.

Pretty sad really.

As usual a Fox Reporter interviews herself more than her subject.

I didn't think he did all that well, actually. I mostly agree with him, but his showing was weak here.

On the issue itself, I think forcing children who want to say the pledge to leave the room is asinine. They should be allowed to say the pledge if they wish, they just shouldn't be led by the school. Of course, if they'd fix the pledge most of this would be a non-issue.

Much more troubling that children are forced to swear allegiance to the state than who the state's cuddly cartoon mascot happens to be.

She is so plastic looking. I wonder if she squeeks like a qp doll when you squeeze her.

Why is it people still think we had "under god" in the pledge since the 1800s?

>> ^lv_hunter:
Why is it people still think we had "under god" in the pledge since the 1800s?

Because they're either ignorant or willfully deceptive.

With Fox News, it's always hard to tell.

gaddamn that stupid woman

When she dabates blowhards like orealy she is awsome but why the change now, why turn stupid when the topic is religion.

I want to punch Fox News square in the face soooo hard.

It's completely misleading that she talks about people saying the pledge at school since the 1800's, when she fails to mention that "under god" was added in the 1950's.

she makes my blood boil. what's worse is people believe her lies.

Fox News: appealing to pathos, rather than logos. Therefore, not news.

religion.. why not get over it and deal with reality instead

>> ^gorillaman:
Much more troubling that children are forced to swear allegiance to the state than who the state's cuddly cartoon mascot happens to be.


That's what I was thinking. Maybe it's not more troubling, but it is certainly also troubling. And I can't believe there is a school sending the conservatives out of the classroom! Good for them! Yeah, it's Vermont, but still...

Oh, and it is always troubling to see such a beautiful woman compromising her intelligence to argue the wrong side such as this. If she was "playing devil's advocate" that would be alright, but clearly she is pandering to Fox's demographic. That's low moral character IMHO.

This ignorant fox reporter doesn't know that "under god" was added to the pledge in 1954 as part of McCarthyism.

Conflation of the prohbition against government endorsement with restriction on individuals' free speech is probably either a deliberate ploy to decieve and rile up conservatives, or sheer stupidity.

if youre watching fox news, you think that guy got owned and is the ignorant jackass

also, he didnt fair too well against her fox news brand tongue venom, he totally came off like a pansy.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheist, michael, newdow, FOX, establishment clause, constitution' to 'atheist, michael, newdow, FOX, establishment clause, pledge, constitution' - edited by jwray

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheist, michael, newdow, FOX, establishment clause, pledge, constitution' to 'atheist, under god, newdow, FOX, establishment clause, pledge, allegiance, constitution' - edited by jwray

>> ^charliem:
Shes way smarter than she lets on.
She is actually a constitutional lawyer herself, after watching the vids of her argue law against billo' and call him out for being the idiot that he is, you can tell shes just pushing the party line in this one.

Strictly speaking, she doesn't say much that absolutely violates the understanding of the Constitution as articulated by the Supreme Court. She's definitely pushing the party line on this one, but she's very cagey. She very carefully avoids statements that violate any Supreme Court rulings. But she does so in a way that 1) makes it seem like she's attacking the idea that "Under God" is acceptable, and 2) obscure her actual viewpoint.

So I more or less agree with you. I just want to make it clear that she doesn't actually lie.

I wish they would hold REAL debates...you know, with formal rules. I hate this talking over each other bullshit.

The reporter is in fear of her question being answered, so counter attacks by implying that its him (Newsow) that’s talks over her. And she seems to be arguing that its okay for five percent of people not to have rights.

>> ^westy:
Is this woman stupid , oh yes she is. like she cannot see the point of the constatutoin and the atheist guy points out exactly the point of it with the black issue just because 90% of yanks r honky's dose not mean that permits people to be racist.
how can sumone not get something thats spelt out and made so clear its like me pionting to a table and calling it a table then the news reporter smacktard woman is like nooo noo its a beach.


What's a 'constatutoin'?

>> ^lavoll:
religion.. why not get over it and deal with reality instead


Two up-votes.

I was thinking about that today. If we look around our world, here, now, the Bible is as relevant as Beowulf. It's a great story, but it just doesn't apply to this situation, unless we get symbolic, and even then, it's just the enactment of a different story.

I actually believe that there is something greater than me, like invisible threads tying me to everything, but I don't have to be indoctrinated to a lesser ritual to touch those strings.

I'm not bashing the ritual. I'm just saying that I'm as close to it as any holy man.

she fell right into the word trap.

The 'under god' thing to the pledge, to our coins, and other areas only added 60 odd years ago, which was the wrong thing to do constitutionally. I don't see what the fuss is with removing what never should have been there.

This is just another facet of trying to push religion onto people, by pretending that this issue really matters to them.

I'm so happy to see Murdoch's NewsCorp is starting to falter financially, losing 2/3rds of its value this year alone. May it go the way of Hearst's Yellow Journalism.

>> ^rottenseed:
I wish they would hold REAL debates...you know, with formal rules. I hate this talking over each other bullshit.


Well, usually the reporter would be adjudicating 2 people with opposing view points rather than pushing a viewpoint themselves...

I pine for the days when the news was reported, not packaged with a neat little party line bow then force fed to me...

he had a good rebuttal towards the end methinks.

this is why i sift music videos

I wonder how many atheist parents would be happy to let their child tell them "I've found God" and accept it without trying to reeducate that child to their point of view (that god doesn't exist)?

Just as we know that educating a child in one's religious ways will shape their future to be religious, educating a child in one's atheist ways does the same thing (some like to call this brainwashing - either religious or atheist).

How many would call their own children stupid, dumb, illogical, blinded, indoctrinated, etc?

How many could simply "get over it" and just "deal with reality instead"?

This is an American debate and I can therefore point out that the American constitution allows for freedom of choice in religion (or to have none). Would it be constitutional to try and convert that choice one way or the other? Certainly American atheists are often vocally angry at religious people trying to convert them to a religion. Should the child in my hypothetical be just as angry if said parents were to try and convert them to atheism? Or should said atheists just leave the child alone to his/her choice?

I let my children make their own choices. I deep down inside hope that one day reason and intelligence take a front row seat in determining what's real for them.

It worked for Santa Claus, toothfairy, Easter bunny, etc.

Harlequinn - I think that is an excellent question.

For myself, I would hope that I would allow my children (if I had any) to come to their own conclusions. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't challenge their beliefs.

One of the main points to come out of the "new atheist" movement (if it can be said there is such a thing) is that religious beliefs should not be given a free pass but rather brought into the same critical arena that (at least in theory) all other ideas/beliefs/paradigms are subject to.

^Issy and I are going to force our kids to go to atheist school, where they will wear lab coats and learn to recite passages from Origin of Species. The halls will be filled with statues of Darwin, Euclid, Einstein and all kinds of scientific iconography. When they mess up, scientist-teachers will rap their little knuckles with a ruler. If they rebel and become religious, we will disown them and stop giving them Saturnella presents.

Seriously, we do know an atheist couple who's kids are extremely inquisitive about life, space, science, etc... Their fundie grandparents actually had the nerve to tell them they would go to hell if they didn't believe in Jesus, but these kind of fear-inducing tactics fell flat, thanks to an upbringing where it is safe to ask tough questions and embrace logic.

I asked them what they would do if their kids became religious, and they said they would love and support their kids, regardless of anything. They would be fine with their kids embracing religion, as long as it is a decision that is the result of conscious thought and not learned by rote.

Earth to asshats:

Kids don't give one shit about reciting the pledge of allegiance, and would be much happier if you scrapped the whole stupid thing, and just start the classroom morning by, oh I dunno, teaching?

>> ^volumptuous:
Earth to asshats:
Kids don't give one shit about reciting the pledge of allegiance, and would be much happier if you scrapped the whole stupid thing, and just start the classroom morning by, oh I dunno, teaching?


But if they ditch the Pledge how will they indoctrinate the younglings with nationalistic dogma?

The Pledge is something I've always had a problem with being in schools. Children simply don't have enough knowledge needed to form an opinion about any country's worth, let alone affirming their devotion to it.

On September 25, 1789, the day that it approved the First Amendment, the First Congress called on President Washington to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:

The first part of Washington's Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."


Newdow is just another intellectually dishonest attention-seeker, basing his claims on the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" which appears nowhere in the Constitution but was written by humanist Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Baptists.


No one is being forced to recite any portion of the Pledge, so his argument is moot anyway.

>> ^charliem:
Shes way smarter than she lets on.
She is actually a constitutional lawyer herself, after watching the vids of her argue law against billo' and call him out for being the idiot that he is, you can tell shes just pushing the party line in this one.
Pretty sad really.


You've got to be joking. "Just pushing the party line" alone, if that's all she's doing, speaks to her intelligence, imvho. Bush graduated from Yale, ffs. Maybe he's smarter than he lets on, too.

>> ^westy:
Is this woman stupid , oh yes she is. like she cannot see the point of the constatutoin and the atheist guy points out exactly the point of it with the black issue just because 90% of yanks r honky's dose not mean that permits people to be racist.


I think it is legal for someone to be a racist.....

You've missed several vital points in this debate completely (or, if you ask me, you've purposefully thrown a red herring).

The separation of (any) church from the establishment of State has to be just that - political atheism (NON-theism, NO religion - seriously, is it that hard to grasp?), which is what the Constitution demands. Noncompliance is anti-constitutional; the current situation is anti-constitutional.

This particular debate isn't about the morality of the ways to bring up one's kids, which is where you were trying to steer it (not that education, a state program, doesn't deserve full attention in terms of thorough verification for its concordance with the Constitution, it's just that education ≠ kids). Taking religious service out of the classroom, which this debate is about, unfortunately does in no way negate parents' opportunities to brainwash their offspring. But that's not where you were going, is it?

I could ignore your musings, but I'll address them: anyone claiming "I've found God" is either lying or deluded - and that's mainstream Christianity talking. It maintains that god does not meddle in our everyday affairs apart from the occasional "miracle", therefore it logically follows that it's impossible to "find god". Not that Christianity makes many "leaps" of logic on a regular basis, though.

In conclusion: bringing one's children up to rely on logic and empirical questioning isn't indoctrination, it isn't child abuse and it isn't brainwashing. It's making sure they grow up to be intelligent, knowledgeable and successful, while on terms with the reality and the mundane world, which constitutionalization of education is all about.

>> ^harlequinn:
I wonder how many atheist parents would be happy to let their child tell them "I've found God" and accept it without trying to reeducate that child to their point of view (that god doesn't exist)?
Just as we know that educating a child in one's religious ways will shape their future to be religious, educating a child in one's atheist ways does the same thing (some like to call this brainwashing - either religious or atheist).
How many would call their own children stupid, dumb, illogical, blinded, indoctrinated, etc?
How many could simply "get over it" and just "deal with reality instead"?
This is an American debate and I can therefore point out that the American constitution allows for freedom of choice in religion (or to have none). Would it be constitutional to try and convert that choice one way or the other? Certainly American atheists are often vocally angry at religious people trying to convert them to a religion. Should the child in my hypothetical be just as angry if said parents were to try and convert them to atheism? Or should said atheists just leave the child alone to his/her choice?

qm is, as usual, lying and/or misinformed. While the phrase "separation of church and state" was indeed first traced to Jefferson's letter, he is obviously oblivious of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (...)".

>> ^quantumushroom:
Newdow is just another intellectually dishonest attention-seeker, basing his claims on the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" which appears nowhere in the Constitution but was written by humanist Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Baptists.

>> ^quantumushroom:
On September 25, 1789, the day that it approved the First Amendment, the First Congress called on President Washington to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:
The first part of Washington's Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Newdow is just another intellectually dishonest attention-seeker, basing his claims on the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" which appears nowhere in the Constitution but was written by humanist Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Baptists.

No one is being forced to recite any portion of the Pledge, so his argument is moot anyway.


At the time that resolution was passed, members of congress objected on the grounds that congress is proscribed from legislating religious matters.

Fox has interesting use of background visuals. The reporters background has almost a halo around her, the flag waving and she's in white "robes". She looks very angelic. The guest on the other hand is in dark clothing with a dull backdrop of books, with no light on them. All the spines of the books are the same...they look like bars of a cell.

My logical side discredits the reporter during the debate. My primitive side wants to listen to the beautiful angel, not the dull, bleak, nerd devil.

1. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, unanimously ratified by the US Senate.

2. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

3. The First Amendment is the ONLY mention of religion in the entire constitution. There is no mention of god in the constitution.

4. The supreme court has clarified the first amendment in the form of the Lemon Test. In order to be constitutional, a law must pass all three of the following requirements:
a. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
b. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
c. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

5. James Madison, principal author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was a vociferous advocate of separation of church and state: http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_JMadison.htm

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

Madison made these remarks to argue against a proposed law that would have funded churches with tax money (Almost what Bush is doing through the back door with OFBCI). Instead of supporting religion with taxes, Jefferson authored and Virginia passed (with Madison's support) the Virginia statute on religious freedom. This act states:

"[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right."

Under such a doctrine I could not be compelled to contribute tax money to the hiring of chaplains for congress and the supreme court, nor printing religious slogans on dollar bills ("In God We Trust"), nor paying teachers to teach religious slogans ("one nation under God").

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^charliem:
Shes way smarter than she lets on.
She is actually a constitutional lawyer herself, after watching the vids of her argue law against billo' and call him out for being the idiot that he is, you can tell shes just pushing the party line in this one.
Pretty sad really.

You've got to be joking. "Just pushing the party line" alone, if that's all she's doing, speaks to her intelligence, imvho. Bush graduated from Yale, ffs. Maybe he's smarter than he lets on, too.


Intelligent shills with no souls to mention, still go home with a paycheck