Do you know what "Under God" in the pledge is intended to convey?

According to the recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Newdow v. Rio Linda Unified School District, it means that we have a limited form of government. That's right, being "under God" means that our government is limited, it draws a stark contrast to those totalitarian theocracies which are not very limited forms of government. I know this doesn't make much sense, but the entire majority decision in question doesn't make a lot of sense. Apparently if you pass legislation which specifically adds two words which seem roughly religious and serving a religious purpose it's really about limited government.

Congressman Rabaut:

From the root of atheism stems the evil weed of communism and its branches of materialism and political dictatorship. Unless we are willing to affirm our belief in the existence of God and His creator-creature relation to man, we drop man himself to the significance of a grain of sand and open the floodgates to tyranny and oppression.

Congressman Bolton:

The significant import of our action today . . . is that we are officially recognizing once again this Nation’s adherence to our belief in a divine spirit, and that henceforth millions of our citizens will be acknowledging this belief every time they pledge allegiance to our flag.

 To put it bluntly, no judge familiar with the history of the Pledge could in good conscience believe, as today’s majority purports to do, that the words “under God” were inserted into the Pledge for any purpose other than an explicitly and predominantly religious one: “to recognize the power and the universality of God in our pledge of allegiance;” to “acknowledge the dependence of our people, and our Government upon the moral direction and the restraints of religion,” 100 Cong. Rec. 7590-91 (1954); and to indoctrinate schoolchildren in the belief that God exists, id. at 5915, 6919. Nor could any judge familiar with controlling Supreme Court precedent seriously deny that carrying out such an indoctrination in a public school classroom unconstitutionally forces many young children either to profess a religious belief antithetical to their personal views or to declare themselves through their silence or nonparticipation to be protesting nonbelievers, thereby subjecting themselves to hostility and ridicule.

Nope. Hogwash. According to the majority it means that we have a limited form of government. Yes, because "Under God" conveys to "Godless Communists" who are "Atheistic" and "Atheist Americans is a contradiction in terms" we are to take the fact that people who expressly said this added the words "Under God" to the pledge to convey how limited our government is.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf
You know, school is hard enough without being outed as an atheist by a silly recited pledge hijacked by religious fervor in the 1950s to force children to be told that their parents beliefs are wrong and that God and patriotism go hand in hand.

To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism

-- 9th Circuit decision in Newdow v. Elk Ridge

I'm in favor of mandatory religious education.

I'm in favor of mandatory religious education, Bible reading, theology discussion, interfaith religious discussions, comparisons and everything. Dan Dennett suggested this on the grounds that if you just taught a kid a bunch of facts about all religions then any really militant and fundamentalist faith would be purged simply by being exposed to standard factual information. However, I feel that goes too far. I think we need to go ahead and bring it in with the whole Christian really just trying to convert folks baggage. The first amendment of the constitution is pretty clear that such activities that the religious support and want and would approve this plan just to inject are unconstitutional. So an undefined sort of vague trojan horse of sorts. Basically they get it in to convert folks, a few court cases later and they need to tone it down a little and then a little more. After a while it will end up exactly as Dan Dennett wants, just a secular class concerning facts about religion.

Christmas was brought into the public sphere because folks wanted people to celebrate the religious holiday. It was quickly nipped, picked, and clipped down to the secular bit it is today a winter holiday with songs about snow. What would a whitewashed religion class look like? Exactly what Dan Dennett wants, but this way it would be the Christians who really push for it. Rather than start it out in a clear box... it starts out like an amazing program to bring school children to Christ and quickly gets thrown into a box to save it from the first amendment.

Stupid Newspapers, stop bitching at princesses.

So that nice Princess who claimed to be able to talk to angels. Well, a major news source has now suggested she should lose her title.

She should be given an extra title... princess of angels!

Quakers, the heroes of our species, apparently have more to recommend them...

Quakers whose anti-slavery stance during (and after and today) the debate over ratification of the constitution gave the Godly Christians shivers reserved today for the likes of the most vile of cults. A widely published article in 1788 told of the terrors we might face if the secular constitution were ratified with this "no religious test clause" intact. With many state governments specifically having these tests, it's certainly a nice that the founding fathers specifically restricted them in the federal government (Christian Nation indeed).

In any event, the article in question listed all of the vile people who could get elected (as quoted Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution),

1st. Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defence - 2dly. Mahometans, who ridicule the Trinity - 3dly. Deists, abominable wretches - 4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain - 5thly. Beggars, who when set on horseback will ride to the devil - 6thly. Jews etc. etc.

My goodness... those vile Quakers they will make the blacks saucy!